Next Article in Journal
Does Supply Chain Transaction Volatility Affect Corporate Sustainability? Evidence from Corporate Tax Burden
Previous Article in Journal
Seismic Fragility Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbines Considering Site-Specific Ground Responses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/su162310576
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Role of Road Accessibility for Tourists in the Valorization of Archaeological Resources in the Dobrogea Region, Romania

by
Vasile-Gabriel Dascălu
1,
Alexandra Grecu
2,3,*,
Andreea Karina Gruia
2,3,
Viorel Mihăilă
2 and
Cristian Constantin Drăghici
4
1
Simion Mehedinți “Nature and Sustainable Development” Doctoral School, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania
2
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Business and Administration, University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania
3
Doctoral School of Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Business and Administration, University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania
4
Department of Human and Economic Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(23), 10576; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310576
Submission received: 7 October 2024 / Revised: 21 November 2024 / Accepted: 25 November 2024 / Published: 3 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Given that spatial accessibility to tourist resources is crucial for tourism development, this study analyzes the role of the distance between tourists and archaeological sites in the Dobrogea region of Romania. This study highlights the impact of road distance in the valorization of the main archaeological sites in the chosen area, the results obtained providing information on the main parameters of archaeological resources in achieving tourism success. These data will be important clues in the future design of plans for the valorization of those archaeological sites not yet valorized from the tourist point of view. Spatial data modeling was performed using specific Geographic Information Systems tools, which allowed us to extract the necessary information. By corroborating the results of the geospatial analysis with the statistical ones, we were able to draw conclusions regarding the tourist behavior in the region and the decision factors of tourists in visiting the ancient or medieval ruins in Dobrogea. Our analysis shows a significant correlation between the road accessibility of archaeological sites and their tourist attractiveness, with a particular influence of their location in relation to the main tourist areas of interest in the region. The study area has a rich history that has left behind a high density of ancient fortresses, citadels, and cities, which are relatively underutilized for tourism. Heritage tourism has thus lagged behind coastal tourism, which attracts the highest number of tourists in the country. A better knowledge of the factors that favor the development of heritage tourism is needed in order to expand the region’s tourist offer. Our recommendations aim to improve the accessibility and attractiveness of these archaeological sites by investing in essential infrastructure, developing sustainable transportation policies and specific tourism facilities, and implementing a regional strategy to enhance and protect them, which will ultimately increase their contribution to local economies.

1. Introduction

Distance and accessibility are fundamental attributes for building strategies to harness the potential of tourism resources, which political authorities or management organizations must take into account to give realism to strategic projections [1,2]. Along with other important factors, accessibility is an important variable in assessing the spatial attractiveness of a place with tourist potential [3], especially for rural areas [4], where most of the archaeological resources analyzed in this study are located.
Transportation is one of the fundamental prerequisites for tourism to exist. It is a key element that connects tourists with the destinations to be reached. Although the link between tourism and transportation has been extensively examined previously [5,6,7,8,9], there are still significant gaps in this research topic.
The valorization of archaeological resources is significantly influenced by road accessibility for tourists. This includes the ease with which tourists can reach these resources and the role of transportation infrastructure in enhancing the attractiveness and sustainability of tourist destinations.
The role of road accessibility in the valorization of archaeological resources is multifaceted. It involves assessing and improving the vulnerability of road networks to ensure socio-economic stability, designing inclusive and sustainable tourism infrastructure, and managing spatial accessibility to balance the distribution of tourism demand. These factors collectively contribute to improving the overall tourism experience and the sustainable development of tourist destinations.
There are studies that have tried to quantify the tourist potential and look for ways to develop local and regional tourism in our study area [10,11], but the use of geospatial technology has been little used. Tourism can significantly contribute to local economic development, increasing the living standards of the region’s inhabitants. The authenticity and historical value of archeological resources can motivate tourists to travel long distances to experience places reminiscent of ancient times [12,13,14]. The region proposed for this study includes two counties located at opposite poles in terms of revenue specific to the tourism sector. Thus, Constanța is one of the counties with the highest incomes of employees in the tourism industry, while Tulcea County is at the opposite end of the ranking [15]. However, tourism resources are widespread in both counties and the potential for capitalizing on them is high, especially in terms of historical and cultural value.
Tourism is an economic sector that can significantly contribute to the local economic development of rural areas [16,17,18,19,20], the basic condition being the application of strategies for capitalizing on tourist resources in the integrated projection of local economic development. It can be appreciated that making the tools for strategic planning of the capitalization of tourist resources in the local and regional economy is imperative.
The efficiency of the territorial systems management with a basic tourist function depends on the understanding of the characteristics of the resources available in a geographical space, and the GIS analysis providing sufficient information for an objective approach [21,22,23,24,25,26], thus obtaining a superior knowledge, which will help the authorities to economically capitalize on tourist resources.
The importance of accessibility and distance in the tourist capitalization of resources is achieved through specific modeling, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) offer today the most important tools for analyzing and modeling the spatial dimension of tourism development [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In the specialized literature, there are numerous approaches regarding the infrastructure planning support necessary for the sustainable development of tourism [34], the objective of this research being to increase the degree of accessibility for tourists. Distance in the tourism industry is important for several reasons: accessibility of destinations, travel time, travel cost, and environmental impact.
GIS modeling is, also, a useful tool in local marketing and tourism marketing, with the specific literature having numerous studies about the GIS modeling used in the audit of local resources from the perspective of their economic recovery [34,35,36,37,38].
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are important means of spatially modeling the accessibility of a place, with many studies using this technology to calculate the degree of accessibility of the population to various facilities: parks [39], shops [40], medical units [41,42,43], etc. GIS are also the methodological basis for studying accessibility in tourism [44,45,46], with many studies based on Network Analysis [47,48,49]. The analysis of geographical accessibility taking into account a communication route network is more complex than those which use Euclidean distances between different points of interest. Unlike other studies involving GIS analysis in quantifying accessibility to tourism resources, this research focuses on distances measured in units of time. The main parameters of the quantitative analysis will involve the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation units and the actual distances between settlements and archeological sites. For this, a greater number of attributes must be taken into account: the speed of traffic on road segments, the location of road segments—inside or outside the localities, the type of the road, etc.
Understanding the degree of accessibility of tourists to the archaeological resources in Dobrogea can help local, regional, or even national authorities, and also organizations dealing with tourism management, to develop new strategies that are more efficient in order to economically capitalize on tourist resources. Quantitative information on tourist accessibility can be transformed into knowledge, which will assist in the decision-making to develop efficient territorial management strategies specific to the systems with a basic tourist function.
The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of road accessibility to archaeological resources on the development of local and regional tourism. This will be achieved by analyzing the flow of tourists recorded at each archaeological site or museum with archaeological specificity. A correlation will be established between the statistical data and the distance between tourist attractions and the tourists arriving in their vicinity. This will facilitate the observation of any potential relationships and influences between the two variables. In order to gain a deeper insight into the influence of distance on the success of tourism, a correlation will be established between the data on the number of visitors and other parameters that are deemed significant in the selection of a heritage tourism site, namely, the state of conservation, the historical age, and the number of inhabitants in the locality. The purpose of this approach is to identify and prioritize the principal factors influencing the decision-making process regarding the choice of archaeological tourist attractions in Dobrogea. The potential outcomes will prove invaluable in charting new avenues for the sustainable advancement of heritage tourism in the selected region, particularly with regard to those archaeological sites that remain underutilized from a tourist perspective.

