Some conclusions of the perception of beneficiaries of european funds for tourism – the case of Romania, North-

(1)

71

Some conclusions of the perception of beneficiaries of european funds for tourism – the case of Romania, North-

East Region

Gina-Ionela BUTNARU

¹, Clara MINUT²

Abstract. In Romania, after 1989, beginning with the transition to market economy, changes took place, affecting tourism mainly. As a result, people tried to find solutions torevitalisetourismby elaborating development policies and marketing strategies. For the European Union, tourismis astrategic economic activity. In what concerns our country, it committed itself by signing the agreement of adhesion to EU. Therefore, the adhesion can be an impulsefor thedevelopment of Romanian economic and cultural patrimony.

Key words:North-East Region, Romania, tourism, European funds JEL Classification: M19, O22, R19, R58

1. Introduction

In the European Union were created four structural funds, onecohesion fund,and fundsof complementarytype: Regional Development European Fund (RDEF), createdin 1975; Social European Fund (SEF), created in 1958 by the Treaty of Rome;European Agricultural Orientation and Guarantee Fund (EAOGF),created in 1962 by the Mutual Agricultural Policy; Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), createdin 1984 to replace different separate financial instruments, which had been valid since 1976; Cohesion Fund (CF), createdby the Treaty of Maastricht, in 1993.The complementary fundsfollow the same implementation method as the structural funds, except that these are granted to the candidate countries to the European Union (Moşteanu, 2003, p. 52 – 53). Among thesefundsare the PHARE, ISPA, and SAPARD Programmes.

In Romania, the Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic Competitiveness (SOP IEC) and Regional Operational Programme (ROP) will be entirely financed by the Regional Development European Fund (RDEF).

Tourism can be an economic chance for Romania only if deep quantitative and qualitative changes are made not only in the specific and general infrastructure, but also in the managerial component.( Bucur-Sabo, 2006, p.9)

1Department of Economy and Business Administration, „Al. I. Cuza” University, Bulevardul Carol I, Nr.11, 700506, Iasi, Romania

2Department of Economy and Business Administration, „Al. I. Cuza” University, Bulevardul Carol I, Nr.11, 700506, Iasi, Romania

(2)

72

2. Analysis of statistical indicators in the North-East Region

Starting with the year 2006, in the countiesof North-East Region we can notice an increase of tourist accommodationcapacity in functionin fiveof the sixcounties.

One cause of this increase can be explained by the high degree of absorption of the European fundsin the field of tourism, and, implicitly, by the developmentof accommodation infrastructure.

For a more detailed situation, the graph no. 1offers a short presentation of the increase of the number of accommodationplaces in all six countiesof North-East Region. Consequently, the most significant increase was registered in the countiesof Iaşi, Neamţ and Suceava, which have a high tourist potential, and which attracted the highest number of European funds. At the same time, the counties Botoşani and Vaslui, though they try to get out from the unfavourable situation they are at present, they strongly deepen the differences among counties, realising a low progress according to the accommodationcapacity in function. In 2011, the tourist accommodationcapacity highly developed in SuceavaCounty, where more than 175,979 accommodation places in the tourist accommodationunits were registered as compared to the previous year.

Bacau Botosani Iasi Neamt Suceava Vaslui

Year 2006 941284 253477 812272 1263552 2056713 201523

Year 2007 933654 242402 824982 1269877 2087396 225159

Year2008 894746 231452 876339 1379014 2101836 233508

Year 2009 847807 256267 1081224 1563148 2176422 240594

Year2010 788481 303224 1175225 1566511 2263630 262189

Year 2011 777009 363519 1151647 1415637 2439609 276097

0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000

Places –days

Tourist accommodation capacity in function, in the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Figure 1 Graphical representation of tourist accommodation capacity in function, in counties of the North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Data source: www.insse.ro, Official site of The National Statistics Institute

Taking into account the fact that in the North-East Region most of the financing were granted for the construction or renovation of touristB&B and agritourist households, we chose these two forms of accommodationin order to emphasise the way in which these financing operations influenced tourists’ arrivals and check-ins in theseaccommodation unitsfrom 2006 to 2011, the period previous to financing and during the actual implementationof the projects.

(3)

73

Year 2006 1158 3230 7858 4804 24298 1936

Year 2007 1826 2782 10461 4955 23121 2794

Year 2008 1624 4076 12577 7423 18076 1334

Year 2009 1164 4832 16938 6759 16736 831

Year 2010 1663 6219 15724 8003 20319 2280

Year 2011 2743 7821 14578 9357 24530 3668

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Number of persons

Tourists’ arrivals at the tourist B&Bs of the counties of North- East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Figure 2Graphical representation of tourists’ arrivals in the tourist B & Bs in the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

As we can notice from the graph no. 3, tourists’ check-ins at thetouristB&Bs registered major fluctuations in SuceavaCounty, with 15,008 more in 2011 as compared to 2006, continuing the ascending trend of the tourism sector in this county. As compared to the period previous to obtaining European financing, we notice in 2011 a significant increase of the number of check-ins in the countieswith a lower tourist potential, as Vaslui, Bacău and Botoşani.

