ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2023 63 1 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 63 -1 • 20 23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 63-1 • 2023 Contents Gordana Jovanović The North Atlantic Oscillation influence on the Debeli Namet Glacier 7 Maja Godina GoliJa Radically local supply chains through territorial brands: Insights from the 100% Local project 23 daniela nicolaie, elena Matei, timothy John cooley, iuliana viJulie, david cushinG, Marius nicolae truțescu National geniuses’ heritage as potential for the development of cultural tourism in Romania 35 sara Zupan, elena BuŽan, tatjana Čelik, Gregor kovaČiČ, Jure JuGovic, Martina luŽnik Fire and flood occurrence in the habitats of the endangered butterfly Coenonympha oedippus in Slovenia 55 eristian WiBisono Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed regions of the European Union: A systematic literature review 73 tim GreGorČiČ, andrej roZMan, Blaž repe Predicting the potential ecological niche distribution of Slovenian forests under climate change using MaxEnt modelling 89 petra GostinČar, uroš stepišnik Extent and spatial distribution of karst in Slovenia 111 naslovnica 63-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:25 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2023 63 1 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 63 -1 • 20 23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 63-1 • 2023 Contents Gordana Jovanović The North Atlantic Oscillation influence on the Debeli Namet Glacier 7 Maja Godina GoliJa Radically local supply chains through territorial brands: Insights from the 100% Local project 23 daniela nicolaie, elena Matei, timothy John cooley, iuliana viJulie, david cushinG, Marius nicolae truțescu National geniuses’ heritage as potential for the development of cultural tourism in Romania 35 sara Zupan, elena BuŽan, tatjana Čelik, Gregor kovaČiČ, Jure JuGovic, Martina luŽnik Fire and flood occurrence in the habitats of the endangered butterfly Coenonympha oedippus in Slovenia 55 eristian WiBisono Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed regions of the European Union: A systematic literature review 73 tim GreGorČiČ, andrej roZMan, Blaž repe Predicting the potential ecological niche distribution of Slovenian forests under climate change using MaxEnt modelling 89 petra GostinČar, uroš stepišnik Extent and spatial distribution of karst in Slovenia 111 naslovnica 63-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:25 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 63-1 2023 ISSN: 1581-6613 UDC: 91 2023, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika International editorial board/mednarodni uredniški odbor: Zoltán Bátori (Hungary), David Bole (Slovenia), Marco Bontje (the Netherlands), Mateja Breg Valjavec (Slovenia), Michael Bründl (Switzerland), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Špela Čonč (Slovenia), Lóránt Dénes Dávid (Hungary), Mateja Ferk (Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Maruša Goluža (Slovenia), Mauro Hrvatin (Slovenia), Ioan Ianos (Romania), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), Blaž Komac (Slovenia), Jani Kozina (Slovenia), Matej Lipar (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCarthy (United Kingdom), Slobodan B. Marković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Cecilia Pasquinelli (Italy), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Florentina Popescu (Romania), Garri Raagmaa (Estonia), Ivan Radevski (North Macedonia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Vanya Stamenova (Bulgaria), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mateja Šmid Hribar (Slovenia), Jure Tičar (Slovenia), Jernej Tiran (Slovenia), Radislav Tošić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia), Zbigniew Zwolinski (Poland) Editors-in-Chief/glavna urednika: Rok Ciglič, Blaž Komac (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Chief editors/področni urednik (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia): • physical geography/fizična geografija: Mateja Ferk, Matej Lipar, Matija Zorn • human geography/humana geografija: Jani Kozina, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc • regional geography/regionalna geografija: Matej Gabrovec, Matjaž Geršič, Mauro Hrvatin • regional planning/regionalno planiranje: David Bole, Janez Nared, Maruša Goluža • environmental protection/varstvo okolja: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Jernej Tiran, Aleš Smrekar Editorial assistants/uredniška pomočnika: Špela Čonč, Jernej Tiran (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Journal editorial system manager/upravnik uredniškega sistema revije: Jure Tičar (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Published by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, p. p. 306, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija; ags@zrc-sazu.si The articles are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) This work is licensed under the/delo je dostopno pod pogoji: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznika, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznika, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 300 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia core research pro- gramme (P6-0101)/Revija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in nastaja v okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: Clarivate Web of Science (SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded; JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition), Scopus, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ. Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: After a major storm, the carbonate Nullarbor Plain was flooded due to its impermeable layer of clay (photograph: Matej Lipar). Fotografija na naslovnici: Po močnejši nevihti je bila sicer karbonatna ravnina Nullarbor poplavljena zaradi nepropustne plasti gline (fotografija: Matej Lipar). 63-1-uvod_uvod49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:22 Page 4 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023, 35–54 NATIONAL GENIUSES’ HERITAGE AS POTENTIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL TOURISM IN ROMANIA Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu »George Enescu« Memorial House – Sinaia Resort, Romania. iU L ia n a v iJ U L iE 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 35 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11032 UDC: 338.48-6:929(498) 719:338.48(498) Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Daniela Nicolaie1, Elena Matei2, Timothy John Cooley3, Iuliana Vijulie2, David Cushing4, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1 National geniuses’ heritage as potential for the development of cultural tourism in Romania ABSTRACT: This article investigates how domestic tourists perceive the possibilities of boosting cultur- al heritage tourism in Romania, through the capitalization of national genius personalities. The methodology is based on the survey method. The research identified 22 geniuses, largely represented in national culture, and acknowledged and demanded by the market. The vast majority have been convert- ed into tourist attractions, however those of international visibility are missing or are underrepresented in Romanian heritage tourism. An increased focus on geniuses would be highly valued by tourists and could reinforce the value of cultural heritage, consequently, boosting tourism resources. This would lead to multiple and sustainable benefits for destinations’ development, but certain infrastructure and man- agement gaps would need to be filled. KEY WORDS: perception, cultural heritage, genius personalities, tourism, museums, Romania Dediščina izjemnih osebnosti kot potencial za razvoj kulturnega turizma v Romuniji POVZETEK: Avtorji v članku proučujejo mnenja domačih turistov o možnostih spodbujanja razvoja kul- turnega turizma v Romuniji na podlagi izjemnih osebnosti iz romunske kulturne zgodovine. Uporabljena metodologija temelji na anketi, v kateri so vprašani izpostavili 22 romunskih kulturnih osebnosti, prepoznanih na trgu. Večina je bila preobražena v turistične zanimivosti, pri čemer pa v romunskem dediščinskem tur- izmu manjkajo mednarodno prepoznavne osebnosti ali so te slabo zastopane. Večji poudarek na tovrstnih osebnostih bi turisti zelo dobro sprejeli, hkrati bi se s tem povečala vrednost kulturne dediščine, kar bi posledično spodbudilo razvoj novih turističnih virov. Navedeno bi imelo različne trajnostne koristi za razvoj destinacij, treba pa bi bilo zapolniti nekatere vrzeli v infrastrukturi in upravljanju. KLJUČNE BESEDE: mnenja, kulturna dediščina, izjemne osebnosti, turizem, muzeji, Romunija The article was submitted for publication on October 5th, 2022. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 5. oktobra 2022. 