Analysis of Romania's and Transylvania's Tourist Supply Development and Performance

Coroș, Monica Maria; Negrușa, Adina Letitia Article Analysis of Romania's and Transylvania's Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic Journal Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Coroș, Monica Maria; Negrușa, Adina Letitia (2014) : Analysis of Romania's and Transylvania's Tourist Supply Development and Performance, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 16, Iss. Special No. 8, pp. 1312-1326 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/168895 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ AE Analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic 1312 ANALYSIS OF ROMANIA’S AND TRANSYLVANIA’S TOURIST SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE Monica Maria Coroş1* and Adina Letiţia Negruşa2 1) 2) Babeş-Bolyai University from Cluj-Napoca, Romania Abstract The paper’s premise is that a strong link exists between Romania’s poor tourism performance and the quality of its hospitality supply. In this respect, a comparative analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s tourist offering is carried out aiming at identifying the particularities of their development and the causes of their poor performance. The motivation for having chosen Transylvania resides in this region’s attractiveness among foreign tourists; it is a destination with a high potential favoring the development of some tourist products competitive on the international market. Thus, based on a comprehensive secondary data analysis regarding the public lodging facilities, the paper presents their geographic dispersion, the development of the accommodation capacity by levels of classification, the number of available beds, the types of units, the structures’ international affiliation, the main Romanian owners, etc. The dispersion by levels of classification, together with the net usage indexes of the accommodation capacity, characterize the performance of this industry. The research study emphasizes the fact that despite a high tourist potential, the present-day hospitality supply cannot support a healthy development of the tourist activity, and presents some possible causes. Keywords: tourism supply, hospitality, development, performance, hotel owners and managing companies/organizations, statistic analysis. JEL Classification: C46, L83 Introduction Romania’s tourist offering is briefly characterized in several official documents, elaborated by the Romanian authorities with the purpose of developing Romanian tourism: The National Strategy for Tourism for 2004-2006, The Regional Operational Program (ROP) 2007-2013, The Master Plan for Romania’s National Tourism 2007-2026 etc. Before 1989 Romania used to be an important tourist destination for the Eastern-European market; tourist products were promoted such as: seaside, spa, cultural circuits, and also the monasteries in Northern Moldavia and Bukovina. Regrettably, the Romanian tourist offering (mainly developed in the 1970’s) has stopped its evolution, thus becoming * Corresponding author, Monica Maria Coroş – [email protected] Contemporary Approaches and Challenges of Tourism Sustainability AE Vol. XVI • Special No. 8 • November 2014 1313 unattractive and uncompetitive on the international market. Despite the fact that the eight development regions, including the least developed counties, are endowed with a very valuable tourist potential, the contribution of tourism to the national GDP was and continues to be a modest one. The experts consider that Romanian tourism is supported by some segments which function well and develop properly: agritourism, spa tourism, mountain tourism, circuit tourism and events tourism. Romania’s tourist potential is diversified and relatively evenly distributed at the level of the country’s regions, these possessing a significant tourist potential from the perspective of natural, cultural and historic resources. Of course, when it comes to the exploitation of each region’s tourist potential, disparities occur related both to their historic development conditions and also to the development at national level of the general infrastructure. Infrastructure related problems often obstruct the ability to exploit highly attractive resources, mainly due to the lack of accessibility. Such a situation has also led to the development of some destinations to the detriment of other ones. A high concentration of resources exists in the area of the Southern Carpathians, and these are exploited by the means of mountain, water and spa resorts of national and local interest. Relying on the outlined literature review and on the presented methodology, the main stages of the present research will cover: the analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s tourist potential, the discussion of the development of the national and regional accommodation supply and of the manner in which they support the development of tourist destinations, and also the analysis of the performance of the accommodation services providers (in terms of occupancy ratios). All of these will lead to the formulation of several conclusions. 