Year 2006 2098 6888 13783 6377 51359 1946

Year 2007 3776 6549 21535 7142 57110 2934

Year2008 3006 6751 19740 12636 41137 1428

Year 2009 1584 5818 26714 12162 36795 1720

Year 2010 3916 7676 24978 13478 45500 3529

Year 2011 6940 9234 24630 15733 66367 4424

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Number

Tourists’ check-ins at the tourist B&Bs of the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Figure 3 Graphical representation of tourists’ check-ins at the tourist B & Bs of the counties of the North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Analysing the graph no. 4, we can notice that the highest number of tourists’arrivals at the agritourist households of the countiesof North-East Regionare registered in NeamţCounty, which is leading with a number of 45,361 arrivals in 2011, double as compared to the year 2006. Furthermore, the number of tourists’ arrivals at the agritouristhouseholds of Suceava County registered in 2011 an impressive increase (with 13,358 more arrivals in 2011, as compared to 2006),

(4)

74

compared with the period previous to obtaining financing by The Regional Operational Programme POR 2007-2013. At the other side are the counties Botoşani and Bacău, which registered the lowest number of arrivals in 2011.

Year 2006 7799 0 4667 18473 20562 1291

Year 2007 6929 0 6166 24455 25547 1578

Year2008 5553 0 6562 32829 26743 2958

Year 2009 2907 0 6790 40463 24320 2891

Year 2010 2735 0 6682 37310 23206 3468

Year 2011 2772 382 7059 45361 33920 5412

50000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000

Number of persons

Tourists’ arrivals at the agritourist households of the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Figure 4 Graphical representation of tourists’ arrivals at the agritourist households of the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

We notice from the graph no. 5that the number of tourists’ check-ins at the agritourist B&Bs of Neamţ County maintained on an ascending trend from 2006 up to present. In 2011, the number of check-ins increased by 40% as compared with 2006. At the same time, in Suceava County registered a spectacular increase of the number of check-ins at the agritourist householdsin 2011, 57% more than in 2006.

Year 2006 11192 0 8746 28348 45156 1345

Year 2007 9828 0 11107 38209 56543 1705

Year 2008 8083 0 14956 52442 54996 3125

Year 2009 4558 0 14436 65844 53801 2947

Year 2010 4008 0 12867 63231 51057 3583

Year 2011 3518 742 13604 71893 78970 8356

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000

Number

Tourists’ check-ins at the agritourist households of the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

Figure 5 Graphical representation of the tourists’ check-ins at the agritourist households of the counties of North-East Region, from 2006 to 2011

(5)

75

In conclusion, the number of places of theaccommodation units increased at a high speed in five of the six countiesfrom 2006 to 2011, which could be explained by the high degree of absorption of the European fundsin the field of tourism. Also, the number of arrivals or check-ins increased mostly in 2011 as a result of numerous promotion campaigns of tourist objectives in Romania, and especially in the North-East Region, as well as the improvement of infrastructure of tourist accommodation.

3. SWOT analysis of theNorth-East Region

SWOT analysis realises development scenarios based on the analysis of all possible alternatives, and has the purpose to identify strengths and weaknessesspecific to the region, as well as opportunities and threats induced by the external environment of the region. This analysis has the advantage of a quick survey of the key-points of a discussion, and, implicitly, of the directions of action in order to find solutions.

Table 1

SWOT analysis of the North-East Region

Strengths Weaknesses

-Geographical position – attractive natural landscape; very diverse relief– a special natural area; diverse flora and fauna.

-Possibility to practice several types of tourismall over the year (in all the seasons).

- The region benefits from the presence of numerous historical monuments of national and international importance (UNESCO).

- In the North-East Regionthere is the highest number of museums and public collections – 9 units of national importance are concentratedin Iaşi.

- Diversified cultural offer: festivals, exhibitions, customs and traditions.

- Diversity of national parks and of protected natural areas (national natural parksand reservations, included in the European reservation Natura 2000) – 4.96% of the total surfaceof protected area of Romania.

- Existence of mineral springs in the spas,important both from a quantitative and qualitative point of view.

- Low pollution in most of the rural areas.

- Diversity of ecological products.

- Threeuniversity centreswithbasic infrastructurein the field of research, development and innovationin Iaşi,

- Low level of modern roads infrastructure, as well as inappropriate connections by air. (Neamţ County does not have an airport, though it is on top of the most visited countiesofNorth-East Region).