36 1 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, »Simion Mehedinți« Doctoral School, Bucharest, Romania daniela.nicolaie@drd.unibuc.ro, marius-nicolae.trutescu@drd.unibuc.ro 2 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Bucharest, Romania elena.matei@g.unibuc.ro (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3245-1514), iuliana.vijulie@g.unibuc.ro (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9611-3971) 3 University of California, Departments of Music & Global Studies, Santa Barbara, USA cooley@ucsb.edu 4 PGS (Petroleum Geo-Services), Oslo, Norway david.cushing@pgs.com 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 36 1 Introduction Cultural heritage tourism is the economic interface through which the preserved and protected material and immaterial assets of designated human communities are commodified in order to create experiences for visitors. The cultural heritage that sustains cultural tourism – or more specifically cultural heritage tourism (Hall 1991; Yale 1991; Kirshenblat-Gimblett 1995; Seal 1996) – was derived from different actions, name- ly, the initiatives of certain institutions or communities. Thus, it is recognized, restored and preserved, and the generation of today is able to adequately manage it as a defined benefit in the present and may poten- tially pass it on to future generations (Pelegrini 2008; Bitušíková 2021). Cultural heritage has encountered continuous development, as interest in the preservation of human values has increased (Bucurescu 2015). Therefore, many outstanding monuments of the past have been added to the list of protected monuments, each with a unique contribution to human history (Li, Wu and Cai 2008). Cultural heritage has economic benefits, especially through the development of cultural heritage tourism. According to UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation), cultural heritage accounted for almost 40% of the global tourism market in 2018. The capitalization of cultural heritage in both material and immaterial forms has been criticized as »commoditization« wherein cultural heritage loses its intrinsic meaning, when con- sidered primarily in terms of its monetary exchange value (Greenwood 1977). However, other scholars, such as Cohen (1988) and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1995) show that commoditization or capitalization can give new meaning and value to heritage. Even if statistically the employment rate in cultural heritage is low, its multiplier effects through tourism are more valuable (Vita 2018). For example, in 2018, in Italy, known as the country with the highest number of UNESCO sites (Canale et al. 2019), an impressive 57% of the revenue produced by cultural heritage came from tourism, comprising 73% of culture staff. Only 2.1% of the total country employment represented jobs directly related to cultural heritage. In the same year in Romania, direct jobs in cultural heritage constituted only 0.3% of the total employment (Lykogianni et al. 2019). The heritage of geniuses has, in general, not been a distinct element of cultural attraction in relation to tourism, perhaps because attributing this characteristic to a person is debatable. However, clarifications related to the topic of genius are acknowledged by the disciplines of medicine (Robertson 2018), psychology (Simonton 2018) and philosophy (Ostaric 2012). These have focused on the explanation of specific aspects related to the conceptualization, manifestation and processes of being classified as a genius. Thus, the con- cept is associated with exceptional intellectual abilities (Möller-Recondo and D’Amato 2020), the eminence of individuals identified as geniuses (Simonton 1996), augmented by talent (Nerubasska and Maksymchuk 2020) and the way in which creative, original contributions warrant worldwide recognition (Wolff 2001). Beyond these aspects, many publications refer to geniuses as Nobel prize winners (Fahy 2018), with the addition of the title of academician (Nicolaie 2015); other papers are simple eulogies in memory of famous people during their celebrations (Buttimer 1995). However, all definitions highlight the fact that they pro- vided progress of humankind, while geniuses all over the world have, over the centuries, enriched the legacy of the peoples from which they have ascended (Hu and Rousseau 2017). Usually, the cultural heritage of famous people refers to historical personalities (kings, queens, lead- ers of states, leading artists, etc.) who have impacted humankind through broader or narrower leadership, and have imposed material or immaterial cultural values, used or continued by their dynasties or their nations. Some of these cultural landmarks have been transformed into tourist attractions (e.g., Nelson Mandela; see Mgxekwa, Scholtz and Saayman 2019) or framed in the architectural or cultural landscape of an era (e.g., Egypt, Turkey) (Yilmaz and El-Gamil 2018). Italy remains a famous destination, where clus- ters of attractions are branded by geniuses such as Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Alighieri and many others (Bellini et al. 2014). There are cases where such personalities are considered to belong equally to a nation and the world. For example, Albert Einstein, assumed to be the world’s greatest genius, is valued not only in Germany, his native country, but also in countries across the globe (Switzerland, Spain, Japan, the US, etc.) (Owens 2012) where he worked or where the influence of his work was felt. Often, heritage is recognized by UNESCO and consequently, becomes widely known and appreciat- ed in cultural tourism. In this regard, Italy, China, Spain, France and India are leaders of UNESCO cultural heritage sites (Lushchyk 2021). Even in 2022, Romania benefitted from seven UNESCO cultural proper- ties (see World Heritage List) yet none of these represent a legacy relating to famous people. However, on Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 37 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 37 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … the tentative list, the Constantin Brâncuși’s open-air sculptures complex in Târgu-Jiu was considered for nomination (Șerban 2018). Among its cultural icons, Romania counts remarkable personalities, whose scientific and technical con- tributions have produced positive changes nationally or worldwide, yet some are not recognized as part of Romania’s national heritage. Simmons (1996) ranked the top 100 scholars in world history and stated that Romania has an advantageous position in the list boasting 6% of the world’s geniuses, with Germany, the UK and the USA occupying the top position, followed by France, etc. Starting from the assumption that for all countries around the world, cultural heritage sites are elements of national identity and branding that continue to influence the current values of societies (O’Connor 1993), it should be the duty of each nation, as well as humankind, to develop them carefully and equitably, so as to synthesize all the valuable assets of their peoples. These values might also include genius personalities and their life and work, whether this be artistic, scientific or technical. Nevertheless, such untapped pat- rimonial resources, which could enrich the offer of tourist attractions, is not being fully capitalized on in Romania (Nicolaie 2015). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to analyse domestic tourists’ perceptions of the development of cultural attractions, related to the heritage of genius personalities within Romanian culture. The objec- tives of the research are: (1) to identify and create a ranked list of the most recognized Romanian geniuses; (2) to analyse the visitors’ statistics and perceptions of Romanian personalities’ heritage sites; (3) to explore the needs and benefits of developing heritage sites associated with genius personalities. 1.1 A brief theoretical background The topic of cultural heritage has been addressed in many scientific publications, which cover several fields of research, including that of tourism. Thus, the search for the »cultural heritage« keyword in the Web of Science (WoS) database, for the period 1990 to 2022, revealed 40,000 publications, which address the topic separately or in the context of cultural tourism; »cultural heritage tourism« generated around 7,000 works, of which 71% were classified as (original) scientific research articles. The concept of cultural heritage, repeatedly addressed over the last five decades by international and national bodies, as well as scientists (Vlase and Lähdesmäki 2023), was defined by UNESCO for a global purpose in terms of its material, intangible and environmental values, which are of considerable impor- tance to humanity (Ahmad 2006). The preservation and valorization of cultural heritage must take into account its global spread (Lowenthal 1998), the potential of each site (Król 2021) and its multiple roles in society (Kesar, Matečić and Hodak 2018). In the case of tourism, cultural heritage is linked to two types of tourism: cultural tourism and cul- tural heritage tourism (Bitušíková 2021). For McIntosh and Goeldner (1986), as well as Edson (2004), cultural tourism includes cultural heritage both as processes and products, while Goeldner and Richie (2000) con- sider that cultural heritage tourism means visits to historical attractions and that cultural tourism may or may not be associated with the current elements of cultural life. Cultural heritage supports cultural tourism, but, at the same time, research highlights its role as a dri- ving force in the development of the community (Kausar and Nishikawa 2010), and settlements for urban regeneration (Lak, Gheitasi and Timothy 2020), the revitalization of small towns (Matei et al. 2013; Munjal 2019) or rural sustainability (Hidalgo 2020; Zang et al. 2020). Alternatively, cultural tourism is common- ly considered an effective way of expressing an educational function through different activities (Ashworth and Turnbridge 2000; Lowenthal 1998; Light 2000; Dean, Morgan and Tan 2002). It helps governments influence public opinion and gain support to promote national aspirations (Cohen-Hattab and Kerber 2004), create a positive country image (Urry 1990; O’Connor 1993; Hall 1995; Pretes 2003) and shape national branding in order to distinguish countries and cultures from one other. Therefore, the lack of concern of municipalities in preserving (Ștefănică et al. 2021) or enriching local heritage and tourism development (Wei et al. 2021; Arisanty et al. 2019) should be alleviated. It may be the case that geniuses’ heritage, whose »places and anniversaries can function as sites of memory« (Fara 2000, 407) may contribute to the overall visitors’ experience (Poria, Reichel and Biran 2006), as their dis- tinctive characteristics are necessary for tourism development (Truong, Lenglet and Mothe 2018). The genius personalities’ heritage and museums studies showed that the tourist preference depends on the individ- ual tourists’ background and education. Thus, Yue, Bender and Cheung (2011) revealed that the Chinese 38 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 38 