2. Literature Review Once the Iron Curtain was eliminated, the former communist Eastern European countries, Romania included, reentered the international tourist market, raising the interest of the Occident. In this context, Romania was challenged to take advantage of this opportunity. The perspective of a growing number of tourist arrivals in the country’s various destinations, determined an increased demand for infrastructure (Butler, 1980), especially in the tourist accommodation sector. In order to contribute to the development of tourism, lodgings must be available in the right quantity and quality to match the expectations of the arriving travelers. Thus, a growth of the tourists’ number determined the intensification of the business activity and an investment flow in the hospitality industry. The expected high revenues of the hospitality sector, made the industry attractive for entrepreneurs willing to explore new business fields. The loop is supposed to be completed with a strong and well developed infrastructure that would eventually increase tourism spending and generate new opportunities for related businesses areas of the local economy, all leading to further tourism growth (Butler, 1980). Despite the occurrence of such an opportunity, Romania had a slow start, as for more than 15 years after the fall of communism, the investment level in the hotel and restaurant sector constantly represented less than 2 % in the total investments made in Romania, also having an ignorable contribution to the GDP (Pop, et al., 2007, pp. 120-121). Thus, the accommodation supply became obsolete and unattractive. As Hong (2008, p. 59) states: “Tourism’s competitive advantages arise from effectively using the resource endowments of a tourism destination to attract potential tourists. AE Analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic 1314 Additionally, competitive advantages provide insight into the reallocation strategy of different tourism resource endowments to modify existing comparative advantages.” In this context, performance may be related to competitiveness. According to the same author, some of the determining competitiveness factors are: a) infrastructure investments (including: accessibility design, lodgings, transportation systems and specific food) of a destination, which are the most important functional bases, also known as advanced factors (in Porter’s terminology); b) strategic planning to market ties (including: building tourism linkages with related characteristics and creative activities) of a destination, that are the secondary functional institutional investments which can attract potential tourists, also known as internationalization of domestic demand (in Porter’s case); c) growth and development (including: economic growth and public security system development), which constitute the socio-economic status of a destination and that can robustly support tourism related facilitates (infrastructure) and tourism safety network systems; d) operational performance effectiveness (including: one-stop tourism package services) of a destination is the primary motivation of tourists; the operational performance effectiveness of a destination mainly depends on the sophistication of domestic tourists and their high level of demanding expectations in comparison to other destinations; thus, according to the Porter analysis, sophisticated domestic tourists not only provide incentive to review tourism related services delivering high performance but also serve as an early warning indicator of mainstream tendencies in worldwide tourism services or the need for transition or change (Hong, 2008, pp. 59-63). Perhaps more than in other cases, in the field of tourism, customers are surrounded by unlimited choices, thus, the service providers are facing an uphill battle to meet the needs of their ever demanding customers, who can very quickly opt for other providers, if dissatisfied by an experience (Abdullah and Hamdan, 2012). For hotels, the main indicator of success is closely linked to the occupancy rate (Abdullah and Hamdan, 2012). Obviously, the higher the rate, the better the performance in terms of profits. The hotel occupancy rate is influenced by external and internal factors. The first category includes the: state of the economy, technological development, political environment, legislation, and the demographics. The second