- Treatment facilities of some spas have a high degree of wear and they are not adapted to the European standards.

- Low level of cooperation between air transport operators and tourism agencies – absence of “all inclusive” packages.

- Low accessibility West-Eastdue to the lack of a European corridor Transilvania – Moldova.

- Low degree of tourist occupation in relation with the existent accommodation capacity.

- High rate of unemployment in the area(12.3% in Vaslui county).

- Insufficient measures taken for the maintenance of historical and cultural monuments.

(6)

76 Suceava and Bacău.

- Threeinternational airports in Iaşi, Bacău and Suceava.

Opportunities Threats

- Restoration/renovation/rehabilitation oftourist objectives of the cultural- historical patrimony,and their tourist capitalisation.

- High international interest in cultural tourism, agritourism, and rural,adventure tourism.

- Very good exploitation perspectives of the mountain areas all over the year by hiking, trekking, climbing, horse riding, extreme sports, ski.

- Tourism financing opportunities by European funds.

- Implementation of tourist infrastructure projects by the local public administration.

- Capital infusion from the people working abroad.

- Low preoccupation in the developmentof small craftsmen and in the distribution network of specific handmade products.

- Lack of collaboration among regions for tourism development.

- Weak competitiveness of theprofile companies in the region with the ones in the EU member states.

- Strong competition in tourist external destinations at similar prices and superior conditions.

- Degradation of rural architectural patrimonyby depopulation of rural localities and communities.

- Increase of the degree of poverty of the population of the region.

- Continuous migration process of qualified labour.

4. Results of the research 4.1. Research methodology

Research aspect: Which is the perception of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourismin theNorth-East Regionof Romania?

This researchhas the main purpose to learn the perception of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourismin theNorth-East Region.

The objectives of theresearch subordinated to the purpose mentioned above are as follows:

O.1.Obtaining the necessary data, using the questionnaire as data collectioninstrument, applied to the beneficiaries of European funds for tourismin theNorth-East Region.

O.2.The analysis concerning the attitude of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourismin theNorth-East Regionas compared to the services of The North- EastRegionalDevelopment Agency (NE RDA).

Theresearch hypotheseswhich we will verify are as follows:

H1:By the implication in the implementation of tourism projects, The North-EastRegional Development Agency highly contributed to the developmentof tourismin the North-East Region, with a contracting degree of 74.4% of the allocations of the Regional DevelopmentEuropean Fund in the North-East Region.

(7)

77

H2:Up to present, The North-EastRegional Development Agency has fulfilled its attributions as an Intermediate Organism for the Operational RegionalProgramme 2007 - 2013.

H3:The degree of satisfaction that the beneficiaries ofEuropean funds for tourismin theNorth-East Regionhave with the services of TheNorth-EastRegional Development Agency is high.

4.2. Considerations concerning the elaboration of the questionnaire applied tothe beneficiaries of European funds for tourismin theNorth- East Region

The research method is quantitative, and the research technique that was used was the enquiry based on questionnaire (Strategii si metode de cercetare psihologică, Lector Sandina Ilie http://portal.feaa.uaic.ro/, accessed on the 11th of June, 2012).

Justification of the research–This research is justified by the interest presented by the subject investigated, in the context of obtaining European financing in the field of tourismin the period 2007-2013.

Research technique–Enquiry based on questionnaire.

Justification of the method–The method of enquiry involves the collection ofinformation about members of the target population contained in a representative sample.

Advantages of themethod:

 The persons realising the enquiry can easier convince the persons approached to fill the questionnaire;

 The interview operators can offer further information to the subjects, helping them to formulate precise answers;

 It is easy to realise;

 It does not involve high costs.

Disadvantages of the method:

 The interview operators can influence the answers by the attitude towards the subjects (of approval or rejection);

 The answering rate is quite low;

 The time pressure is high, therefore long and complex questionnaires cannot be administered.

The realisation of the questionnaire is a very important activity for the future development of the enquiry based onquestionnaire.

From the point of view of the structure, the questionnaire applied to the beneficiariesof European fundsfortourismin theNorth-East Region starts with an introduction mentioning the purpose of the questionnaire, followed by the questionsof the enquiry based on questionnaire.

The formulation of the questionhad in view the following elements:

 To refer to a single aspect;

 To be intelligible;

 Not to influence the answering subject.

The validation of the questions – according to the three criteria:

 Comprehension–technical words are not used;

 Capability–the filter questions assure the operators that the subjects can answer the questions of thequestionnaire;

 Honesty–is assured by mentioning the confidentiality of the answers, and the fact that identification data about the subjects are not asked.