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 39 are more focused on the heritage of meritorious personalities (science, technologies), while the research of Tang, Werner and Hofreiter (2018) on the Germans demonstrated that they are closer to the aestheti- cal domain (literature, arts, philosophy). In fact, all personalities, regardless of the field in which they excelled, must be valued, and the public’s perception of who deserves to be invested in a museum, even at empiri- cal level, should be taken into consideration (Schwartz 1998). In the case of valuable products, tourists are willing to travel long distances (Panzera, de Graaff and de Groot 2020) or through rural surroundings (Bertacchini, Nuccio and Durio 2021). Cellini and Cuccica (2013) concluded that museums cannot influence the tourist flow, but can impact the length of their stay, while Carey et al. (2013) pointed out that museums attract tourists in urban areas and »star« sites, such as UNESCO, which can increase international visit flows (Panzera, de Graaff and de Groot 2020). Research regarding the development of cultural tourism heritage highlights that local communities must be as sustainable as possible, but this depends on the economic and social background of each des- tination (Ngamsomsuke, Hwang and Huang 2018). Certain studies draw attention to the stimulation of over-tourism and the escalation of social, local conflicts (Murzyn-Kupisz and Hołuj 2020), while others emphasize the multiple opportunities for locals (Catrina 2015). Moreover, all stakeholders participating in the development of heritage sites contribute to their success, which directly constitutes a safe develop- ment (Balažič 2010). In the case of Romania, publications relating to cultural tourism heritage are either general approach- es or theoretical aspects (Cocean 2006; Busuioc 2008). Other researchers analyse the tourism potential of destinations (Iațu and Bulai 2011), historical (Muntean and Stremtan 2012) or religious attractions, as well as UNESCO registered sites (Maxim and Chasovschi 2021). Some authors have studied the heritage site trends for sustainable development (Stoica et al. 2022; Merciu, Petrişor and Merciu 2021) or a museum’s dynamics (Bogan, Constantin and Grigore 2018). Thus, the research on Romania’s cultural tourism focuses on certain general ideas, but none of these include the heritage of a genius’ life, works or material values. 2 Data and methods The study adopted both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Thus, in order to explore the opinions of domes- tic tourists, we conducted an online survey. The data collected were analysed through statistical methods, aiming to establish an association among variables, the p value significance, score and frequencies. In addi- tion, qualitative analysis was used for the open-ended responses. The statistics on visitors were collected from museums and memorial houses’ reports, and from the National Institute of Statistics (NIS); visitors could be tourists and local people. The data refer to 2019 and therefore, are not skewed by the Covid-19 pandemic, which changed tourist flows and tourism functionalities (Park, Kim and Ho 2022; Turtureanu et al. 2022), and consequently the number of museum visitors. Mathematical formulas were utilized to compute the share of museums’ visitors among respondents and tourists. The survey was semi-structured, created in Google Forms and was sent via email and WhatsApp, start- ing from the Romanian authors’ social networks within the general population, in January and February 2022. Due to the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the snowball technique was considered the most appro- priate, being consistent with the respondents’ ability to reply online or communicate using electronic devices (Matei et al. 2021). Therefore, in its introduction, there was a description of the aim of the research to encour- age the voluntary participation of persons with the attribute in question, followed by instructions on how the questionnaire should be forwarded to at least one person of a different gender, age and profession. This technique improved population sampling and avoided keeping the configuration of the authors’ social net- works. The sample size (385 respondents) was projected using Cochran’s formula (1) to estimate the mini- mum sample for large populations, using a z score of 1.96 and, therefore, a confidence interval of 95% (Cochran 1977): (1) where e is defined as the margin of error (0.05), p is the proportion of the estimated population, which relates to the attribute in question (0.5) and q is 1-p (Ryan 2013). n0 = Z2 pq e2 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 39 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … 40 The specificity of theme and online snowballing of the survey explain the structure of the final sample, characterized by a large majority of graduates and post-graduates (88.6%), with 38.2% being current students and mainly inhabitants of urban centres (86.3%). Gender, age groups or income structure are almost balanced. All respondents were proven to be visitors of at least one of the geniuses’ heritage sites identified in this research. Therefore, we named them tourist respondents. The survey was composed of five open-ended questions, five questions on a five-point Likert scale and two multiple-choice questions (Table 2). We also asked respondents to provide six demographic variables (gender, age group, education, place of residence, profession, income (Table 1). Gender M 54.8 F 45.2 Place of residence Urban 86.3 Rural 13.7 Education Gymnasium 0.7 Lyceum 10.7 Faculty 50.0 Post graduate 38.6 Income (€) <400 10.5 401–800 40.6 801–1200 34.7 >1200 14.2 Age groups 18–20 22.1 31–45 39.5 46–60 32.3 60+ 6.1 Profession Art and culture 0.12 Economist 4.6 Education 4.1 Employer 4.1 Engineer (IT) 6.8 Health 6.2 Judicial 1.2 Media 3.1 NGO 3.0 Other 8.4 Research 2.9 Retail 4.0 Retired 0.6 Security and defence 5.8 Civil servant 2.3 Student 38.2 Tourism 3.5 Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the sample. Variables % Variables % Table 2: Content of the survey. Type of question Questions Open-ended Q1. Which personalities of Romanian culture (including science, technology, arts etc.) from any time period would you consider to be geniuses? Rank at least three names, please! Q2. Which tourist attractions, related to these personalities, have you visited? List them! Q3. Which of these attractions impressed you the most? Justify your choice. Q4. Which tourist attraction impressed you the least? Justify your choice. Q5. Did you identify any personality in your list with no tourist attraction? Name that personality and provide a brief comment! Five-point Likert Q6. How would you rate the start of a new tourist product, based on Romanian geniuses’ heritage sites? scale (score) Q7. How do you rate the quality of museum services (guide, information, etc.) in Romania? 1 (very little) – Q8. How do you rate the quality of road transport services in Romania for tourism? 5 (very much) Q9. How do you rate the quality of tourist information points and services in Romania? Q10. How do you rate the quality of accommodation services in Romania? Multiple choice Q11. Who should implement the Romanian geniuses’ heritage for tourism? a. Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism; b. town halls; c. NGOs; d. county prefectures and county councils; e. custodians of these objectives united in an association; f. private entrepreneurial companies; g. other Q12. One of the principles in sustainable tourism development aims to involve the community in local business. How does this principle apply to capitalizing Romanian geniuses’ heritage? Choose at least one option! a. local employment; b. boosting souvenir business; c. development of a project focusing on a genius; d. local guide qualification; e. renting a room for tourists; f. stimulating a project for tourism infrastructure; g. other 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 40 The demographic and multiple-choice answers were coded in SPSS (version 28) as nominal and ordi- nal scales. Questions based on the Likert scale (Q6→Q9) were weighted using a scoring scale between 1 and 5. The open-ended responses (Q1→Q5) were coded by the similarity of the contents considered as cat- egorical data or selected manually for qualitative analysis. The starting point was to use the open-ended responses to nominate at least three top genius personalities, ranking them according to their perceived importance (Q1). In this respect, nominations with at least 1% occurrence were considered, regardless of their rank (Figure 1) and were included in the correspondence analysis (CA) (Figure 2). The CA was applied to measure the association between the frequency of attrib- utes (the first, the second, the third) and the nominations of personalities. As an exploratory method for categorical data, not based on specific hypotheses, CA explains the variance (inertia) in a model, breaking it down into the least number of dimensions (Doey and Kurta 2011). CA uses the Chi-square statistics or Euclidean distance measures for the association between variables (p<0.5) on the biplot graph (Figure 2). Questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 were analysed quantitatively (frequency of occurrence of the key words), and for 3 and 4, a qualitative approach was added (manual text analysis) (Figure 4). The Student test and the ANOVA procedure with the Fisher test were applied, in order to test the impact of the tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics in relation to their perception of the importance of genius her- itage and Romanian tourist attractions. This was based on Sullivan and Artino’s findings (2013) regarding the robustness of results given by the parametric tests of the Likert scale, including the mean score for the scale items. 