2. Literature Review

The improvement of road transport services has the effect of greatly enhancing accessibility for tourists, particularly in areas where tourism resources are limited [50]. Furthermore, the spatial variation in road accessibility impacts the clustering and distribution of tourist activities [51].
The distance and accessibility of a destination are of significant importance in the context of tourism development, as they exert a considerable influence on the decisions of tourists and the sustainable growth of the destination. Tourists are more inclined to visit areas with convenient accessibility, which can lead to an increase in both the number of tourists and overall tourism revenue [52]. It is crucial to enhance both the physical and digital accessibility of tourist destinations, particularly in areas that are remote and/or environmentally sensitive, while also assessing the impact of such developments on the surrounding ecosystem services. Achieving sustainable tourism growth hinges on these considerations, as does maintaining the long-term resilience of the natural environment [53,54].
An analysis conducted by Neill et al. (2023) revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between the presence of main roads and visitation rates. This finding suggests that enhanced accessibility via these transportation corridors can contribute to an increase in visitation to cultural and archaeological sites [55].
Improved accessibility typically results in increased tourism activity. This relationship is corroborated by a multitude of studies that underscore the beneficial influence of augmented transport and destination accessibility on tourism efficiency and visitor numbers. In Hubei Province, China, an improvement in transport accessibility between 2011 and 2017 was found to correlate with a high and steadily improving efficiency in the tourism sector. The study indicates that improvements in transport infrastructure can positively impact the tourism economy. However, there is a need for more effective spatial matching between tourism efficiency and transport accessibility.
The implementation of enhanced road transport services in Nanjing, China, has led to a notable enhancement in tourism accessibility, particularly in regions that are deficient in tourism resources. This suggests that the development of improved transport infrastructure can serve as a catalyst for tourism growth in less developed areas [50,56].
The accessibility of Europe’s Road network is of significant importance in enabling tourists to capitalize on the continent’s rich archaeological resources. The improvement in road access can markedly enhance the capacity of tourists to visit and interact with these sites, thereby promoting cultural heritage and local development [57].
Also, improved road accessibility can result in an increase in tourist traffic, which in turn can have a positive impact on the local economy. The digitalization and enhanced accessibility of sites such as the churches of San Nicola and San Basilio in Motta S. Agata are intended to attract a greater number of tourists and local visitors, thereby contributing to local development. The existence of accessible roads allows tourists to engage more effectively with the cultural heritage of a region, thereby facilitating the exploration and appreciation of archaeological sites. Such engagement is of paramount importance for the conservation and promotion of cultural assets [57].
A significant number of archaeological sites, including the ancient settlement of Motta S. Agata in Italy, are situated in remote or hilly locations that are challenging to access [57]. In order to facilitate participation in cultural experiences, the Via Francigena, a European Cultural Route, advocates for ensuring physical accessibility for all [58].
Such circumstances may act as a deterrent for tourists, given the inconvenience and time required to access these sites. In order to overcome the difficulties presented by inadequate road accessibility, innovative techniques such as 3D surveying, laser scanning, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications are being implemented. Such technologies facilitate the creation of virtual tours and digital models, thereby enhancing accessibility to a more diverse audience, including individuals unable to undertake a physical visit. The digitization of archaeological sites has multiple advantages. It facilitates the conservation and study of these sites, but it also enhances their appeal by providing interactive and informative experiences. Such initiatives may prove an effective means of attracting greater numbers of tourists and local visitors, even in the absence of significant improvements in physical accessibility [57,59].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The study area includes the two counties that make up the historical region Dobrogea, located in the southeastern extremity of Romania (Figure 1). Due to historical factors, the archaeological resources are very varied here, but tourist statistics show that although Dobrogea has a very large number of tourists annually, the main attractions are the Black Sea coast and the Danube Delta.

3.2. Data

Many fortresses, archeological sites, and remains of former human settlements remained unpopulated and undeveloped for tourist activities. For this study, we selected those archaeological sites often presented in museums in the region, their state of conservation being an important decision factor in this selection. Following these aspects, we chose 16 archeological sites, most of them being former fortresses and only 5 of these being located in urban areas (Table 1).
Roads are the main mode of transportation for tourists in the Dobrogea region. There is a variety of road types, most of them in relatively good condition. The main road access point to the region is the three bridges over the Danube: Anghel Saligny, Vadu Oii, and Brăila. The latter was opened to traffic in June 2023 and is considered the third longest suspension bridge in Europe. It connects the county towns of Brăila and Galati with the northern Dobrogea region, raising the question of analyzing the impact on tourism in the region. The Anghel Salingy Bridge is the busiest as it is part of the A2 highway that connects Bucharest, the largest city in the country, to the largest city in Dobrogea, Constanța.
This study needs to use the road network of the two counties in Dobrogea as its spatial basis, which is also supported by the fact that ancient and medieval cities are located at great distances from airports or railway stations, and the need to use a car is obvious. Of course, traveling by bicycle can be an important means of transportation for tourism. Therefore, the calculated distances will be quantified in both temporal and metric units of measurement. The distances were measured automatically using QGIS and then verified with Google Maps, which validated the results. Field research was an important step in this study, as we made observations on the archaeological sites proposed for analysis. Also, by physically going to these archeological resources, we were able to ascertain the possible problems of tourist accessibility. Using an SUV, we were able to access archaeological sites on unpaved roads with poor accessibility for conventional cars. This choice of transportation allowed us to explore a wider range of sites, including some that would have been inaccessible by other types of vehicles.