type of factors is related to: hotel management challenges, quality of service, pricing policies and fees, the variety and quality of food, accommodation, and entertainment facilities, respectively to the location of the hotel. Consequently, a poor performance in terms of service quality generates problems related to the internal factors (Abdullah and Hamdan, 2012). Given the large variety of opportunities and threats determined by the business environment of the hospitality industry, “in order to be sustainable in today’s competition, creating a strong brand name and image are crucial. For a hotel to create a strong brand name, it must have outstanding quality service and competitive pricing.” (Abdullah and Hamdan, 2012, p. 200). The analysis of the international branded hotels is important and useful as foreign tourists tend to opt for their preferred brands when and where they are available (Pranić; Ketkar and Roehl, 2011). They do so either because of their loyalty programs or in order to make sure that within less familiar or less developed destinations, such as Romania, the provided services meet the expected quality levels. Foreign visitors tend to be the main clients of international affiliated hotels, probably because of the globalization and McDonald-ization phenomena that determine an increased demand for standardized services, guaranteed by hotel chains (Hociung and Frâncu, 2012). Contemporary Approaches and Challenges of Tourism Sustainability AE Vol. XVI • Special No. 8 • November 2014 1315 The performance of the Romanian providers of tourist services is associated to the occupancy rate, as the specialized literature indicates that in order for an accommodation unit to survive it needs to realize an average occupancy rate of minimum 50 %; in order to be profitable, this level must be surpassed. (Negruşa, 2006: 108). Other authors (Kainthola, 2009, p. 134) consider that the breakeven point is only achieved at a higher ratio of at least 60 %, which makes it even more challenging. Moreover, the improvement of the provided services’ quality is clearly necessary both at national and at regional levels; in this respect, specialists recommend the implementation of the total quality management concept, with the main purpose of increasing the tourists’ level of satisfaction. 2. Methodology The paper presents a comparative study of the tourist supply from Romania and Transylvania with the purpose of identifying Transylvania’s development potential and competitiveness, and also the causes of its poor performance until now. In order to reach the goals of this research a quantitative analysis was carried out based on secondary presented in statistical yearbooks and in relevant reports or documents. Within this attempt the development of the tourist supply was analyzed and its dynamic studied with the support of a system of specific indicators: accommodation capacity, tourist supply and occupancy rate. Transylvania was delimited according to the 16 counties that constitute the regions of development Center, North-West and West. For the evaluation of Romania’s and Transylvania’s tourist potential, the pieces of information comprised by the legislation that regulates the territory’s arrangement have been processed. Thus, on one hand, the natural and man-made resources, respectively, the infrastructure related problems of the destinations have been centralized, (OUG 142/2008 section VIII and Law 190/2009, section VIII), and, on the other hand, the protected areas and the cultural heritage values of national importance have been systematized (Law 5/2000 section III). Romania’s and Transylvania’s tourist offer once characterized as described above, the analysis continued based on the data collected by the National Institute of Statistics (INS) in the Romanian Statistical Yearbooks (RSY), in the Monthly Statistical County Bulletins (MSCB) and in the TempoOnline database. Relying on the results of the most recent Census of the Population and of the Residencies (October 2011) Romania’s and Transylvania’s exact number of cities, towns and communes was determined. At governmental level, the authority for tourism draws up periodically an official list comprising all of the authorized facilities. The pieces of information available in the list of December 2012 were compared to the list of administrative-territorial units (ATUs) with high and very high tourist potential and to the lists with the official databases of lodgings and public food and beverage (F&B) structures in order to determine the measure in which the supply supports Romania’s and Transylvania’s tourist potential (OUG 142/2008, Law 190/2009 and MRDT, 2012). 