3 Results 3.1 Identifying famous personalities considered geniuses by Romanian tourist respondents In compliance with the 385 respondents’ answers (Table 1), a total number of 130 personalities were nom- inated as geniuses. Most are historical (127) with only a few from the present time (three). Thirty have a percentage of frequency greater than 1%, and among these, 22 were nominated at least once for each of the first three places (Figure 1). Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 41 Medicine Literature Aircraft Engineering Arts Histor y Sports Policy OtherSh ar e %( ) 0 30 40 10 20 50 60 70 80 M .E m in es cu G .E n es cu H .C o an d ă N .I o rg a M .E li ad e I. C re an gă A .A sl an G .E .P al ad e N .P au le sc u A .V la ic u T .V u ia A .S al ig n y N .G ri go re sc u P .P o en ar u E .C io ra n I. L .C ar ag ia le C .P or u m b es cu L .B la ga I. C an ta cu zi n o H .O b er th N . C om ăn ec i C . B râ n cu și Figure 1: The frequency (more than 1%) of geniuses cited in respondents’ nominations, based on the first three nominees. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 41 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … 42 The first three personalities are Mihai Eminescu (69.4%), Constantin Brâncuși (50.1%) and George Enescu (38.4%). The next four personalities, cited by respondents, with a frequency between 10% and 20% are Henri Coandă (17.4%), Nicolae Iorga (12.2%), Mircea Eliade (11.7%) and Ion Creangă (10.1%) (Figure 1). In the field of medicine, the respondents listed academicians (each with 8.6%): Ana Aslan (geriatrist) and George Emil Palade, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1974 in modern cell biology (Bot 2009). Next was Nicolae Paulescu for insulin research, a discovery that generated controversies related to the Nobel Prize (Diem et al. 2022) and Ioan Cantacuzino (3.9%). Another key group related to engineering, namely, Traian Vuia and Aurel Vlaicu (aircraft), Anghel Saligny (bridge builder) and Petrache Poenaru (stylus inventor) (Găină 2019). Two other personalities that attracted attention were Herman Oberth, a pioneer of rocketry and astronautics (Neufeld 1996) and considered famous by only 2.1% of respondents, and Nadia Comăneci (gymnastics), possibly one of the country’s most famous cultural icons outside of Romania (Miklowitz 1977). The CA results of the association between the frequency of attributes (the first, the second, the third) and the nominations of personalities are acceptable for p < 0.01. They have a Chi-square value of 202.883 and are indicative in the case of total inertia. For the first dimension, the proportion of inertia account- ing for this dimension is 79.4%, σ = 0.030, while the second dimension accounted for 20.6% of total inertia and σ = 0.034 (Table 3). Figure 2 shows the popularity between M. Eminescu and the first place. C. Brâncuși corresponds equal- ly to the first and second ranks. Enescu is associated both with the second and third ranks. M. Eliade, H. Oberth, P. Poenaru and I. Cantacuzino are closer to the second rank, while H. Coandă, T. Vuia, A. Vlaicu and N. Iorga are nearer to the third rank. S metrical Normalizationy Row and Column Points D im e n s io n 2 Dime ion 1ns 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 –0.5 –1.0 –1.5 1 2 3 Eminescu Brâncuşi Cantacuzino Enescu Caragiale Aslan Iorga Coandă Cioran Grigorescu Vlaicu Saligny Blaga Poenaru Palade Paulescu Vuia Porumbescu Eliade Creangă Genius Rank (1 3)– –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 1.51.0 Figure 2: Correspondence map for the top 22 geniuses by frequency and rank from the perspective of the respondents. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 42 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 43 Table 3: Summary of correspondence analysis of nominations and ranks. Summary Dimension Singular Value Inertia Chi Square Sig. Proportion of Inertia Confidence Singular Value Accounted for Cumulative Standard Correlation Deviation 2 1 0.421 0.177 0.794 0.794 0.030 0.112 2 0.214 0.046 0.206 1.000 0.034 Total 0.223 202.883 <.001a 1.000 1.000 a 42 degrees of freedom 3.2 Heritage of Romanian genius personalities and tourist demand and perception In 2022, Romania had 762 museums and collections, licensed as having national, regional, county or local importance. These include both public (state) and private museums and collections (Law 311/2003). Collectively, they attracted over 18 million visitors in 2019, in comparison with 13.3 million tourist arrivals registered in Romania in the same year (based on data provided by NIS). Among Romania’s museums and collections, 65 cultural sites connected with the 22 Romanian genius- es were identified by the respondents, but only 44.6% of the total were memorial houses and museums that capitalize on their assets, while others belonged to many personalities or vice versa. Memorial houses constitute the category of cultural attractions that evoke the life and activity of remark- able people, based on their native material assets. From the 22 chosen personalities, almost 60% of them Figure 3. Famous heritage sites of personalities in Romania. p p. 44 Table 4: The memorial houses of personalities: history, state, share of respondents and tourists’ visits. Data collected from NIS and museums’ reports. Personality Place of birth (county) Establishment and state Share of respondents’ No. of memorial visitors of memorial house visits (%) (their share among the tourist arrivals in the settlements), 2019 M.Eminescu Ipotești (Botoșani) 1940, functioning 23.1% 16,536 (345.7%) I. Creangă Humulești (Neamț) 1951, functioning 6.4% 40,000 (237.5%) G. Enescu G. Enescu (Botoșani) 1968, poor condition 5.7% 1,046 (1,046%) Sinaia (Prahova)1 1995, functioning 6.7% 23,520 (7.7%) C-tin Brâncuși Hobița-Peștișani (Gorj) 1971, property conflicts 5.4% 11,292 (3,163%) N. Grigorescu Potlogi (Dâmbovița) 2019, functioning 2.5% 1,800 (186.9%) N. Iorga Botoșani (Botoșani) 1971, functioning 1.9% 1,719 (4.2%) C. Porumbescu Stupca (Suceava) 1953, functioning 1.8% 12,145 (391.3%) E. Cioran Rășinari (Sibiu) 1911, property conflicts 1.3% 600 (9.6%) A. Vlaicu Geoagiu (Hunedoara) 1952, functioning 1.0% 2,346 (4.5%) L. Blaga Lancrăm-Sebeș (Alba) 1998, functioning 1.3% 5,745 (21.5%) H. Oberth Mediaș (Sibiu) 1994, functioning 1.3% 1,005 (3.4%) I. L. Caragiale I. L. Caragiale (Dâmbovița) 1979, functioning 0.0% 1,174 (200%) Romania’s museum visitors:18,197,586 and tourist arrivals: 13,374,943 (2019) 95,408 (19.5%) Note: 1G. Enescu’s residence during his life. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 43 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … 44 ") ") X X X ") X k k X X ") ") ") ") X ") ") ") X ") X ") X X X k X X X X ") T. V ui a L Bl ag a H .C oa nd a N . I or ga N . I or ga G .E ne sc u G . E ne sc u G . E ne sc u A . V la ic u G . E ne sc u E. C io ra n M .E m in es cu A . S al ig ny I. C re an ga H .N .O be rt h C .B râ nc uș i M .E m in es cu I. C re an ga G .E .P al ad e N . G ri go re sc u I.L .C ar ag ia le C . P or um be sc u C . P or um be sc u N . G ri go re sc u I.L . C ar ag ia le Em in es cu 's Li nd en Ro m an ia n R ai lw ay s Br ân cu si 's O pe n A ir C om pl ex N at io na l R om an ia n Av ia tio n D im itr ie L eo ni da T ec hn ic al I. C an ta cu zi no N at io na l In st itu te o f M ed ic in e C . D av ila U ni ve rs ity o f M ed ic in e 0 12 0 60 K ilo m et er s Le ge nd N at io na l b ou nd ar y O th er h er ita ge si te X M us eu m " M em or ia l h ou se k Sc al e: 1 :5 00 ,0 00 , C on te nt b y: D an ie la N ic ol ai e M ap b y: E le na M at ei So ur ce :O pe nS tr ee tM ap a nd To po gr ap hi ca l M ap o f R om an ia , 20 19 E di tio n (h tp // : g ro m il. ro ) © 2 02 3, U ni ve rs ity o f B uc ha re st , Fa cu lty o f G eo gr ap hy 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 44 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 45 Table 5: The museums of personalities: history, location and share of respondents’ and tourists’ visits in 2019. Data collected from NIS and museum reports. Personality Foundation year Location (county) Share of respondents’ No. of museum visitors, visits (%) 2019 (their share among the tourist arrivals in the settlements) M.Eminescu 1989 Iași (Iași) 2.3% 14,259 (4.6%) G. Enescu 1956 Bucharest 7.3 % 56,668 (2.8%) 1957 Dorohoi (Botoșani) 0.0% 1,201 (31.0%) C-tin Brâncuși 2020 Târgu Jiu (Gorj) 0.0% No data H. Coandă 2007 Perișor (Dolj) 0.0% 380 (76.2%) 1990 Bucharest1 1.6 % 17,892 (0.9%) 1909 Bucharest5 1.8% 8,841 (0.4%) T. Vuia 2012 Traian Vuia (Timiș) 1.0 % 1,764 (598%) 1909 Bucharest5 1.8% 8,841 (0.4%) N. Paulescu 2013 Bucharest2 0.3% No data Ioan Cantacuzino 2013 Bucharest3 0.6% No data Anghel Saligny 1969 Bucharest4 1.8% 15,582 (0.8%) I. L. Caragiale 1962 Ploiești (Prahova) 1.0% 6,026 (9.9%) N. Iorga 1997 Vălenii de Munte (Prahova) 5.7% 28,0126 (375.4%) P. Poenaru 1909 Bucharest5 1.8% 8,841 (0.4%) H. Oberth 1909 Bucharest5 1.8% 8,841 (0.4%) G.E. Palade 2022 Târgu Mureș (Mureș) 0.3% No data I. Creangă 1918 Iași (Iași) 2.3% 56,7596 (18.3%) N. Grigorescu 1957 Câmpina (Prahova) 2.3% 11,123 (74.0%) C. Porumbescu 1971 C. Porumbescu (Suceava) 1.0% 12,1456 (391.3%) Romania’s museum visitors: 18,197,586 and tourist arrivals: 13,374,943 (2019) 197,504 (1.2%) 1A section in the National Romanian Aviation Museum; 2inside »Carol Davila« University of Medicine and Pharmacy; 3 inside »Ioan Cantacuzino« National Institute of Medicine; 4 a section in a Romanian railway museum; 5 a section in D. Leonida Technical Museum, Bucharest. 