3.3. Data Modeling

This study focuses on the utilization of geospatial data using GIS tools. The chosen software program is Quantum GIS (version 3.22). It is open-source and benefits from multiple spatial analysis capabilities and methods. The preparation of the maps was based both on the QGIS program and on the Gimp 2 program necessary for their graphical processing. Gimp 2 is also a very useful open-source program for the graphical editing of maps. With the help of GIS tools, we built the road network of Dobrogea (Figure 2), which included highways, European roads, national roads, county roads, and important communal roads but also unpaved roads that connect with selected archaeological sites. This map gives an overview of the spatial relationship between the selected archaeological sites and the number of tourists in the settlements of Dobrogea. Information about each road segment is in a table of attributes, including information about the type of road, speed, and its name. After completing the thematic layer, we applied a process by which we sectioned all the segments at intersections to create a road network that will allow for the automatic calculation of distances between two points.
The speed of travel is different inside the localities than outside the localities (Table 2). So, using the Intersect tool from the QGIS software, we managed to cut the layer that contains the road network, obtaining segments that cross or do not cross a locality. Based on this, we changed the data in the speed column.
After segmenting these lines, we created two more columns in the attribute table, which will contain information about the length and time required to cross them with a vehicle in normal traffic conditions. The values representing the distances required for this study were obtained using the Network Analysis tool from the QGIS software.
The statistical data on the tourist flow in the Dobrogea region are available on the online portal of the National Institute of Statistics of Romania. We used data on the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation units distributed by localities, as well as data on the available tourist infrastructure: accommodation units and museums. The number of visitors to the analyzed fortresses and archaeological museums was provided upon request by the authorities processing this information: the Museum of History and Archaeology of Tulcea and the Museum of National History and Archaeology of Constanta. Each of these two institutions manages the museums with historical and archaeological specificities in the entire county, not only those in the two county seats.
To quantify the spatial accessibility of Dobrogea archeological sites, we used a probability index developed by David Huff in 1963 [60], initially used for economics. We used an adaptation for the present study, in which we used as basic parameters the distance between the selected sites and localities but also the number of arrivals in accommodation units in these localities (Figure 3).
Thus, the resulting formula is as follows:
P c l = T l D c l ∑ l n T l D c l ,
where
Pcl = the probability that a tourist staying in the locality l will visit an archeological site c;
Tl = the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation units in the locality l;
Dcl = the distance (measured in hours or kilometers) between the archeological site c and the locality l;
n = number of localities.
P c 1 = 100   t o u r i s t   a r r i v a l s 30   m i n 100 30 + 200 30 ;   P c 2 = 200   t o u r i s t   a r r i v a l s 30   m i n 100 30 + 200 30 ,
where
Pc1 = the probability that a tourist staying in locality 1 will visit the archeological site X;
Pc2 = the probability that a tourist staying in locality 2 will visit the archeological site X.
Huff’s probability index has been adapted in other geospatial analyses [29,41]. In this study, we applied this index to calculate the probability that a tourist staying in one Dobrogean city/village will visit an archeological site in the same region, taking into account, first of all, the road distance. This index helped us to calculate the Populated Weighted Distance, like in Zhang’s study [40].
P W D c = ∑ ( P c l ∗ D c l ) ,
where
PWDc = the population weighted distance for the archaeological site c;
Pcl = the probability that a tourist staying in the locality l will visit the archeological site c;
Dcl = the distance (measured in hours or kilometers) between the archeological site c and the locality l.
The parameters used for calculating the Huff index were the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation establishments and the road distances between tourist localities and archaeological sites in the Dobrogea region. These were chosen because the Dobrogea region is an important tourist area of Romania with the Black Sea coast and the Danube Delta as the main centers of tourist attraction. Heritage tourism can only be developed as an alternative to the region’s traditional forms of tourism, at least in the short term. Thus, the majority of those who visit the archaeological sites in the region are tourists coming to the region for the seaside or the delta. This is also demonstrated by the annual flow of tourists, which indicates a projection of tourists between May and September. The statistics are similar for the localities near the Black Sea, as well as for the localities in the center or north of Dobrogea, which include many valuable archaeological sites. In this respect, we considered the number of tourist arrivals to be an important parameter, together with the road distance, for a type of alternative tourism with a very high potential, which is not being exploited to a significant extent.
In order to obtain the main parameters influencing the tourist flow to the archaeological sites in this study, we proposed giving scores for each variable, and based on the number of visitors, we aimed to identify the role of the accessibility of tourists and the distance from a site in their valorization from a tourist point of view. The scores were given from 1 to 5, with 5 being a more favorable situation and 1 being an unfavorable situation (Table 3). The input data are obtained from both previous data processing and field observations during field trips to archaeological sites.
The scores of those points of interest that have the number of counted visits were correlated with the average number of visitors in recent years. We proposed this analysis in order to identify those factors that show a better correlation with the high number of tourists. For this we used the Microsoft Excel program, where we extracted the square root for each correlation performed.