(8)

78 Arranging and grouping thequestions

The questionnairecomprises ninequestions,and it is structured on three parts:

I. Introductivequestion(question 1)

Question no. 1.We chose to use a binary scale for this filter question with the purpose to establish if the subject is capable to provide the information desired. If the answer is affirmative, the subject will be able to continue to fill the questionnaire, and if the answer is negative, the poll will end, because if the subjects are not the beneficiaries ofEuropean fundsfortourism, they cannot offer the information we need.

II. The study of the perceptions of the beneficiaries of European fundsfortourismin the North-East Region concerning the implications of NE RDAinthe developmentof Romanian tourism(questions no. 2 - 7) Question no. 2contains the Likert scale,and it was applied with the purpose to learn the perceptions of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region concerning the implications of NE RDA in the development of Romanian tourism, and if NE RDA fulfilled its attributions as an Intermediate Organism forROP.

Question no. 3requires the beneficiaries of European fundsfortourismin the North- East Region to state what they appreciate at NE RDA,and which is the first aspect taken into consideration when they declare their degree of satisfaction concerning the implications of this agency in the developmentof Romanian tourism.

Question no. 4asks the opinion of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region concerning the implications of NE RDA in regional and national tourism.

Question no. 5. The purpose of this question is to find out if thebeneficiaries of European funds for tourism were unsatisfied with the services ofNE RDA.

Question no. 6contains a Likert scale,and is formulated with the purpose to determine the global satisfaction of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism with the services of NE RDA.

Question no. 7tries to find out if the beneficiaries are willing to collaborate with NE RDA for a future project.

III. Questions of characterisation (questions no. 8-9)

Question no. 8 is formulated with the purpose to find out the exact name of the institution or organisation in order to get the confirmation that we applied where it was necessary.

Question no. 9has the purpose to find out the beneficiary’s area of activity. The question contains a nominal scale with the purpose to find out the dominant number of theinstitutions that benefited / are benefiting from European fundsfortourism, either public or private.

The format of the questionnaire – three A4 pages;

The time necessary to fill a questionnaire – approximately 5 minutes.

4.3. Aspects concerning the structure of the sample under research

The sampling technique. The selection of the subjects who will be invited to answer the questions of the pollcan be realised either randomly, or purposefully (based on rules established in advance). In the present case, we decided to choose the method of controlled, logical sampling, as we interviewed only the persons related to the subject of the enquiry, that are the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in theNorth-East Region.

(9)

79

Target population:the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North- East Regionhaving theNorth-EastRegional Development Agency as Intermediate Organism.

Sampling unit – the beneficiary of European funds for tourism in the North-East Regionhaving the North-EastRegional Development Agency as Intermediate Organism.

In the present research we used the questionnaire as adata collection instrument, on a sample of 13of 33beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region.

Place of data collection:collecting the data from the subjects in the counties Botoşani, Vaslui, Bacău, Suceava, Neamţ was realised by sending the questionnaireby e-mail.The data collection from the beneficiaries of IaşiCounty was realised by the intercepted enquiry.

Datacollectionwas developed between 30^th of January and 2^nd of March 2012.

4.4.Testing the research hypotheses

Testing a statistical hypothesis involves going through some stages, and solving the problems implied,as follows:

1.The hypotheses are formulated, according to the subject under discussion.

2.A statistical test is chosen, according to the distribution of statistics selection.

3.A significance threshold α is chosen for the test.

4.The decision rules are established, defining the regions “of acceptance” and “of rejection” of hypothesis H0.

5.The value of the test statistics is calculated, using the data registered by the enquiry poll.

6.The calculated value of the test statistics is compared with the theoretical value.

7.The decision of rejecting or not rejecting the admitted hypothesis is taken.

The hypothesis we wish to test is called nullhypothesis,and is symbolically namedH0. By thenull hypothesis, H0, we mainly admit that there is no difference between the values compared. The null hypothesis H0 is the hypothesiswe want to discredit.

H0: µ1=µ2 (Sig. > α)

The hypothesiswe wish to test in opposition with the null hypothesis is called alternativehypothesis,symbolically namedH1. The alternative is the hypothesis which will be accepted if by the rule of decision the null hypothesis is rejected.

Hypothesis H1 isthe hypothesiswe want to prove it is true.

H1: µ1 ≠ µ2 (Sig. < α)

All the results obtained after the application of the questionnaireswere processed with the help of the programme SPSS,alternative 13.0.

H1:By the implication in the implementation of tourism projects, The North-EastRegional Development Agency highly contributed to the development of tourism in the North-East Region, with a contracting degree of 74.4% of the allocations of the Regional Development European Fund in the North-East Region.

It is checked if there are significant differences betweenthe mean value allocated to the North-East Region, and the meanvalue contracted in the North-East Region.

The test is realised with the help of“One-Sample T Test”.