3. Results and Discussions One of the specialists’ conclusions regarding Romania’s tourism is that the least developed or even not developed at all regions of the country include the most important tourist objectives and attractions. It is exactly tourism that can ensure their revitalization, by AE Analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic 1316 exploiting their natural and cultural resources. The analysts have divided Romania’s tourist potential into two categories: areas with complex and highly valuable tourist potential (covering around 24 % of the country’s surface and including: the National Parks and the Biosphere Reservations, natural monuments, natural protected areas, values of cultural national heritage, spa resources, museums and memorial houses, etc) and areas with high tourist potential (covering another 34 % of the country’s surface and including: natural reservations and monuments of national interest, values of cultural national heritage, spa resources, museums and memorial houses, etc) (NTAP section VI. Tourism, Appendix 3). To these areas several ATUs containing: natural and man-made tourist attractions, rich in opportunities for the development of tourism but with a lower density must also be added (NTAP, section VI. Tourism, Appendices 5 and 6). A quick analysis of the information processed based on NTAP and presented in Table no 1 a brief characterization of Romanian tourism both from the perspective of available natural and man-made resources and also from the point of view of the measure in which the support and the specific infrastructure contributes to its development. A first finding reveals that the ATUs of Transylvania’s counties concentrate around 54 % of all of Romania’s tourist resources; the settlements in which there are both natural and man-made resources register a higher quota. Secondly, both in the case of all of Romania and in that of Transylvania, in particular, the situation of the destinations endowed with natural and man-made resources, with the technical and specific infrastructure needed for an optimal usage of these resources is disastrous: 79.2 % of the ATUs with high and very high concentration of tourist resources in Romania and 80.2 % of those in Transylvania face infrastructure problems (Table no. 1). Table no. 1: The Situation of Natural and Man-made Resources, and that of Support and Tourist Infrastructure in Romania and in Transylvania Region of Development Tourist Resources (Total number) Infrastructure Problems (Number) ATUs with High and Very High Concentration of Tourist Resources (number) Dominant Tourist Resources Infrastructure Problems Natural Man-made Natural and Manmade Tourist Technical Tourist & Technical Romania 1 , 164 922 529 372 263 369 110 443 Trans y lvania 627 503 251 213 163 226 46 231 N orth-Eas t 162 1296555 423124 74 South-Eas t 132 1167940 133812 66 South 123 89 70 34 19 43 20 26 Bucure ş ti-Ilfov 6 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 South-Wes t 114 83 63 28 23 29 8 46 Source: own calculations based on: OUG 142/2008 and Law 190/2009 This analysis also reveals that the regions with the most ATUs with many and very many natural and man-made tourist resources also concentrate the largest number of settlements that face technical and tourist infrastructure problems, their number is worryingly high. Contemporary Approaches and Challenges of Tourism Sustainability AE Vol. XVI • Special No. 8 • November 2014 1317 The Development of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Accommodation Facilities As the chart below (Figure no. 1) reveals the largest number of lodging facilities was generated by villas and hotels. This is due to the fact that Romanian accommodation units had a very high development during the 1970’s. The investments made during the communist era had the purpose of developing an accommodation infrastructure adequate for mass tourism, which is why many large hotels of low classification were built. This situation continued during the early 1990’s; only around 1993-1994 the first boarding houses began to appear (agritourist pensions and farms, rural and urban pensions or boarding houses). The beds offered by the public authorized and classified lodgings seem to be dominated by those in hotels. The supply is still dominated by the beds provided in hotels. From the perspective of their classification, most of the beds offered before 1990 were of 1 or 2 stars (as today’s equivalent). Figure no. 1: The Development of Accommodation Facilities between 1970-2013 Sources: own calculations based on: INS, RSY, 1971-2010 and TempoOnline, 2014.1 The accommodation supply (Figure no. 2) had an ascending development until 2010. Significant changes occurred in the sense of the increase of the accommodation supply’s quality, in the context of the decrease of the quota of the poorly classified structures (privatized in the 