6Based on NIS. have such a heritage building. Not all recognized personalities are valorized in Romanian cultural her- itage, with an identifiable building or other location, often due to conflicts relating to specific properties or houses, the physical degradation or even disappearance of some sites and other issues (Table 4; Figure 3). All the geniuses’ memorial houses were established over the last 110 years, most since the Second World War, yet tourist demand is still low, with only 0.5% of tourists visiting Romania’s museums. However, in the present case study, more than half of the respondents (58.4%) confirmed past visits to these memor- ial houses. The frequency of visits to attractions, exemplified by the respondents in our survey is not in the same order as the nominations’ rank (Figure 1) and differs from the number of museum visitors in the official statistics for 2019 provided by NIS. In particular, museum visitors showed a great interest in the Ion Creangă Memorial House, as Ion Creangă has remained in the collective memory of visitors as being the greatest narrator of his childhood in an authentic way (Diaconu 2002). The next site is the G. Enescu Memorial in Sinaia, a destination dependent upon the mountain tourism market, followed by the Eminescu Memorial in Ipotești village. By comparison, the respondents in this survey preferred the Mihai Eminescu Memorial House, followed by the Ion Creangă Memorial House, both with modern, interpre- tive-interactive amenities, destinations which registered a higher number of memorial visitors than tourist arrivals in 2019 (Table 4). Museums are institutions in the service of society that play a crucial role in preserving local or national heritage assets for educative, research and leisure purposes (Foley and McPherson 2010). In the case of the 22 chosen geniuses, 50% benefit from fully customized cultural institutions, 30% have sections in museums 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 45 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … 46 and 20% currently have no institutional representation (Table 5). As more complex cultural institutions, these museums attract a larger number of visitors than memorial houses, 1% from the total number of Romanian museum visitors and only 34.7% of the survey respondents. Museums dedicated to one per- sonality attract more visitors and respondents than thematic institutions relating to science, technology and engineering. Monuments, individual statues and cultural ensembles are tourist attractions mentioned and visited by the respondents. The monuments nominated most frequently by the respondents are, in fact, those locat- ed in well-known destinations (Bucharest, Iasi, Târgu Jiu etc.), either in cultural ensembles with the other genius heritage destinations of outstanding art value or positioned in cities, whose cultural life has been marked by them. Brâncuși’s outdoor sculptures (The Gate of the Kiss, the Table of Silence and the Column of Infinity) from Târgu Jiu City are visited regularly by the respondents (34.5%). Of those interviewed, 12% had seen the Eminescu monument of the lime-tree in Iași. Less interest was shown in the Saligny Bridge (Carol I King) over the Danube River (Fetești-Cernavodă), designed by the engineer A. Saligny at the end of the 19th century (Băjenaru 2012). All these monuments are freely accessible, are subjected to mass tourism and are often affected by the negative behaviours of tourists (graffiti, garbage, scribbles, etc.) (Spiridon et al. 2017). Numbe espondentsr of r O T H E R S IT E S M U S E U M S M E M O R IA H O U S E S L Blaga MH (Lancrăm) – 02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NegativePositive 1 04–40 Respondents' main view Brâncuși MH (Hobi#a) Cioran MH (Rășinari) Coandă’s House (Bucharest) Creangă MH (Humulești) Creangă Hut (%icău, Iasi) Eminescu MH (Ipotești) Eminescu Museum (Iași) Enescu MH (Liveni) Enescu MH (Sinaia) Iorga MH (Botoșani) Oberth MH (Medias) Paulescu's House Porumbescu MH (Stupca) Rosetti Enescu MH (Tescani)– Vlaicu MH (Geoagiu) Aslan Geriatric Inst. (Otopeni) C. Davila University (Bucharest) Cantacuzino Inst. of Medicine (Buch.) Caragiale Museum (Ploiești) D. Leonida Museum (Bucharest) Eminescu Museum (Iași) Enescu National Museum (Bucharest) Grigorescu Museum (Câmpina) Iorga Museum (Vălenii de Munte) Romanian Aviation (Bucharest) Vuia Museum (Timiș) Brâncuși Asemble Sculptures (Tg. Jiu) Eminescu Grave (Bucharest) Eminescu's Linden (Iași) Saligny Bizetz Bridge (Giurgiu) Saligny Bridge (Cernavodă) » «they symbolize perfection, geniuses } » « you can touch what inspired a genius, a tree of 540 years old » «Saxon architecture » «simplicity of Romanian peasant » «neglected » «a ruin » «a rural piece of the XIX century » «geniuses may create anywhere » «the scenery, rustic elegance » «abundance of documents » «well-preserved values » «valuable assets of the musician - » «a rocket in the yard, a symbol, logo » «a property conflict » «bucolic landscape » «landscape of inspiration » «gaps in function » «a small room for a great personality » «not open to all » «not open to all - » « discover the brilliant Romanian inventors of the world » «richness of documents »Beaux-Arts architecture, restorations« » «paintings of peasantry » «well-organized cultural centre » «iron works pioneer - » «dark tourism and information »great proof of Romania's role in the development of aeronautics« Figure 4: Frequency of positive and negative (red text) remarks regarding the visited sites from the tourist respondents’ perspective. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 46 The respondents’ positive opinions outrank the negative opinions; 42% did not find anything they dis- liked, stating that »all were impressive«. On the other hand, there are sites that were neither mentioned as positive nor negative examples. Overall, the most exulted tourist attraction was Brâncuși’s outdoor sculp- tures, open to the general public free of charge. The comments regarding each of the three exhibited pieces were exemplified by keywords, such as »uniqueness«, »greatness«, »perfection«, »genius«, »a sculptor of the modern art era, whose works are exhibited in the great museums of the world« (Figure 4). Furthermore, both the M. Eminescu memorial house from Ipotești and his lime-tree, a secular tree in Copoul Park (Iași), were viewed positively, references to it being related to »the unique poetic vision about cosmic theory« and Eminescu’s »role in the introduction of modern language in literature«. The respon- dents also identified the memorial houses of G. Enescu and I. Creangă, and the N. Iorga Museum, either for their organization, the preservation of their buildings or their representation of historic 19th and 20th century houses of different social categories, namely the peasantry (I. Creangă), the upper class (G. Enescu) and politicians (N. Iorga), all with a remarkable collection of assets. Among the perceptions of those interviewed, negative issues were reported in the case of the G. Enescu Museum (Bucharest), organized in the Cantacuzino Palace and an impressive example of Beaux-Arts archi- tecture, purchased by the artist (Beimel 2013). Controversially, this museum needed »urgent restoration works«, while the A. Vlaicu Memorial House had »poor guide services« or »insufficient road signage«. Unexploited heritage buildings were also reported, such as the N. Paulescu and H. Coandă houses, both in Bucharest City, as well as museums established within medical institutions but not open to the gener- al public (Figure 4), such as Ana Aslan, I. Cantacuzino and N. Paulescu. 3.3 Heritage development of genius personalities: needs and benefits Exploring the perception of a specific tourist product, which unifies the heritage dedicated to genius per- sonalities, reveals a remarkably high rate of interest among respondents, with a mean score of 4.46 (on a scale from 1 to 5). The Student test and Fisher test (ANOVA method) results show that there is no dif- ference among the groups of populations, except for three items relating to accommodation, as p < 0.05 (Table 6). The overall quality of the main components that characterize tourism: accommodation (3.39), access-transport (2.72), museum services (3.32) and tourist information (guidance, interpretation) (2.52) are considered satisfactory in terms of moderate values (Table 6). However, the higher the respondents’ educational level, the more robust the incomes, and the more mature the groups, the lower the average scores. Therefore, when analysing the table of scores, the key expectations of the respondents regarding the new tourist package of geniuses, in the context of good museum services or accommodation, encom- pass needs such as the improvement of access-transport and tourist information services. The establishment of a unified product of geniuses and the resolution of the identified needs are seen as equal prerogatives of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Tourism (70%), then the responsi- bility of counties and local authorities (about 50%), followed by NGOs and other entities. The benefits as a result of geniuses’ heritage development would have multiplier effects on tourism, on settlements and on culture, etc. It is believed that initiating projects focused on adding to the heritage of geniuses, in particular, local personalities, would play a greater role in the education of the population (68.3%). Almost half of the respondents pay attention to the employment of positive inputs, either in rela- tion to guiding (51.2%), museums’ management (40%) or boosting local businesses based on souvenir stores (35.1%). Almost one fourth point to the augmentation of accommodation-based businesses, either by »rent a room« (28.1%) or through specific infrastructure (21.6%). 