Interpretation of the results. The outputs, One-Sample Statistics and One-Sample T Testforthe variable“proportion of mean value contracted from the meanvalue allocated” presents: the observedmeanvalue equal to 92.35%; the specified value

(10)

80

equal to 74.4%; the difference between the observed value and the hypothetical value of 17.95%.

Table2

“One-Sample Statistics”report forhypothesis H1

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

prop 2 92.3599 .66184 .46799

Table 3

“One-Sample Test”report forhypothesisH1

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 74.4

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence interval of the

Difference Lower Upper

prop 38.377 1 .017 17.95988 12.0135 23.9062

The value of the degree of significance Sig. (probability) equal to 0.017 is lower than the value 0.05, considered in theConfidence interval, which shows that there is asignificant differencebetweenthe observed mean value and the specified one, or, more precisely, the implementationof the projects by NE RDAinfluenced significantly the developmentof tourismin the North-East Region.

Consequently, the nullhypothesis is rejected.

H2: Up to present, The North-EastRegional Development Agency has fulfilled its attributions as an Intermediate Organism for the Operational Regional Programme 2007 – 2013.

It is checked if there are significant differences between the mean value of the answers obtained at question no. 4 of the questionnaire concerning the perception of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region of the implications of the North-EastRegional Development Agency in the development of Romanian tourism,and the mean value of the total specified grading. The test is realised with the help of “One-Sample T Test”.

Interpretation of the results. The outputs, One-Sample Statistics and One-Sample T Test for the variable “meanvalue of the answers obtained at question no. 4 of the questionnaire” presents: the observed mean value equal to 22.84; the specified value equal to 39; the difference between the observed value and the hypothetical value of -16.15.

(11)

81

Table4“One-Sample Statistics”report forhypothesis H2

Std. Error Mean

pnctj_tot_ip2 13 22.8462 2.19265 .60813

Table5“One-Sample Test”report forhypothesis H2

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 39

Mean Difference

Difference Lower Upper pnctj_tot_ip2 -26.563 12 .000 -16.15385 -17.4788 -14.8288

The value of the degree of significance Sig. (probability) equal to 0.000is lower than the value 0.05, considered in theConfidence interval, which shows that there are significant differences between the observed mean value and the specified one, which proves that, according to the subjects, The North-EastRegional Development Agencyhas fulfilled up to present its attributions as an Intermediate Organism for theOperational Programme 2007 – 2013.

Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected.

H3:The degree of satisfaction that the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Regionhave with the services of the North-EastRegional Development Agency is high.

It is checked if there are significant differences between the mean value of the answers obtained at question no. 3 of the questionnaire concerning the satisfaction of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region with the services offered by the North-EastRegional Development Agency, and the mean value of the total specified grading. The test is realised with the help of

“One-Sample T Test”.

Interpretation of the results. The outputs, One-Sample Statistics and One-Sample T Test for the variable “mean value of the answers obtained at question no.3of the questionnaire” presents: the observed mean value equal to 36.15; the specified value equal to 39; the difference between the observed value and the hypothetical value of -2.84.

Table6“One-Sample Statistics”report forhypothesis H3

(12)

82

Std. Error Mean

pnctj_tot_ip3 13 36.1538 3.64797 1.01177

Table7“One-Sample Test”report forhypothesis H3

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 39

Mean Difference

Difference Lower Upper

pnctj_tot_ip3 -2.813 12 .016 -2.84615 -5.0506 -.6417

The value of the degree of significance Sig. (probability) equal to 0.016 is lower than the value 0.05, considered in the Confidence interval, which shows that there are significant differences between the observed mean value and the specified one.

Therefore, the degree of satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the services of theNorth-EastRegional Development Agency is high.

Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected.

In the“One-Sample Statistics”report are presented:

- N–the size of the sample (number of answers from the sample– 13);

- Mean–average of the sample;

- Std. Deviation – standard deviation;

- Std. Error Mean–standard error of the mean.

In the “One-Sample Test”output are presented:

- Test Value–the value with which the mean of the sample was compared;

- T–the result of the Student statistics;

- Sig.–probability;

- Mean Difference– difference between the mean of the sampleand the tested value;

- 95% Confidence interval of the Difference–the confidence interval of the Mean Difference value with lower limit (Lower) and upper limit (Upper).

As a result of testing the three research hypotheses, we can conclude the following:

 The contribution of theNorth-EastRegional Development Agency to the developmentof tourismin theNorth-East Region is significant, which is demonstrated by the high degree of contracting funds.

 The 13 beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region consider that up to present, NE RDAhas fulfilled its obligations as an Intermediate Organism for the Operational Regional Programme 2007- 2013.

 The degree of satisfaction of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region with the services of NE RDA is high.