4. Results

The network of roads built in GIS helped us to extract the necessary information for this study, contributing to the quantification of the access of tourists to the archaeological resources of Dobrogea. A main result obtained is the access of archaeological sites to paved roads. This situation reveals the existence of ancient archaeological resources that can be accessed by tourists by traveling along unpaved road segments, sometimes impassable for cars. These accessibility restrictions have been identified at the ancient cities of Argamum, Dinogetia, Albești, or Troesmis. Those archaeological resources already integrated into the tourism industry by the necessary facilities, museums, access roads, video surveillance, security, and parking, are accessible exclusively by paved roads. Road signs to the archaeological sites in Dobrogea exist and do not represent a problem for tourism promotion. A first step in correlating the flow of tourists in the region with the distance from the selected archaeological sites was to extract the number of tourist visits in the vicinity of the analyzed archaeological sites, from localities located at distances measured in minutes, using GIS tools. Thus, we have made a graph showing the average number of arrivals in tourist accommodation establishments in the period 2016–2020 within 60, 90, and 120 min from each archaeological site/museum (Figure 4).
The purpose of this analysis is to highlight the tourism potential of the area in which each of these archaeological sites is located. In order to verify the role of spatial accessibility by road to the archaeological resources, it is necessary to correlate the data obtained with the tourist flow in the region but especially with the number of visitors to those archaeological sites or museums with archaeological specificity where this statistic exists (Figure 5).
The obtained data indicate a clear increase in the number of tourist visits with the increasing distance between the localities where the accommodation facilities are located and the archaeological resources in the region. However, the large number of tourists in the vicinity of archaeological sites such as Ulmetum, Callatis, Adamclisi, Tomis, Histria, and Capidava, arriving and staying less than an hour away, should be emphasized. It should be emphasized that Tomis and Callatis are ancient cities over which the current cities of Constanta and Mangalia were developed. Here, although there are many ruins exposed in the urban area, most of them are exhibited in archaeological museums. Of interest is the correlation between the data obtained and the number of visitors to those archaeological sites. There is a mismatch between the number of tourists staying near archaeological sites and the average number of visitors to these sites in the period 2016–2021. The most interesting situation is the medieval fortress Enisala, which, despite the relatively small number of arrivals in accommodation establishments in localities located 60 or 90 min away from it, recorded the highest flow of tourists in the period mentioned, being the most visited tourist attraction with archaeological or historical specificity in Dobrogea. In the case of Enisala, the average number of visitors who bought tickets constitutes more than 40% of the total number of tourist arrivals within a distance of one hour. The same percentage decreases to 4% for a distance of up to one-and-a-half hours.
Analyzing the accessibility of archaeological sites by calculating the Populated Weighted Distance helped us to quantify the probability that archaeological resources in Dobrogea will be visited by tourists arriving in the region. This parameter was calculated in both time units and kilometers. The correlation between the results measured in hours and those measured in kilometers (Figure 6) highlights those situations where there are problems in terms of road accessibility to the targets analyzed.
Thus, at the archaeological sites Aegyssus, Albești, Halmyris, Troesmis, and Dinogetia, there is a higher ratio between the road distance measured in hours and that measured in km. Of these, Aegyssus and Halmyris have tourist facilities, and there is quantitative information on the annual tourist flow. This seems to explain the relatively negative results in the correlation between the number of visitors to the site and the number of tourists staying nearby. In the case of these archaeological sites, it seems that lower accessibility is a factor influencing the flow of tourists to them.

5. Discussion

The present study demonstrates, like other mentioned studies [34,35,36,37,38,61], that GIS is an important means of analyzing tourism, with spatial accessibility being quantified more efficiently. Geographic Information Systems have proven to be a useful tool in quantifying tourism potential based on spatial accessibility in important studies. Relevant examples include research conducted by Lee et al. [20], who used GIS to classify rural settlements according to their tourism potential given the degree of spatial accessibility. Wang et al. [47] analyzed the relationship between tourism efficiency and tourist accessibility for administrative units in Hubei, China, and Masson and Petiot [62] highlighted, through their study, the impact of road infrastructure on tourist accessibility and implicitly on the attractiveness in tourism. In the same manner, we used GIS to classify the archaeological sites in our study area according to the degree of spatial accessibility of tourists through the road network. In the case of Dobrogea, we have shown that the degree of road accessibility for tourists is one of the main factors in the tourist success of archaeological sites. The additional analysis of the impact of the new bridge over the Danube that connects Dobrogea with the rest of the country showed the importance of new road infrastructure in increasing the accessibility of tourist attractions in a region. Likewise, archaeological sites that have tourist facilities are connected to the road network, and the type of road to which they are connected seems not to be a very important issue as long as there are paved roads. More important seems to be the position of the site in relation to the road axes of tourist travel in the region: near the A2 highway and in the direction of the city of Constanta and Tulcea city. Thus, we have shown that an adequate road infrastructure can facilitate access to less promoted archaeological sites, thus contributing to the diversification of the tourist offer.
From a methodological point of view, the use of the adapted David Huff index has brought a novelty to the analysis of tourist accessibility in Romania. Unlike in other research, in which the David Huff index was used [24,35], it integrates a number of variables, such as the number of arrivals in accommodation establishments and the road distance calculated with the Network Analysis tool from QGIS. This approach provides a practical method for quantifying tourism accessibility that could be applied at the national level as well as in other similar regions for a better sustainable exploitation of tourism resources. Accessibility analyses can complement known methodologies for analyzing the complexity, fragmentation, or concentration of resources in a geographical area, approaches we encounter in the specialized literature [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71].
The information provided through this study on the impact of road infrastructure on the tourism success of archaeological sites may prove useful for tourism industry professionals, local authorities, and site managers. An example is the archaeological sites of Ibida, Argamum, and Ulmetum, which, although accessible, are unattractive and therefore do not generate income due to the lack of adequate facilities. Decision-makers can use the results to prioritize investment in secondary road infrastructure and to add new locations to existing tourist circuits. This study also emphasizes that the typology of the road network plays a secondary role compared to the location of archaeological sites in relation to the main axes of tourist circulation. This can be an important element in the design of tourism promotion and development strategies.
Quantifying the role of tourist accessibility to archaeological resources in Dobrogea is a useful approach to decision-makers in order to develop pragmatic strategic planning tools. The obtained results open new perspectives on future research to verify the archaeological tourism potential of the Dobrogea region in order to make the best economic use.

6. Study Limitations and Further Research Avenues

As a result of the aforementioned, several future research directions can be identified. Multimodal accessibility can be one direction by integrating other modes of transport, such as public transport or cycling, into the analysis. For example, cycling routes can be an important way to capitalize on tourism resources, including from the perspective of sustainable tourism development [72,73,74]. The analysis of the role of socio-economic factors such as the attitude of locals toward tourism or the impact of local cultural events should not be neglected as they can give more accuracy to the research and have a significant role in tourism development [75,76,77,78]. Likewise, the role that accessibility plays in the development of sustainable tourism may be another promising research direction by investigating its role in the development of sustainable archaeological tourism [79,80].
The main limitations of this research stem from the fact that this study focused exclusively on road accessibility without taking into account other modes of transport (rail, public, or cycling) that can have an impact on attractiveness. For example, bicycle transport can be an important way to capitalize on these tourist resources, and the configuration of the land in the region is favorable for cycling. It is also difficult to prove the tourist success of an undeveloped archaeological site that benefits from a high degree of road accessibility.
In addition, socio-cultural factors such as local attitudes or the impact of local cultural events, which can have a significant impact on tourism development, have not been analyzed.
The results of this study can be strengthened by applying correlations with other important parameters for the tourism industry and the attractiveness of a tourist destination. Thus, the presented analysis remains open for the identification of methodologies for calculating the real potential of an archaeological site not valorized for tourism on the basis of the existing statistical information. By developing effective methods to assess the tourism potential in undervalued areas, and implementing integrated promotion and conservation policies, these resources could become a key driver in sustainable tourism.