4 Discussion Among the survey responses, 130 personalities were listed but only 22 were frequently nominated. This accords with the research of Schwartz (1998) whose empirical findings show that famous personalities are recognized by a large number of people. In the case of the Romanian personalities ranked in the first three places (M. Eminescu, C. Brâncuși and G. Enescu), it can be concluded that there is a stereotypical per- ception of geniuses, similar to the research results relating to Einstein and revealed in Smith and Wright’s study (2000). Added to this is a statement by Smith and Wright (2000) that Mozart’s nomination as a genius Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 47 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 47 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … 48 Ta ble 6: Th e r es ult s o f t es tin g t he di ffe ren ce s i n g en ius he rit ag e s co res an d t he m ain to ur ism se rv ice sc ore s i n R om an ia, in re lat ion to th e r es po nd en ts’ so cio -d em og rap hic ch ara cte ris tic s. Va ri a ble s Ge niu s h er ita ge M us eu m se rvi ce s Inf or m ati on se rvi ce s Tr an sp or t s erv ice s Ac co m m od at ion Da ta te sts M ea n s co re Te st va lue M ea n s co re Te st va lue M ea n s co re Te st va lue M ea n s co re Te st va lue M ea n s co re Te st va lue Ov era ll s am ple 4.4 6 3.3 2 2.5 2 2.7 2 3.3 9 Ge nd er M 4.5 1 19 8.2 09 3.2 8 25 2.1 1 2.4 4 19 7.6 04 2.7 5 19 7.6 0 3.2 8 0.8 4 F 4.4 2 (0 .00 0) 3.3 7 (0 .00 0) 2.6 1 (0 .00 0) 2.7 8 (0 .00 0) 3.4 1 (0 .77 2) Lo ca tio n Ur ba n 4.4 4 23 9.6 10 3.3 0 25 2.1 1 2.5 3 23 9.7 57 2.7 5 23 9.7 5 3.3 3 2.9 95 Ru ral 4.6 9 (0 .00 0) 3.4 4 (0 .00 0) 2.4 7 (0 .00 0) 2.4 7 (0 .00 0) 3.4 0 (0 .08 4) Stu die s Gy m na siu m 5.0 0 16 .68 3 3.7 1 21 .63 8 2.7 1 9.2 61 3.0 0 38 .08 0 4.0 0 1.0 57 Ly ce um 4.6 7 ( 0 .00 1) 3.1 6 ( 0 .00 1) 2.6 2 ( 0 .00 1) 2.8 9 ( 0 .00 1) 3.2 2 (0 .36 7) Fa cu lty 4.4 0 3.4 1 2.5 7 2.8 1 3.3 5 Po st gr. 4.4 8 3.2 3 2.4 3 2.5 4 3.3 4 Inc om e ( €) < 40 0 4.4 2 17 .55 3 3.0 7 27 .22 2 2.8 6 24 .61 3 2.9 8 28 .84 4 3.3 8 0.2 65 40 1- 80 0 4.4 2 ( 0 .00 1) 3.4 2 ( 0 .00 1) 2.5 1 (0 .00 1) 2.7 2 ( 0 .00 1) 3.3 7 (0 .85 1) 80 1- 12 00 4.4 3 3.3 3 2.4 7 2.7 3 3.2 9 > 12 00 4.6 9 3.1 7 2.4 2 2.4 7 3.3 3 Ag e g rou ps 18 -2 0 4.4 3 14 .73 8 3.2 8 6.2 50 2.4 6 18 .81 9 2.9 8 25 .24 5 3.3 6 0.6 66 31 -4 5 4.4 6 ( 0 .00 1) 3.3 1 (0 .00 1) 2.4 6 (0 .00 1) 2.7 2 (0 .00 1) 3.3 2 (0 .57 3) 46 -6 0 4.5 4 3.3 8 2.6 7 2.7 3 3.3 9 60 + 4.6 0 3.1 6 2.3 4 2.4 7 3.1 5 Ar t 3.7 5 12 .78 2 2.5 0 12 .96 5 3.0 0 11 .92 6 3.0 0 16 .77 9 3.6 0 1.6 22 Cu lts 4.5 0 (0 .00 1) 3.5 0 (0 .00 1) 2.5 0 (0 .00 1) 3.5 0 (0 .00 1) 3.5 0 (0 .04 5) Ec on om ist 4.0 6 3.1 3 2.6 3 2.9 8 3.2 4 Ed uc ati on 4.4 6 2.9 5 2.8 0 3.2 0 3.4 1 Em plo ye r 4.5 1 3.1 5 2.3 7 2.5 1 3.4 6 En gin ee r 4.4 4 3.3 0 2.4 8 2.8 9 3.1 3 He alt h 4.2 6 3.1 0 2.0 5 2.2 9 3.3 5 IT 4.5 6 3.2 2 2.3 9 2.9 1 2.7 2 Ju dic ial 4.1 7 3.0 8 2.0 8 2.5 8 2.6 7 M ed ia 4.5 8 3.1 9 2.4 8 2.9 7 3.0 0 NG O 5.0 0 2.8 7 2.3 3 2.2 0 3.3 0 No ne 4.2 7 3.4 0 2.5 3 2.6 0 3.5 0 Ot he r 4.8 7 3.3 4 2.9 2 2.8 1 3.2 5 Re se arc h 4.3 4 3.5 9 2.7 9 2.7 6 3.6 7 Re tai l 4.5 4 3.1 0 2.6 0 2.6 7 3.8 0 Re tir ed 4.2 7 3.0 0 1.6 7 1.3 3 3.3 3 Se cu rit y 4.0 0 3.5 6 2.6 4 2.7 8 2.7 5 Se rv an t 4.7 5 3.4 3 2.7 8 2.7 4 3.3 2 Stu de nt 4.3 0 3.4 8 2.5 3 2.6 4 3.3 3 To ur ism 4.5 4 3.2 0 2.1 7 2.8 3 3.2 9 W or ke r 4.8 4 3.0 5 2.5 7 3.1 4 3.5 0 No te: th e s ign ific an ce le ve l ( p) of th e t es t in th e b rac ke ts. Test t Test Fisher test (ANOVA) Profession 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 48 is boosted during national cultural events. The three famous Romanians from this survey benefit from celebrations, such as the National Day of Culture organized on the 15th January since 2010 (Eminescu’s birthday), Brâncuși Day, held on the 19th February since 2015 (Brâncuși’s birthday) and the George Enescu Festival (established in 1958, on 4th September). Considering their domains of excellence, geniuses of the arts, literature and philosophy (areas of aes- thetic salience) are first nominated, followed by inventors and scientists (meritorious areas). This pattern was also highlighted by Yue, Bender and Cheung et al. (2011) and Tang, Werner and Hofreiter (2018) and was explained by popular educational orientation towards culture and then towards technical informa- tion or vice-versa. The undisputed first place of M. Eminescu is explained by his mythification as a national poet, a genius of Romanian literature (Mironescu 2018). Otherwise, the works of M. Eminescu, C. Brâncuși, G. Enescu, M. Eliade, I. Creangă, L. Blaga, I. L. Caragiale and C. Porumbescu are taught during school education in Romania (see Ministry of Education national curricula; https://edu.ro). By comparison, the inventors and scientists’ list, despite including a Nobel prize winner (G. E. Palade) or a contribution to the development of humankind (H. Coandă, T. Vuia, A. Vlaicu, N. Paulescu, P. Poenaru, H. Oberth, I. Cantacuzino, A. Aslan, A. Saligny) is mentioned mostly by health personnel and IT engineers, probably due to the ease of access- ing information (Tang, Werner and Hofreiter 2018). Concerning the capitalization of the heritage of genius personalities in relation to tourism, the results converge on several characteristics. For this reason, each situation (personality, region, nation and so forth) will require its own approaches. In this regard, the present study shows that the Romanian genius nomi- nations are overlaid with the spread of their attractions (M. Eminescu, three landmarks; G. Enescu, four sites, etc.). Museums dedicated to famous people outnumber memorial houses, as they are usually large public cultural institutions, designated to a group (Railway Museum, Technical Museum) or a single personali- ty (G. Enescu) and are established in city settings, mainly Bucharest (Bogan, Constantin and Grigore 2018). Memorial houses are often private initiatives (foundations, family properties etc.) and are smaller in size, as many are linked to the native places of the subjects in rural or remote areas. In some cases, their setting up or function are influenced by legal processes of buildings restitution after the communist period (Bejtja and Bejtja 2015). Therefore, certain initiatives were blocked by ownership conflicts (E. Cioran and C. Brâncuși) or changed into residencies by descendants (P. Poenaru), while others were demolished and replaced by blocks of flats during communism (M. Eliade). In other cases, the accomplishments of outstanding per- sonalities were organized exclusively within the institutions in which they worked, and information about them is not accessible to the general public (e.g., Palade, Paulescu, Cantacuzino and Aslan). The data covering the visits to museums include both tourists and some residents, as official statis- tics do not differentiate between the two. This explains why the museum visitors outnumber tourist arrivals in our study. On the other hand, research has revealed that tourists in rural destinations tend to visit res- idential surroundings first (Bertacchini, Nuccio and Durio 2021 2021), while cities capture large numbers of visitors, due to the significant concentration of tourist attractions (Bogan, Constantin and Grigore 2018). These two findings could be used to explain why tourists and respondents visit memorial houses and muse- ums in Bucharest or Iași with greater frequency. Furthermore, Cellini and Cuccica (2013) demonstrated that museums may influence the length of a tourist stays in particular destinations. Additionally, offers such as free entrance during the Museums Night event is a modifier of tourist numbers. Similarly, free access to open-air heritage sites, such as Brâncuși’s outdoor sculptures and Eminescu’s lime-tree in Iași, never captured in tourism statistics, could to a certain extent be comparable with the higher visitor rate noted by respondents. The above ideas explain the partial overlapping of people with genius ranking and the statistics of vis- ited sites, respectively, in the case of those personalities who are more generally promoted in Romanian culture and whose heritage is more adequately preserved and presented to the general public. Moreover, respondents revealed the need for an improved valorization of famous personalities’ her- itage as a UNESCO site, which would bring multiple benefits to cultural tourism. Panzera, de Graaff and de Groot (2020) demonstrated that national and international (UNESCO) added values play the role of pull factors and may reduce the distance decay effect. The frequently chosen strengths (accommodation, museum services) or needs (conservation, signage in the territory, promotion, the quality of the guidance, the maintenance or organization and the spatial Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 49 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 49 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … accessibility) influence the demands of cultural heritage. Thus, more careful exploitation and the implicit preservation of heritage related to genius personalities is clearly perceived as increasing tourism resources and the number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as revenues in the field of culture and tourism or her- itage-oriented activities (Murzyn-Kupisz 2012). These are targets of the local sustainable tourism development, increasingly often argued for in tourism studies (Lanzinger and Garlandini 2019; Pop et al. 2019). The specificity and the spatial dispersion of such objectives requires the mitigation of certain defi- ciencies related to transport accessibility and signage (Wu and Guo 2013). The implementation of such a concept of tourism capitalization requires the combined and consistent effort of all stakeholders, from NGOs to local and national authorities, and even the EU in relation to the country’s spaces (Surugiu and Surugiu 2013). 5 Conclusions This article analysed the way in which Romanian tourists perceive the opportunities to boost cultural her- itage tourism in Romania, by capitalizing on famous personalities at national and international level. According to the tourists, 22 geniuses were validated from different fields and were recognized and request- ed by the national tourist market. Regarding the heritage of genius personalities from the perspective of visitors, around 60% of the per- sonalities identified by respondents were represented by one or more heritage buildings (Eminescu, Brâncuși, Enescu). These were either visited regularly and were well preserved or required certain conservation work, extra signage or information. The remaining 40% of personalities, identified by the respondents, are not commemorated in Romanian cultural heritage with memorial houses for several reasons, such as conflicts related to properties, the physical degradation of the building or the disappearance of the sites. In relation to the development of the heritage of genius personalities and the consideration of needs and benefits, it was found that setting up special projects based on their heritage and improving the quality of museum services were greatly appreciated among the respondents, while tourist information (guidance, interpretation) and the accessibility of these objectives to tourists required improvement. Moreover, the respondents regard that the development of the heritage of famous personalities would generate socio- economic benefits for the members of local communities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: All authors have made an equal contribution. We thank all museum officers who understood the importance of the research and provided us with the requested data regarding visi- tors. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions in finalizing the article. 6 References Ahmad, Y. 2006: The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639 Arisanty, D., Normelani, E., Putro, H. P. N., Anis, M. Z. A. 2019: The role of local government for local product processing: The implication for tourism sustainability in Lok Baintan Floating Market. Journal of Indonesian Tourism and Development Studies 7-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jitode. 2019.07.01.02 Ashworth, G. J., Tunbridge, J. E. 2000: The tourist-historic city. Retrospect and prospect of managing the heritage city. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080519470 Balažič, G. 2010: Integrating socialist cultural heritage into the tourism offer of the Municipality of Koper. Sustainable Tourism 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2495/ST100321 Băjenaru, I. 2012: Anghel Saligny: Omul şi monumentul. Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii 3-1. Beimel, T. 2013: Cantacuzino Palast: Die Geschichte des rumänischen Komponistenverbands. Musicology Today: Journal of the National University of Music Bucharest 13-4. Bejtja, S. and Bejtja, D. 2015: Comparative study in Central and Eastern Europe regarding restitution/ compensation process. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies 1-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.26417/ejes.v1i1.p31-45 50 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 50 Bellini, N., Baratta, V., Loffredo, A., Rovai, S. 2014: Chinese tourists in Tuscany: Redefining the relationship between heritage and authenticity. Proceedings of the Heritage. Tourism and Hospitality International Conference. Istanbul. Bertacchini, E., Nuccio, M., Durio, A. 2021: Proximity tourism and cultural amenities: Evidence from a regional museum card. Tourism Economics 27-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619890230 Bitušíková, A. 2021: Cultural heritage as a means of heritage tourism development. Muzeologia A Kulturne Dedicstvo/Museology and Cultural Heritage 9-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46284/mkd.2021.9.1.5 Bogan, E., Constantin, D. M., Grigore, E. 2018: The museum tourism in Bucharest, Romania. Quality – Access to Success 19. Bot, A. 2009: Dr George Emil Palade (1912–2008). International Reviews of Immunology 28-1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08830180902721041 Bucurescu, I. 2015: Managing tourism and cultural heritage in historic towns: examples from Romania. Journal of Heritage Tourism 10-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2014.968162 Busuioc, M. F. 2008: Strategii de dezvoltare şi promovare a turismului cultural în România. Bucharest. Buttimer, A. 1995: Vidal de la Blache: 1845–1918. Un GéAnie de la Géographie. Sanguin, A. L. Annals of The Association of American Geographers 85-2. Canale, R. R., De Simone, E., Di Maio, A., Parenti, B. 2019: UNESCO World Heritage sites and tourism attractiveness: The case of Italian provinces. Land Use Policy 85-C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2019.03.037 Carey, S., Davidson, L., Sahli, M. 2013: Capital city museums and tourism flows: An empirical study of the museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. International Journal of Tourism Research 15-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1874 Catrina, S. 2015: Local heritage interpretation by private »cultural agents« from Maramureș. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.361 Cellini, R., Cuccia, T. 2013: Museum and monument attendance and tourism flow: A time series analysis approach. Applied Economics 45-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.716150 Cocean, P. 2006: Turism cultural. Cluj-Napoca. Cochran, W. G. 1977: Sampling techniques. New York. Cohen, E. 1988: Authenticity and commoditizationin tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X Cohen-Hattab, K., Kerber, J. 2004: Literature, cultural identity and the limits of authenticity: A composite approach. International Journal of Tourism Research 6-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.470 Dean, A., Morgan, D., Tan, T. 2002: Service quality and customers’ willingness to pay more for travel services. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 12-2-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v12n02_06 Diaconu, A. M. 2002: Ion Creangă – Nonconformism și gratuitate. Cluj-Napoca. Diem, P., Ducluzeau, P. H., Scheen, A. 2022: The discovery of insulin. Diabetes Epidemiology and Management 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2021.100049 Doey, L., Kurta, J. 2011: Correspondence analysis applied to psychological research. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 7-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20982/TQMP.07.1.P005 Edson, G. 2004: Heritage: Pride or passion, product or service. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1352725042000257366 Fahy, D. 2018: The laureate as celebrity genius: How Scientific American’s John Horgan profiled Nobel Prize winners. Public Understanding of Science 27-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963662518762663 Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D. 1992: The museum experience. Washington DC. Fara, P. 2000: Isaac Newton lived here: sites of memory and scientific heritage. British Journal for The History of Science 33-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400004192 Foley, M., McPherson, G. 2010: Museums as leisure. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/135272500404205 Găină, D. 2019: Ctitor al învăţământului românesc – Petrache Poenaru (1799-1875) 220 de ani de la naştere. Confluenţe bibliologice: Revista de biblioteconomie şi ştiința informării 1. Goeldner, C. R., Ritchie, J. R. B. 2000: Tourism: Principles. Practices. Philosophies. New Jersey. Greenwood, D. J. 1977: Culture by the pound: An anthropological perspective on tourism as cultural commoditization. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.9783/9780812208016.169 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 51 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 51 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … Hall, D. R. 1991: Tourism opportunities. Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. London. Hall, D. R. 1995: Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europe. European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring. Chichester. Hidalgo, B. 2020: Cultural Heritage as a factor of resilient territorial development in rural areas. The case of Mértola (Portugal). Pasos: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 1. Hu, X. J., Rousseau, R. 2017: Nobel Prize winners 2016: Igniting or sparking foundational publications? Scientometrics 110-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2205-x Iatu, C., Bulai, M. 2011. New approach in evaluating tourism attractiveness in the region of Moldavia (Romania). International Journal of Energy and Environment 5. Kausar, D. R., Nishikawa, Y. 2010: Heritage tourism in rural areas: Challenges for improving socio- economic impacts. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10941661003629995 Kesar, O., Matečić, I., Hodak, D. F. 2018: The role of intangible cultural heritage in differentiation of cultural tourism products – The case of Zagreb. Proceedings of the Congress on the Tourism and Hospitality Industry: Trends and Challenges. Opatija. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1995: Theorizing Heritage. Ethnomusicology 39-3. Król, K. 2021: Assessment of the cultural heritage potential in Poland. Sustainability 13-12. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13126637 Lak, A., Gheitasi, M., Timothy, J. D. 2020: Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: cultural policies and strategic management. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14766825.2019.1668002 Lanzinger, M., Garlandini, A. 2019: Local development and sustainable development goals: A museum experience. Museum International 71-3,4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2019.1706945 Li, M., Wu, B., Cai, L. 2008: Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management 29-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.013 Light, D. 2000: Gazing on communism: Heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungry and Romania. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment 2-2. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14616680050027879 Lowenthal, D. 1998: The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge. Lushchyk, M. 2022: Geographical systematization of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology 31-2. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/112233 Lykogianni, E., Mobilio, L., Procee, R., Airaghi, E., Kern, P. H., Le Gall, A., Krohn, C., Vanhoutte, C. 2019: Material cultural heritage as a strategic territorial development resource: Mapping impacts through a set of common european socio-economic indicators, Targeted analysis. Luxembourg. Matei, E., Dumitrache, L., Manea, G., Vijulie, I., Tîrlă, L., Matei, D. 2013: Urban sustainable development of the Romanian small towns in the local communities and authorities’ perception. SGEM, Bulgaria 2. Matei, E., Ilovan, O. R., Sandu, C. B., Dumitrache, L., Istrate, M., Jucu, I. S., Gavrilidis A. A. 2021: Early Covid-19 pandemic impacts on society and environment in Romania. Perception among population with higher education. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 20-2. Maxim, C., Chasovschi, C. E. 2021: Cultural landscape changes in the built environment at World Heritage Sites: Lessons from Bukovina, Romania. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100583 McIntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R. 1986: Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. New York. Merciu, F. C., Petrişor, A. I., Merciu, G. L. 2021: Economic valuation of cultural heritage using the travel cost method: The historical centre of the Municipality of Bucharest as a Case Study. Heritage 4-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030133 Mgxekwa, B. B., Scholtz, M., Saayman, M. 2019: A typology of memorable experience at Nelson Mandela heritage sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism 14-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527339 Miklowitz, G. 1977: Nadia Comaneci. New York. Mironescu, A. 2018: Remembering the »National Poet«: From memoirs to postmemory. Philobiblon. Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in the Humanities 23. 197-210. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.26424/philobib.2018.23.2.04 52 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 52 Möller-Recondo, C., D’Amato, J. P. 2020: New genius-entrepreneurs: Itinerary and trajectories of university educational excellence. Comunicar 28-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-07 Munjal, P. G. 2019: Enhancing heritage tourism in small and medium towns by leveraging their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and skills. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 11-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-11-2018-0067 Muntean, A. C., Stremtan, F. 2012: Tourists satisfaction with the tourist offer of Alba Iulia historical fortress. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 13-4. Murzyn-Kupisz, M. 2012: Cultural, economic and social sustainability of heritage tourism: Issues and challenges. Economic and Environmental Studies 12- 2. Murzyn-Kupisz, M., Hołuj, D. 2020: Museums and coping with overtourism. Sustainability 12-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052054 Nerubasska, A., Maksymchuk, B. 2020: The demarkation of creativity, talent and genius in humans: A systemic aspect. Postmodern Openings 11-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.2/172 Neufeld, M. J. 1996: The Rocket and the Reich. Cambridge. Nicolaie, D. 2015: Sustainable tourism destinations: Cultural sites generated by Romanian geniuses as a potential resource for cultural tourism. Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analysis 3-1. Ngamsomsuke, W., Hwang, T. C., Huang, C. J. 2018: Sustainable cultural heritage tourism indicators. International Conference on Social Science and Humanity. Singapore. O’Connor, B. 1993: Myths and mirrors: Tourist images and national identity. Tourism in Ireland: A critical analysis. Cork. Ostaric, L. 2012: Kant on the normativity of creative production. Kantian Review 17-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1369415411000343 Owens, T. 2012: Tripadvisor rates Einstein: Using the social web to unpack the public meanings of a cultural heritage site. International Journal of Web Based Communities 8-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJWBC.2012.044681 Panzera, E., de Graaff, T., de Groot, H. L. F. 2021: European cultural heritage and tourism flows: The magnetic role of superstar World Heritage Sites. Papers in Regional Science 100-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/pirs.12562 Park, S., Kim, Y. R., Ho, C. S. T. 2022: Analysis of travel mobility under Covid-19: Application of network science. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 39-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2022.2089954 Pelegrini, S. 2008: World heritage sites, types and laws. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Paris. Pop, I. L., Borza, A., Buiga, A., Ighian, D., Toader, R. 2019: Achieving cultural sustainability in museums: A step toward sustainable development. Sustainability 11-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040970 Poria, Y., Reichel, A., Biran, A. 2006: Heritage site management: Motivations and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research 33-1.DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.001 Pretes, M. 2003: Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0160-7383(02)00035-X Robertson, P. 2008: What is musical genius? Clinical Medicine Journal 8-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/ clinmedicine.8-2-178 Ryan, T. 2013: Sample size determination and power. New Jersey. Schwartz, B. 1998: Postmodernity and historical reputation: Abraham Lincoln in late twentieth-century America memory. Social Forces 77-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/77.1.63 Seal, G. 1996: Consuming outlaws, the common good and heritage from below. Heritage, Culture and Identity: Heritage from Below. Gloucestershire. Simmons, J. 1996: The 100 Most Influential Scientists. Bucharest. Simonton, D. K. 1996: Individual genius within cultural configurations – The case of Japanese civilization. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022196273007 Simonton, D. K. 2018: Creative genius as causal agent in history: William James’s 1880 theory revisited and revitalized. Review of General Psychology 22-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000165 Smith, C. D., Wright, L. 2000: Perceptions of genius: Einstein, lesser mortals and shooting stars. The Journal of Creative Behavior 34-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01208.x Spiridon, P., Sandu, I., Stratulat, L. 2017: The conscious deterioration and degradation of the cultural heritage. International Journal of Conservation Science 8-1. Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 53 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 53 Daniela Nicolaie, Elena Matei, Timothy John Cooley, Iuliana Vijulie, David Cushing, Marius Nicolae Truțescu1, National … Stoica, G. D., Andreiana, V. A., Duică, M. C., Ștefan, M. C., Susanu, I. O., Coman, M. D., Iancu, D. 2022: Perspectives for the development of sustainable cultural tourism. Sustainability 14-9. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14095678 Sullivan, G. M., Artino, A. R. Jr. 2013: Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 5-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18 Surugiu, C., Surugiu, M. R. 2013: Is the tourism sector supportive of economic growth? Empirical evidence on Romanian tourism. Tourism Economics 19-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0196 Șerban, O. 2018: The primitive intangible heritage behind Brancusi’s modernist tangible forms of culture. Hermeneia 21. Ștefănică, M., Sandu, C. B., Butnaru, G. I., Haller, A. P. 2021: The nexus between tourism activities and environmental degradation: Romanian tourists’ opinions. Sustainability 13-16. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13169210 Tang, M., Werner, C. H., Hofreiter, S. 2018: Creativity alone does not make a star – social attributes of the nomination of creative icons: Results of a trend study in Germany. Frontiers in Psychology 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01944 Truong, T. L. H., Lenglet, F., Mothe, C. 2018: Destination distinctiveness: Concept, measurement, and impact on tourist satisfaction. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 8. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.04.004 Turtureanu, A. G., Pripoaie, R., Crețu, C. M., Sîrbu, C. G., Marinescu, E. Ş., Talaghir, L. G., Chițu, F. A. 2022: Projection approach of tourist circulation under conditions of uncertainty. Sustainability 14-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041964 Urry, J. 1990: The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London. Vita, C. 2018: Cultural tourism: the »minor« art center in Italy. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 7-6. Vlase, I., Lähdesmäki, T. 2023: A bibliometric analysis of cultural heritage research in the humanities: The Web of Science as a tool of knowledge management. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01582-5 Wei, W., Heerema, H., Rushfeld, R., Van der Lee, I. 2021: Issues in conservation-three value moments in the public perception of cultural heritage objects in public spaces. Collabra: Psychology 7-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.21935 Wolff, C. 2001: Defining genius: Early reflections of J.S. Bach’s self-image. Proceedings of The American Philosophical Society 145-4. Wu, X., Guo, X. 2013: The investigation of the competitiveness of tourism industry in Romania. Proceedings of the 2013 International Academic Workshop on Social Science. Changsha. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/iaw-sc.2013.55 Yale, P. 1991: From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. Huntingdon. Yilmaz, Y., El-Gamil, R. 2018: Cultural heritage management in Turkey and Egypt: A comparative study. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research 6-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30519/ahtr.446254 Yue, X. D., Bender, M., Cheung, C. K. 2011: Who are the Best-known national and foreign creators – A comparative study among undergraduates in China and Germany. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01082.x Zang, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Y., Woods, M., Fois, F. 2020: Rural decline or restructuring? Implications for sustainability transitions in rural China. Land Use Policy 94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2020.104531 54 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 54