(13)

83

5. Conclusions, limits, perspectives of the research

The subject of this paper is of great interest in the context in which the European Uniongave Romania a chance to revitalise the tourism industry by theimplementationof regional development programmes. The presence of tourism among the priority domains within the Operational Regional Programme 2007- 2013 financed by RDEF creates the premisesof development of this field, and of capitalisation of the potential in the region, with the help of European financing.

Tourism developmentcan give an impulse to other domains, consequently developing the North-East Region.

As a result of this research, we can conclude that The North-EastRegional Development Agency contributed significantly to the developmentof national tourism, especially of the tourism from the North-East Region, which is demonstrated by the high degree of contracting European fundsforregional development. The period of time from 2007 to 2011 brought changes in the tourismof North-East Regionin what concerns the capacity ofaccommodation, the number of tourists’ arrivals and check-ins, which registered higher values as compared to the previous period of theOperational Regional Programme 2007- 2013.

From thisanalysis resulted that the main beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Regionwere local public administrations, county councils, city halls, and also private beneficiaries.

According to the answers received, the subjects consider that the North- EastRegional Development Agency fulfilled its tasks as an Intermediate Organism for theOperational Regional Programme 2007 – 2013.

As a result of the answers received from the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region, we conclude that their degree of satisfaction with the services of the North-EastRegional Development Agency is high, and that the favourable experience determined 46% of the subjects to declare that they intended, or that it waspossiblefor them to collaborate with NE RDAforafuture project.

Limits of the research.In what concerns the limits of this research, we can present the following aspects:

 Regarding the empiric study realised, the limits of the research based on questionnaireare inherent, starting from the number of interviewed persons and ending with the answers obtained.

 Difficultiesin obtaining information, impossibility to contact somebeneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North-East Region.

Perspectives of the research.Taking into account the limits of the research, in what concerns the perspectives of the research, the following directions of research can be identified:

 A new analysis based on questionnaire, in order to enlarge the sample area, where it would be useful to obtain the opinion of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the otherDevelopment Regions of Romania, at the closing of the Operational Regional Programme 2007-2013.

 Also, based on the analysis of the statistical indicators in tourism, a general perspective can be obtained over the way in which the absorption of European fundsfor tourismdid or did not influence the number of tourists’ arrivals and check- insduring the whole period of project development(2007-2013).

(14)

84 Acknowledgement

This work was supported from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/1.5/S/ 59184 „Performance and excellence in postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domain”.

6. Referances

Avrămescu, T. C. (2008).Turism, guvernare şi dezvoltare durabilă, Universitară, Bucureşti

Avrămescu, T. C. (2005).Direcţiile implicării autorităţilor publice centrale şi locale în dezvoltarea turismului durabil,Doctor degree thesis, ASE

Buruiană, Andreea, I. (2009).Analiza statistică a dezvoltării regionale din România, PIM, Iaşi Butnaru, Gina, Ionela (2009).Strategii manageriale pentru asigurarea calităţii produselor şi serviciilor turistice, Tehnopress, Iaşi

Covăsianu, A. (2011).Regiunile de dezvoltare în România europeană. Între deziderat politic şi realitate teritorială,Doctor degree thesis, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Iaşi

Drosu, Ş. D., Găinuşă, Nicolae, Raluca (2011).Fondurile structurale ale Uniunii Europene, Universul Juridic, Bucureşti

Dumitrică, C. D. (2012).Aplicarea principiilor dezvoltării regionale în România, Doctor degree thesis, Bucureşti

Ionescu, Claudia, Toderaş, N. (2007).Politica de dezvoltare regională, Tritonic, Bucureşti Iuhaş, V. (2004).Dezvoltarea economică regională, Emia, Deva

Jaba, Elisabeta, Grama, Ana (2004).Analiza statistică cu SPSS sub Windows, Polirom, Iaşi Jula, D. (2002).Strategia şi politica de dezvoltare regională a României, Estfalia, Bucureşti

Mateoc, Sîrb, Nicoleta (coord.) (2010).Dezvoltare regională şi rurală. Evoluţie şi tendinţe, Mirton, Timişoara

Mihăilă, Doina (2009).Implicaţii ale aplicării legislaţiei europene asupra managementului dezvoltării regionale,Doctor degree thesis, Galaţi

Moşteanu, Narcisa, R. (2003).Finanţarea dezvoltării regionale în România, Economică, Bucureşti Niculescu, G., Rus, Felicia (2010).Turismul în regiunile de dezvoltare ale României, Academica Brâncuşi, Târgu-Jiu

Pascariu, G. (2006).Analiză regională şi urbană, University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu”, Bucureşti

Pop, V. (coord.) (2006).Management, economie şi dezvoltare regională durabilă, Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca

Puşcaşu, V. (2000).Dezvoltarea regională, Economică, Bucureşti

Roşca, E. (coord.) (2006).Dezvoltare regională în contextul integrării în UE, Economică, Bucureşti Roşca, E. (coord.) (2005).Teorie şi practică în dezvoltarea regională, Economică, Bucureşti