7. Conclusions

The analysis of the accessibility and tourist success of archaeological sites in Dobrogea highlights both opportunities and challenges for the development of sustainable tourism. Increasing tourist numbers to these areas can bring significant economic benefits to local communities, but it is essential that this growth is carefully managed to prevent negative impacts on the environment and cultural heritage. For example, excessive tourist pressure can lead to the degradation of archaeological sites if adequate conservation measures are not implemented. In this respect, an integrated approach is essential, including the involvement of local communities in the decision-making process, constant monitoring of the impact of tourism on the environment and heritage using specific sustainability indicators, and the development of regional strategies that prioritize the protection of heritage tourism resources in parallel with increased visitor flows.
This study emphasizes that the state of conservation of archaeological sites is a more important factor than the age of the archaeological site or the distance between the tourist and the tourist objective. The correlation between the number of visitors to archaeological sites and the number of arrivals in tourist accommodation establishments in their vicinity showed that tourists are willing to travel more to see the medieval fortress of Enisala or the archaeological museums of Constanța, where the ruins of the ancient city of Tomis are predominantly on display. The data suggest that tourists are willing to travel longer distances for well-preserved archaeological sites such as Enisala, with the age of the ruins not a major factor in tourist success. Enisala Fortress presents the most recent ruins of the archaeological resources selected for this study, being of medieval age. However, it seems that a significant percentage of people staying more than an hour away choose to visit this tourist attraction. The success of Enisala, which is located relatively far from the main tourist resorts in Dobrogea, overshadows the historical importance of the archaeological resources. The ancient town of Histria, although it has a higher historical value and is closer to towns and villages with a high tourist flow, has in recent years recorded a lower average number of visitors than Enisala.
Road accessibility is another key factor identified as having an important role in the tourism success of the analyzed sites. The road infrastructure by its quality but also by its degree of development has the role of facilitating access and increasing the tourist attractiveness of the area. The importance of road infrastructure is proven by those archaeological sites or museums with archaeological specificity that have been developed in the tourism industry in Dobrogea and which are easily accessible by road, benefiting from parking lots and paved roads. A good example is the Histria fortress, which has recorded a lower average number of visitors in recent years compared to Enisala, one of the reasons being the access to the site, which is on a paved communal road.
Spatial accessibility can be approached from several points of view: distance, road type, and road conditions. These variables were found to be more important than the number of inhabitants in or around the locality where the archaeological resources are located. This is an indication that the majority of tourists who choose to visit the archaeological exhibits arrive from other parts of the region or the country. However, distance does not seem to be a decisive factor in favorable tourism statistics but rather the position of tourist attractions between the main tourist poles of the region. In fact, the success of the archaeological sites in the central and eastern part of the region suggests that their position between the coastal resorts and the UNESCO World Heritage site of the Danube Delta is a very important factor in increasing visitor numbers.
The statistical correlation between the number of visitors to the archaeological resources and the parameters taken into account as factors of their tourist valorization reveals a mismatch between the resident population and the tourist flow. The demographic influence exists but does not seem to be a main factor for a high number of tourist visits to archaeological sites. Archaeological sites located in rural areas, far away from the major cities of the region, have recorded a tourist flow close to or even higher than that of the archaeological resources exploited in the major cities of Dobrogea.
The analysis shows that the potential of the archaeological sites in the center of the region is great and that those which do not benefit from tourist facilities deserve more attention from the authorities. In this situation, the ancient cities of Ibida, Ulmetum, and Argamum are less well-known sites that currently lack adequate tourist facilities. With increased accessibility, specific tourist facilities, and appropriate promotion, these sites can become attractive tourist destinations. Moreover, it should be emphasized that in order to make better use of the tourism potential of archaeological sites, decision-makers should consider investments in infrastructure, the implementation of sustainable transport policies, the efficient management of tourist flows, and the implementation of measures contributing to the long-term conservation and protection of archaeological sites.
In conclusion, the research carried out shows that factors such as the state of conservation of archaeological sites, road accessibility, and strategic geographical location in the region play a key role in the success of tourism of archaeological resources in Dobrogea.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.-G.D. and C.C.D.; methodology, V.-G.D. and A.G.; software, V.-G.D.; validation, C.C.D., V.M. and A.K.G.; formal analysis, V.-G.D.; investigation, V.-G.D.; resources, V.-G.D., V.M., A.G. and A.K.G.; data curation, V.-G.D. and C.C.D.; writing—original draft preparation, V.-G.D.; writing—review and editing, V.M. and C.C.D.; visualization, V.-G.D., V.M. and C.C.D.; supervision, C.C.D. These authors contributed equally to this work. 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