2000’s, and subsequently renovated or closed-down). New types of lodgings began to appear after 1989, of which the most important contribution, in terms of both number and supplied beds, belongs to: hotels (generally, small hotels), urban boarding houses, rural and agritourist boarding houses. Still, while the number of facilities has more than doubled, the number of available beds remained almost unchanged. About 80 % of the existing accommodation capacity functions all year long. The accommodation supply continues to be dominated by poorly classified or even unclassified structures. If such a distribution was acceptable during the times when social programs were the main priority, today, the marketplace makes the selection; thus, by taking a look at the evolution of both the demand for accommodation and the occupation rates of the lodgings, one may conclude that tourists reject the supply because of the poor quality level. At the end of 2013, the 3, 4 and 5 stars/flowers represented around 50 % in the total number of facilities and beds (Figure no. 2). Despite the fact that the number of lodgings has constantly increased during the past years, a slight decrease in the number of beds has been noticed, fact that indicates the appearance of new AE Analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic 1318 tourist facilities but of small size, and on the other hand, the restructuring, renovation or even closing of certain large-scale units (Figure no. 4). Figure no. 2: Available Beds, by Level of Classification between 1970-2013 Sources: own calculations based on: INS, RSY, 1994-2010 and TempoOnline, 2014.2 By December 2012 (MRDT) in Romania were authorized: 7,736 authorized lodging facilities, with 153,433 rooms and 320,074 beds. The accommodation facilities are relatively small, having an average of 19.8 rooms per facility and offering 41.4 beds per unit; of these, 3.96 % have less than 5 places. (Figure no. 4) Figure no. 3: Accommodation Supply – Romania and Transylvania Source: own calculations based on: INS, RSY, 2005-2010 and TempoOnline, 2014.2 and 3 The most numerous accommodation units are the boarding houses (a total of 3,917 pensions, meaning almost 51 % in Romania, and 2,389 facilities, respectively 63 % in Transylvania). The comparative analysis carried out based on the criterion of the quota by types of boarding houses, urban, rural and agritourist, revealed that the structure available at national level is respected in Transylvania with a single exception: the quota of agritourist pensions is two times larger compared to the national average. Thus, in Transylvania 31 % are rural, 28 % urban and 5 % agritourist boarding houses. This fact strengthens the idea of the rural potential for tourism Contemporary Approaches and Challenges of Tourism Sustainability AE Vol. XVI • Special No. 8 • November 2014 1319 in the Transylvanian region. The overall contribution of the boarding houses in the total number of beds is of approximately 21 % in Romania and of nearly 35 % at regional level. Transylvania accounts for around a third of the available beds in Romania and for about a half of the functioning beds at national level (Figures nos 3 and 4). Despite the fact that most of the available beds can be found in region Center, followed then by the regions North-West and West, regarding the functioning beds, regions Center and North-West have similar numbers. In 2012 there can be noticed a significant increase in the number of available beds in region Center, still it cannot be also observed in the region’s functioning beds. In Transylvania, region Center is the destination that concentrated the richest accommodation supply, as it also accounts for some of the most important Transylvanian tourist destinations and attractions, enjoying a very generous tourist potential. Figure no. 4: Lodgings, Rooms and Beds by Region of Development Source: own calculations based on: MRDT, 2012 The analysis of the accommodation supply by levels of classification (MRDT, 2012) has led to its characterization. Thus, the supply is dominated by facilities of 3 stars/flowers (42 % in Romania and 46 % in Transylvania) and 2 stars/flowers (34 % in Romania and 32 % in Transylvania), while 1 star/flower lodgings are rather few (7 % in Romania and 6 % for Transylvania). The upper-scale structures have a rather modest contribution (15 % at national level and 14 % at regional level), while the luxury segment is very small (of only around 2 % in both cases). Most probably, at national level this situation is due to the fact that region South-East, which has around 20 % of the lodgings, provides the most accommodation places (of all beds, on the seaside, there are around: 52 % – 1 star/flower beds, 43 % – 2 stars/flowers beds, 28 % – 3 stars/flowers