Sharpley, R., Telfer D. J. (2004).Tourism and development: concepts and issues, Channel View Publications, Great Britain

Ungureanu, G., Mateoc, Sîrb, Nicoleta (2009).Dezvoltare regională şi rurală, Tipo Moldova, Iaşi

A. Legislation

Law no. 215/2004 concerning regional developmentin Romania, Official Monitor577/2004

(15)

85

Regulation of organisation and functioning of the North-East Regional Development Council, published in Official Monitor 987/27 Oct. 2004

Romania’s Parliament, Chamber of Deputies, Lawno. 151/1998concerning the regional developmentin Romania and the regime of unfavoured areas, Regia Autonomă Publishing House, Bucureşti, 1999

B. Articles and publications

*** (2011), REGIO Magazine – Operational Regional Programme

*** (2010), OECD Tourism Trends and Policies, OECD Publishing, Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development

*** (2011),Butnaru Gina-ionela, Timu Florina-iuliana, European Union and Development of Romanian Tourism, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University

*** (2003), Casey J. Dawkins, Regional Development Theory: Conceptual Foundations, Classic Works, and Recent Developments, Journal of Planning Literature, http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/18/2/131, DOI: 10.1177/0885412203254706

*** (2011), Nuṭă Florian Marcel, Public environmental spending and the economic growth in Romania, EuroEconomica, Vol 29, No 3http://www.journals.univ-

danubius.ro/index.php/euroeconomica/article/view/986/822

*** (2009), Scutariu Adrian Liviu, Năstase Carmen, Popescu Mihai, Tourist Activity in North- Eastern Romania from the Regional Development Perspective, “Ştefan cel Mare” University, Suceava

C. Internet sources

***http://www.adrnordest.ro/index.php?page=PROGRAMMES_PRESENTATiON, accessed on the 30^th of January, 2012

***http://www.adrnordest.ro, Official site of The North-EastRegional Development Agency, accessed between30^th of January, 2012 and 10^th of June, 2012

***http://www.funds-structurale.ro

Plan forNorth-East Regional Development 2007-2013, accessed between 2^nd of February, 2012 and10^th of June, 2012

***http://www.ier.ro/documente/formare/Politica_regionala.pdf

Official site of the European Institute of Romania, Regional development policy, series Micro- monographs – European Policies,accessed on the2^nd of February, 2012.

***http://www.insse.ro,Official site of theNational Institute of Statistics,accessed between30^th of January, 2012 and 10^th of June, 2012

***http://www.inforegio.roaccessed between30^th of January, 2012 and 10^th of June, 2012

***http://www.inforegionordest.ro/documente/adrnordest/buletin/pdr_nord_est_2007_2013.pdf

***http://www.mdrl.ro/index.php?p=205, site of theMinistry of Regional Development and Tourism

***http://www.mdrt.ro, official site of the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, accessed between30^th of January, 2012 and 10^th of June, 2012

(16)

86

***http://www.mmuncii.ro/, official site of the Ministry of Work, Family and Social Protection, accessed between2^nd of February, 2012 and 10^th of June, 2012

Appendix

I. List of the beneficiaries of European funds for tourism in the North- East Region (Axis 5, Fields 5.1 and 5.2).

Field County Stage of implementation

Title of the project Name of the beneficiary of

the project

Type of beneficiary

Financial non- reimbursable assistance

(RON)

5.1 SV In

implementation

Rehabilitation of Suceava Fortress and of its

protective area

Suceava County

APL 41.032.113

5.1 SV In

implementation

Repairing, rehabilitation and modernisation of patrimony objective “Art Museum Ion Irimescu” of Fălticeni Municipality

Fălticeni Municipality

APL 4.516.877

5.1 SV In

implementation

Restoration and preservation of the cultural patrimony and modernisation of related

infrastructure at the Monastery of Moldoviţa,

Suceava County

Monastery of

Moldoviţa APL 5.693.102

5.1 SV In

implementation

infrastructure at the Monastery of Dragomirna,

Suceava County

Monastery of Dragomirna

APL 20.600.154

5.1 SV In

implementation

infrastructure at the Monastery of Suceviţa,

Suceava County

Monastery of

Suceviţa APL 5.193.314

5.1 BT In

implementation

Restoration and lasting capitalisation of the cultural patrimony, as well

as creation/modernisation of related infrastructures of the area Ventura House

of Botoşani Municipality in order to arrange the Ethnographic Museum of

Botoşani County

APL 9.712.593

5.1 NT In

implementation

Restoration and capitalisation of the tourist

and cultural area “Curtea Domnească” of Piatra Neamţ – by rehabilitation,

endowment and capitalisation of the patrimony sites and buildings: Ethnographic

Museum, Art Museum, Theatre of the Youth, Stephen the Great’s Tower

Piatra Neamţ Municipality

APL 23.175.243

(17)

87

5.1 IS In

implementation

Rehabilitation and tourist integration of the historical monument ensemble “St. Sava”, Iaşi

Parish “St.