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant of the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI UEFISCDI, project number 50/2024 COFUND-DUT-FEED4FOOD, within PNCDI IV.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sirakaya, E.; Woodside, A.G. Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 815–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Uchiyama, Y.; Kohsaka, R. Cognitive Value of Tourism Resources and Their Relationship with Accessibility: A Case of Noto Region, Japan. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 19, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cehan, A.; Bulai, M.; Rosu, L.; Roșu, L. Using GIS techniques and geotagging to assess tourism density and attractiveness in the city of Iasi, Romania. In Proceedings of the SOCIOINT 2016 3rd International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities, Istanbul, Turkey, 23–25 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adeyinka-Ojo, S.; Nair, V. Rural Tourism Destination Accessibility: Exploring the Stakeholders’ Experience. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Hospitality and Tourism Conference (IHTC 2016) & 22nd International Seminar on Tourism (ISOT 2016), Bandung, Indonesia, 10–12 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dickinson, J.E.; Robbins, D.; KFletcher, J. Representation of transport—A rural destination analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Tourism and Global Environmental Change: Ecological, Social, Economic and Political Interrelationships; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2006; 323p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall, C.M. Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility, 1st ed.; Pearson Education: North York, ON, Canada, 2005; 448p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lumsdon, L.; Page, S.J. Tourism and Transport: Issues and Agenda for the New Millennium; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2008; 180p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sharpley, R. Travel and Tourism, 1st ed.; SAGE Course Companions Series; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2006; 232p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sima, E. Development of agro-tourism in Dobrogea Region, Romania, in the context of European integration. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2021, 21, 569–576. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pleșoianu, D.-M. Development strategies for rural tourism in Dobrogea. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2017, 17, 301–305. [Google Scholar]
  12. Frisvoll, S. Conceptualising Authentication of Ruralness. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 272–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Daugstad, K.; Kirchengast, C. Authenticity and the Pseudo-Backstage of Agri-Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 170–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, E.; Choi, B.K.; Lee, T.J. The Role and Dimensions of Authenticity in Heritage Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pop, R.-E. Tourism impact activity over the labour market in the Romania Danube Region County’s. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2018, 18, 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lin, V.S.; Yang, Y.; Li, G. Where Can Tourism-Led Growth and Economy-Driven Tourism Growth Occur? J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 760–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Caciora, T.; Herman, G.V.; Ilieş, A.; Baias, Ş.; Ilieş, D.C.; Josan, I.; Hodor, N. The Use of Virtual Reality to Promote Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Wooden Churches Historical Monuments from Romania. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Herman, G.V.; Grama, V.; Buhaș, S.; Garai, L.D.; Caciora, T.; Grecu, A.; Gruia, A.K.; Hudea, O.S.; Peptenatu, D. The Analysis of the Ski Slopes and the Degree of Economic Dependence Induced by Winter Sports Tourism. The Case of Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Herman, G.V.; Grama, V.; Sonko, M.S.; Boc, E.; Băican, D.; Garai, D.L.; Blaga, L.; Josan, I.; Caciora, T.; Gruia, A.K.; et al. Online information premise in the development of bihor tourist destination, Romania. Folia Geogr. 2020, 62, 21–34. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, S.H.; Choi, J.Y.; Yoo, S.H.; Oh, Y.G. Evaluating Spatial Centrality for Integrated Tourism Management in Rural Areas Using GIS and Network Analysis. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chhetri, P.; Arrowsmith, C. GIS-Based Modelling of Recreational Potential of Nature-Based Tourist Destinations. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boers, B.; Cottrell, S. Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning: A GIS-Supported Approach. Tour. Geogr. 2007, 9, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, X.; Xu, C.; Kimmons, B. Detecting Tourism Destinations Using Scalable Geospatial Analysis Based on Cloud Computing Platform. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 54, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bahaire, T.; Elliott-White, M. The Application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in Sustainable Tourism Planning: A Review. J. Sustain. Tour. 1999, 7, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grêt-Regamey, A.; Bebi, P.; Bishop, I.D.; Schmid, W.A. Linking GIS-Based Models to Value Ecosystem Services in an Alpine Region. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Geneletti, D.; van Duren, I. Protected Area Zoning for Conservation and Use: A Combination of Spatial Multicriteria and Multiobjective Evaluation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chhetri, A.; Chhetri, P.; Arrowsmith, C.; Corcoran, J. Modelling Tourism and Hospitality Employment Clusters: A Spatial Econometric Approach. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 398–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. González-Ramiro, A.; Gonçalves, G.; Sánchez-Ríos, A.; Jeong, J.S. Using a VGI and GIS-Based Multicriteria Approach for Assessing the Potential of Rural Tourism in Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 2016, 8, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, S. Optimal Planning Algorithm of Forest Wetland Tourism Path Based on GIS. J. Discret. Math. Sci. Cryptogr. 2018, 21, 393–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brown, G.; Weber, D. Using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) on the Geoweb to Monitor Tourism Development Preferences. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 192–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pérez, O.M.; Telfer, T.C.; Ross, L.G. Use of GIS-Based Models for Integrating and Developing Marine Fish Cages within the Tourism Industry in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Coast Manag. 2003, 31, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bíl, M.; Bílová, M.; Kubeček, J. Unified GIS Database on Cycle Tourism Infrastructure. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1554–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nistor, M.M.; Nicula, A.S. Application of Gis Technology for Tourism Flow Modelling in the United Kingdom. Geogr. Tech. 2021, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Giuffrida, S.; Gagliano, F.; Giannitrapani, E.; Marisca, C.; Napoli, G.; Trovato, M.R. Promoting Research and Landscape Experience in the Management of the Archaeological Networks. A Project-Valuation Experiment in Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Feng, R.; Morrison, R.M. GIS Applications in Tourism and Hospitality Marketing: A Case in Brown County, Indiana. Anatolia 2002, 13, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Supak, S.; Brothers, G.; Bohnenstiehl, D.W.; Devine, H. Geospatial Analytics for Federally Managed Tourism Destinations and Their Demand Markets. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015, 4, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chancellor, C.; Cole, S. Using Geographic Information System to Visualize Travel Patterns and Market Research Data. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 25, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elliott-White, M.P.; Finn, M. Growing in Sophistication: The Application of Geographical Information Systems in Post-Modern Tourism Marketing. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1997, 7, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, X.; Lu, H.; Holt, J.B. Modeling Spatial Accessibility to Parks: A National Study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2011, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lu, H.; Zhang, X.; Holt, J.B.; Kanny, D.; Croft, J.B. Quantifying Spatial Accessibility in Public Health Practice and Research: An Application to on-Premise Alcohol Outlets, United States, 2013. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2018, 17, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Baloyi, E.; Mokgalaka, H.; Green, C.; Mans, G. Evaluating Public Ambulance Service Levels by Applying a GIS Based Accessibility Analysis Approach. S. Afr. J. Geomat. 2017, 6, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lovett, A.; Haynes, R.; Sünnenberg, G.; Gale, S. Car Travel Time and Accessibility by Bus to General Practitioner Services: A Study Using Patient Registers and GIS. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 55, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Feng, L.Y.; Lan, Y.C.; Huang, J.J.; Li, J.H. HIV Risk and the Association with Accessibility Coverage to Medical Facilities and Socioeconomic Status among Heroin Users in Kaohsiung, Taiwan (2011–2015): A GIS Approach. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aminu, M.; Matori, A.N.; Yusof, K.W.; Malakahmad, A.; Zainol, R.B. Analytic Network Process (ANP)-Based Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) for Sustainable Tourism Planning in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. Arabian J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rong, W.; Dan, W.; Chun, S.H. Spatial Structure Analysis of Tourist Attraction in Lanzhou Based On GIS. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Education, Management, Computer and Society, Shenyang, China, 1–3 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rahayuningsih, T.; Muntasib, E.K.S.H.; Prasetyo, L.B. Nature Based Tourism Resources Assessment Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study in Bogor. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 33, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, K.; Zhao, J. Analysis of the Relationships between Tourism Efficiency and Transport Accessibility—A Case Study in Hubei Province, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Czapiewski, S. Accessibility of Outdoor Physical Activity Facilities in Bydgoszcz Illustrated with GIS Network Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering 2018 (ICCMSE 2018), Thessaloniki, Greece, 30 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, X.-M.; Liu, C.-F. Accessibility and Service of Shenyang’s Urban Parks by Network Analysis. J. Ecol. 2009, 29, 1554–1562. [Google Scholar]
  50. Li, J.; Guo, X.; Lu, R.; Zhang, Y. Analysing Urban Tourism Accessibility Using Real-Time Travel Data: A Case Study in Nanjing, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, B.; Zhou, L.; Yin, Z.; Zhou, A.; Li, J. Study on the Correlation Characteristics between Scenic Byway Network Accessibility and Self-Driving Tourism Spatial Behavior in Western Sichuan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rahmafitria, F.; Dirgahayani, P.; Putro, H.; Rosyidie, A.; Hudalah, D. Tourism accessibility in protected islands: The case of the Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Tour. Rev. 2022, 78, 966–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, W.; Jiang, L. Effects of High-Speed Rail on Sustainable Development of Urban Tourism: Evidence from Discrete Choice Model of Chinese Tourists’ Preference for City Destinations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhou, J.; Li, L.; Lei, R. Framework and Perception Survey of Tourism Accessibility concerning Regional Airports Based on Nexus Thinking: An Empirical Study in Ganzi Prefecture, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Neill, A.; O’Donoghue, C.; Stout, J. Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services using data from social media: A guide to model selection for research and practice. One Ecosyst. 2023, 8, e95685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sisto, R.; Cappelletti, G.; Bianchi, P.; Sica, E. Sustainable and accessible tourism in natural areas: A participatory approach. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 25, 1307–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Giuffrida, D.; Nardo, V.; Neri, D.; Cucinotta, G.; Calabrò, I.; Pace, L.; Ponterio, R. A Multi-Analytical Study for the Enhancement and Accessibility of Archaeological Heritage: The Churches of San Nicola and San Basilio in Motta Sant’Agata (RC, Italy). Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gomez-Heras, M.; Soutelo, S.; Ruano, R.; Juan, L. The Challenge of Accessibility to Heritage Around the Via Francigena: The Potential of Thermal Heritage for Accessible Tourism. Heritage 2023, 6, 7115–7125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alrawadieh, Z.; Prayag, G.; Alrawadieh, Z. A cognitive appraisal perspective of emotional accessibility at heritage sites: Empirical evidence from the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Petra. J. Herit. Tour. 2023, 18, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Huff, D.L. A Probabilistic Analysis of Shopping Center Trade Areast. Land Econ. 1963, 39, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dumitrașcu, A.V.; Teodorescu, C.; Cioclu, A. Accessibility and Tourist Satisfaction—Influencing Factors for Tourism in Dobrogea, Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Masson, S.; Petiot, R. Can the High Speed Rail Reinforce Tourism Attractiveness? The Case of the High Speed Rail between Perpignan (France) and Barcelona (Spain). Technovation 2009, 29, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Draghici, C.C.; Peptenatu, D.; Simion, A.G.; Pintilii, R.D.; Diaconu, D.C.; Teodorescu, C.; Papuc, R.M.; Grigore, A.M.; Dobrea, C.R. Assessing Economic Pressure on the Forest Fund of Maramureş County—Romania. For. Sci. 2016, 62, 175–185. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cristian-Constantin, D.; Radu-Daniel, P.; Daniel, P.; Georgiana, C.L.; Igor, S. The Role of SPA Tourism in the Development of Local Economies from Romania. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 1573–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Braghina, C.; Peptenatu, D.; Draghici, C.; Pintilii, R.; 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, 343–352. [Google Scholar]