beds, 22 % – 4 stars/flowers beds, and 25 % – 5 stars/flowers beds). An analysis realized by practitioners (Horeca, 2012) revealed that in the summer of 2012, in Romania were functioning over 8,000 pensions, offering approximately 140,000 beds. Of these, only less than half were classified but still the number represents an improvement compared to the previous year (with 500 more authorized boarding houses and over 10,000 beds). Thus, the quota of the beds supplied by all the pensions in the national total rises to almost 40 % of the entire national accommodation capacity. The top regions in terms of accommodation supply are: South-East, Center and West, these being the destinations that also receive the highest demand levels for the services of the tourist boarding houses. Region Center has around 2,800 units. Moreover, the counties Constanţa, Braşov, Prahova, Suceava and Sibiu AE Analysis of Romania’s and Transylvania’s Tourist Supply Development and Performance Amfiteatru Economic 1326 Hociung, I.G. and Frâncu, L.G., 2012. Globalization – Tourism – Communication, Competitiveness Triangle on the Market Affected by the Economic Crisis. Theoretical and Applied Economics [online], XIX, 7(572), pp. 133-146. Available at: Theoretical and Applied Economics website <http://store.ectap.ro/articole/756.pdf> [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Hong, S.W.Ch., 2008. Competitiveness in the Tourism Sector. A Comprehensive Approach from Economic and Management Points. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag. Horeca România, 2012. Pensiunile româneşti nu au învăţat ‚lecţia’ clasificării. Horeca, [online]. 6 August. Available at: <http://horeca.ro/articole/ospitalitate/2568-pensiunile-romanesti-nu-auinvatat-lectia-clasificarii.html> [Accessed 31 March 2013]. Institutul Naţional de Statistică (INS). 1971-2010. Romanian Statistic Yearbook (RSY), collection 1971-2010, Bucureşti. INS. 2005-2014. Monthly Statistical County Bulletin (MSCB), collection January 2004-May 2013. [online]. Available at: <http://www.insse.ro/cms/ro/content/arhiva-buletin-statistic-lunarjudetean> [Accessed 2 August 2014]. INS. 2014.1. TempoOnline database [online]. Available at: <https://statistici.insse.ro/shop/ index.jsp?page=tempo3&lang=ro&ind=TUR101C> [Accessed 2 August 2014]. INS. 2014.2. TempoOnline database [online]. Available at: <https://statistici.insse.ro/shop/ index.jsp?page=tempo3&lang=ro&ind=TUR102B> [Accessed 2 August 2014]. INS. 2014.3. TempoOnline database [online]. Available at: <https://statistici.insse.ro/shop/ index.jsp?page=tempo3&lang=ro&ind=TUR103B> [Accessed 2 August 2014]. Kainthola, V.P., 2009. Principles of Hotel Management. Delhi: Global Media. Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT), 2012. Authorized Units: Lodging Facilities. [online]. 10 December. Available at: <www.mdrt.ro/userfiles/turism/ BD_cazare_public.xls> [Accessed 18 December 2012]. Monitorul Oficial No 152/2000. Law No 5/2000 regarding the approval of the National Territory Arrangement Plan (NTAP), Section III. Protected Areas. [online] Available at: <http://idrept.ro/DocumentView.aspx?DocumentId=00033752> [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Monitorul Oficial No 781/2008. Governmental Emergency Ordinance (OUG) No 142/2008 regarding the approval of NTAP, Section VIII. Areas with Tourist Resources. [online] Available at: <http://idrept.ro/DocumentView.aspx?DocumentId=00116524> [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Monitorul Oficial No 387/2009. Law No 190/2009 regarding the approval of NTAP, Section VIII. Areas with Tourist Resources. [online] Available at: <http://idrept.ro/ DocumentView.aspx?DocumentId=00122732> [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Negruşa A.L., 2006. Managementul unităţilor hoteliere. Cluj-Napoca: Alma Mater. Pop, C., Cosma, S., Negruşa, A., Ionescu, C. and Marinescu, N., 2007. Romania as a Tourist Destination and the Romanian Hotel Industry. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing. Pranić, L., Ketkar, S. and Roehl, W.S., 2012. The Impact of Macroeconomic Country-Specific Factors on International Expansions of US Hotel Chains. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 7(1 Spring-Summer), pp. 155-173. Available at: University of the Aegean website <http://www.chios.aegean.gr/tourism/ VOLUME_7_No1_art08.pdf> [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Tiron, M., 2010. De ce ocolesc marile lanţuri hoteliere internaţionale litoralul românesc? Doar două hoteluri operează sub branduri străine. Ziarul financiar, [online] 19 July. Available at: < http://www.zf.ro/companii/de-ce-ocolesc-marile-lanturi-hoteliere-internationale-litoralulromanesc-doar-doua-hoteluri-opereaza-sub-branduri-straine-6619056/poze/> [Accessed 25 March 2013].