Sava”

APL 15.614.930

5.1 IS In

implementation

Rehabilitation and tourist development of the historical monument Banu

Church, Iaşi

Parish

“Duminica tuturor sfinţilor” –

Banu, Iaşi

APL 8.465.905

5.1 IS In

implementation

Tourist capitalisation of the metropolitan ensemble

of Iaşi

Metropolitan Church of Moldova and

Bucovina

APL 43.668.202

5.1 VS In

implementation

Rehabilitation of the historical centre of Bârlad

Municipality

Vaslui County APL 14.573.186

5.1 VS In

implementation

Historical monument ensemble of the Church

“Tăierea capului Sfântului Ioan Botezătorul” and archaeological site in the

area of rulers’ courts – Vaslui. Restoration, consolidation and tourist

capitalisation.

Parish “Sf.

Ioan II”

APL 8.793.458

5.2 SV In

implementation

Modernisation, extension of Alpin Hotel – standard

of elegance and refinement

SC MERIDIAN TURISM SA

S.C. 2.194.927

5.2 SV In

implementation

Increasing the quality of tourist services of the

B&B “Leagănul Bucovinei” by extension

and modernisation of infrastructure of tourist

accommodation

SC Leagănul Bucovinei SRL

S.C. 1.696.888

5.2 SV In

implementation

Modernisation of tourist and recreational services by building a SPA centre and club at the B&B

“Şandru”, Câmpulung Moldovenesc

SC Rodalpin Impex SRL

S.C. 1.781.004

5.2 SV In

implementation

Extension and modernisation of tourist B&B “El Quatro” Voroneţ

SC ELSACO INTERNATIO NAL SRL

S.C. 3.740.027

5.2 SV In

implementation

Recreational complex Lunca Dornelor

Vatra Dornei Municipality

APL 13.455.617

5.2 SV Accomplished

contract

Winter mountain park Dealu Negri, Vatra Dornei

SC Telescaun Negreşti SRL

S.C. 1.886.656

5.2 BT In

implementation

Improvement of tourist product by the extension

and modernisation of

“Belvedere” 3* Hotel

SC Belvedere SRL

S.C. 7.049.089

5.2 BT In

implementation

Regional recreational tourist and sports park

“Cornişa” Botoşani

Botoşani Municipality

APL 33.431.938

5.2 BT Accomplished

contract

Extension and modernisation of B&B

and restaurant

SC Splendid SRL

S.C. 2.540.854

5.2 NT In

implementation

Extension of Mariko INN Complex

SC Nemase Comprod SRL

S.C. 4.168.822

5.2 NT In

implementation

ROCOM – Role of Central Hotel – innovative

SC RO COM Central SA

S.C. 7.943.351

(18)

88

Data sources:www.mdrt.ro,

Official site of the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism concept in the

modernisation of tourism infrastructure of Neamţ

County

5.2 NT In

implementation

Modernisation and extension of Roman Hotel

SC Turoag SA S.C. 4.943.242

5.2 NT In

implementation

Development of tourist infrastructure on Cozla Mountain, Piatra Neamţ

Municipality

Piatra Neamţ Municipality

APL 23.282.449

5.2 NT In

implementation

Modernisation of accommodation structure,

extension of front-desk and modernisation of the

restaurant, Doina Hotel, Târgu Neamţ

SC Romeo CO

& D SRL

S.C. 3.482.750

5.2 NT Accomplished

contract

INTURIS – important component of modernisation of regional infrastructure of historical tourism in Neamţ county –

Modernisation and extension “Casa Arcaşului” Motel of Târgu

Neamţ

Supercoop – cooperative

company Târgu Neamţ

S.C. 1.461.024

5.2 IS In

implementation

“Royal” Recreational Centre

SC Gemada Serv SRL

S.C. 45.544.000

5.2 IS In

implementation

Extension of building and accommodation area on a private land, building a

private parking lot

SC Auto-Gas SRL

S.C. 8.421.165

5.2 IS In

implementation

“Ciric” recreational area Iaşi Municipality

APL 17.653.387

5.2 IS In

implementation

SPASIA –recreational centre and spa

SC Valgos SRL

S.C. 43.813.117

5.2 BC In

implementation

Modernisation and extension of Dumbrava

Hotel of Bacău Municipality

SC Agroindustriala

SA

S.C. 3.593.771

5.2 BC In

implementation

Ski Park Slănic Moldova Bacău County APL 8.687.971