  66. Radu-Daniel, P.; Daniel, P.; Cristian, D.; Irina, S.; Daniela-Rodica, S. Structural Changes in the Entrepreneurial Profile of the Creative Industries in Romania. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 1147–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Andronache, I.; Marin, M.; Fischer, R.; Ahammer, H.; Radulovic, M.; Ciobotaru, A.M.; Jelinek, H.F.; di Ieva, A.; Pintilii, R.D.; Drăghici, C.C. Dynamics of Forest Fragmentation and Connectivity Using Particle and Fractal Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pintilii, R.D.; Andronache, I.; Diaconu, D.C.; Dobrea, R.C.; Zeleňáková, M.; Fensholt, R.; Peptenatu, D.; Drăghici, C.C.; Ciobotaru, A.M. Using Fractal Analysis in Modeling the Dynamics of Forest Areas and Economic Impact Assessment: Maramures, County, Romania, as a Case Study. Forests 2017, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peptenatu, D.; Merciu, C.; George, M.; Draghici, C.; Cercleux, A.-L. Specific Features of Environment Risk Management in Emerging Territorial Structures. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2012, 7, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pintilii, R.D.; Simion, A.; Draghici, C. Determining Forest Fund Evolution by Fractal Analysis (Suceava-Romania) The Role of Tourism in the Development of Local Economies. Urban Archit. Constr. 2016, 7, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  71. Petrişor, A.-I.; Andronache, I.C.; Petrişor, L.E.; Ciobotaru, A.-M.; Peptenatu, D. Assessing the Fragmentation of the Green Infrastructure in Romanian Cities Using Fractal Models and Numerical Taxonomy. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 32, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Derman, E.; Keleş, H. A Conceptual Evaluation of Cycling Tourism in the Context of Sustainable Tourism. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2023, 11, 1382–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yeh, C.; Lin, C.; Hsiao, J.; Huang, C. The Effect of Improving Cycleway Environment on the Recreational Benefits of Bicycle Tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ciascai, O.; Dezsi, Ș.; Rus, K. Cycling Tourism: A Literature Review to Assess Implications, Multiple Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hasani, A.; Moghavvemi, S.; Hamzah, A. The Impact of Emotional Solidarity on Residents’ Attitude and Tourism Development. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gannon, M.; Rasoolimanesh, S.; Taheri, B. Assessing the Mediating Role of Residents’ Perceptions toward Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 149–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sáblíková, H. The Role of Cultural Life in a Small Town in Eastern Bohemia, and Its Potential Development of Cultural Tourism. Land 2023, 12, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Borowiecki, K.; Castiglione, C. Cultural Participation and Tourism Flows: An Empirical Investigation of Italian Provinces. Tour. Econ. 2014, 20, 241–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tomej, K.; Liburd, J. Sustainable accessibility in rural destinations: A public transport network approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 28, 222–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Shah, S.; Ullah, A.; Ashraf, H.; Ahmad, M.; Begum, A.; Han, H.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Araya-Castillo, L.; et al. Road and Transportation Lead to Better Health and Sustainable Destination Development in Host Community: A Case of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 16 10576 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Sustainability 16 10576 g001
Sustainability 16 10576 g002
Figure 2. The spatial relations between the analyzed archeological sites, the number of tourists, and the road network in Dobrogea.
Figure 2. The spatial relations between the analyzed archeological sites, the number of tourists, and the road network in Dobrogea.
Sustainability 16 10576 g002
Sustainability 16 10576 g003
Figure 3. Adapted Huff’s index explained.
Figure 3. Adapted Huff’s index explained.
Sustainability 16 10576 g003
Sustainability 16 10576 g004
Figure 4. Tourist arrivals in accommodation units located at most (a) 60 min, (b) 90 min, and (c) 120 min away from the archaeological sites/archaeological museums.
Figure 4. Tourist arrivals in accommodation units located at most (a) 60 min, (b) 90 min, and (c) 120 min away from the archaeological sites/archaeological museums.
Sustainability 16 10576 g004
Sustainability 16 10576 g005
Figure 5. The correlation between the number of visitors to archaeological sites and the number of arrivals at accommodation units.
Figure 5. The correlation between the number of visitors to archaeological sites and the number of arrivals at accommodation units.
Sustainability 16 10576 g005
Sustainability 16 10576 g006
Figure 6. Correlation between PWD measured in time units and PWD measured in km.
Figure 6. Correlation between PWD measured in time units and PWD measured in km.
Sustainability 16 10576 g006
Table 1. List of archaeological resources in Dobrogea.
Table 1. List of archaeological resources in Dobrogea.
Archaeological SiteLocalityState of ConservationTourist FacilitiesDistance from the Entrance to DobrogeaType of Access RoadAccess Unpaved RoadPopulation LocalityPopulation of Locality and Neighbors
AegyssusTulceaMediumYes (museum)89 min
94 km
Brăila		City street-81,597101,328
AdamclisiAdamclisiGoodYes (archaeological site)54 min
75 km
Cernavodă		National road-225520,319
AlbeștiAlbeștiBadNo75 min
106 km
Cernavodă		County road1500 m382259,362
ArgamumJurilovcaMediumNo94 min
109 km
Vadu Oii		County road1000 m416019,994
CallatisMangaliaMediumYes (museum)68 km
96 km
Cernavodă		City street-38,88857,668
CapidavaTopaluGoodYes (museum and archaeological site)26 min
25 km
Cernavodă		County road-16905739
CarsiumHârșovaMediumNo11 min
10 km
Vadu Oii		City street-10,73016,862
DinogețiaJijilaMediumNo32 min
32 km
Brăila		National road700 m524729,794
EnisalaSarichioiVery GoodYes (archaeological site)89 min
107 km
Vadu Oii		County road-639635,322
HalmyrisMurighiolGoodYes (museum and archaeological site)117 min
143 km
Vadu Oii		County road290 m333524,015
HistriaIstriaGoodYes (museum and archaeological site)78 min
113 km
Cernavodă		County road-245013,730
IbidaSlava CherchezăMediumNo63 min
78 km
Vadu Oii		County road650 m208824,118
NoviodunumIsacceaMediumNo58 min
57 km
Brăila		County road-505820,000
TomisConstanțaGoodYes (museum)56 min
78 km
Cernavodă		City street-301,361404,361
TroesmisGreciBadNo28 min
29 km
Brăila		National road1700 m312513,125
UlmetumPantelimonMediumNo45 min
45 km
Cernavodă		County road-188629,268
Table 2. Travel speeds by road type considered for the spatial analysis.
Table 2. Travel speeds by road type considered for the spatial analysis.
Type of RoadSpeed Inside the LocalitySpeed Outside the Locality
Highway130 km/h130 km/h
European road50 km/h100 km/h
National road50 km/h90 km/h
County road50 km/h70 km/h
Communal road30 km/h30 km/h
Another paved road30 km/h30 km/h
Unpaved road5 km/h5 km/h
Table 3. Scores awarded for each archaeological site according to the parameter analyzed.
Table 3. Scores awarded for each archaeological site according to the parameter analyzed.
Archaeological SitePWDTourists Arriving NearbyState of ConservationDistance from the Entrance to DobrogeaEasy AccessHistorical ValuePopulation LocalityPopulation of Locality and Neighbors
Aegyssus43325444
Adamclisi44435422
Albești44211334
Argamum33421532
Callatis55425544
Capidava34455411
Carsium32254432
Dinogeția11342433
Enisala33535234
Halmyris32323323
Histria44435522
Ibida33343323
Noviodunum12245432
Tomis55435555
Troesmis22141222
Ulmetum44344413
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

Dascălu, V.-G.; Grecu, A.; Gruia, A.K.; Mihăilă, V.; Drăghici, C.C. The Role of Road Accessibility for Tourists in the Valorization of Archaeological Resources in the Dobrogea Region, Romania. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310576

AMA Style

Dascălu V-G, Grecu A, Gruia AK, Mihăilă V, Drăghici CC. The Role of Road Accessibility for Tourists in the Valorization of Archaeological Resources in the Dobrogea Region, Romania. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23):10576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310576

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dascălu, Vasile-Gabriel, Alexandra Grecu, Andreea Karina Gruia, Viorel Mihăilă, and Cristian Constantin Drăghici. 2024. "The Role of Road Accessibility for Tourists in the Valorization of Archaeological Resources in the Dobrogea Region, Romania" Sustainability 16, no. 23: 10576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310576

APA Style

Dascălu, V.-G., Grecu, A., Gruia, A. K., Mihăilă, V., & Drăghici, C. C. (2024). The Role of Road Accessibility for Tourists in the Valorization of Archaeological Resources in the Dobrogea Region, Romania. Sustainability, 16(23), 10576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310576

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