The Culture-Centered Development Potential of Communities in Făgăraș Land (Romania)

Abstract

Făgăraș Land (Romania) is a very old administrative formation with its own identity, preserved from the beginning of the Middle Ages. The mapping of the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) highlighted the groups of caroling lads as the main strategic heritage resource, but also the existence of many other ICH resources that can be exploited towards the sustainable development of the area. These include local soups, an ICH gastronomic resource that can help build the area’s tourism brand. All resources, together with the peculiarities of the local medieval history, the memory of the anti-communist resistance in the Făgăraș Mountains and the religious pilgrimage to the local Orthodox monasteries, support the configuration of Făgăraș Land as a multidimensional associative cultural landscape. The content analysis of the information on ICH available on the official websites of the administrative territorial units (ATUs), correlated with the data from the interviews with local leaders, highlighted the types of local narratives regarding the capitalization of cultural resources and the openness to culture-centered community-based development, namely glocal, dynamic local and static local visions. The unitary and integrated approach of tourist resources, tourism social entrepreneurship, support from the local commons and a better management of the local cultural potential are ways to capitalize on belonging to the Făgăraș Land cultural landscape, towards sustainable community development of the area.

1. Introduction

The first association of the concept of landscape is with geography, but the landscape is a major object of interest for community development. Carl Sauer [1] was the one who introduced the concept of cultural landscape in the USA, considering it as the natural landscape “fashioned out” by a culture group. In this sense, the cultural landscape is the result of the action of culture as an agent on the medium represented by the natural area. Under the influence of a given culture, which in turn changes over time, the landscape undergoes a development, going through different phases. The natural landscape is the one that provides the materials from which the cultural landscape is formed, but the modeling force still lies in the culture itself. The landscape thus becomes a synthesis between the natural and cultural characteristics of a region. The natural landscape offers to man many possible options for adaptation. This is the meaning of adaptation, through which, aided by those suggestions which man has derived from nature, perhaps by an imitative process, largely subconscious, we get the feeling of harmony between the human habitation and the landscape into which it so fittingly blends. But these, too, are derived from the mind of man, not imposed by nature, and hence are cultural expressions”, as Sauer points out [1] (p. 310).

In 1939, Richard Hartshorne considered the concept of cultural landscape redundant with the concepts of region and space [2]. After the Second World War, landscape research was mainly descriptive until the introduction of quantitative methods in the years 1960–1970 [3]. In 1996, Rowntree considered the concept of cultural landscape to be ambiguous because it has a variety of meanings. It can be an appropriate bridge between space and society, culture and environment, but also a concept too poorly defined to be used in serious analytical approaches [4].

An important aspect of the landscape is how it is perceived. Different people give different meanings to the same landscape. It depends on their profession, as Meining [5] believes, but also on nationality, culture and religion, social status, rurality, gender, age and experience, interior, activity, environment, even sound, smell, touch and even taste [6].

The term landscape was brought to the attention of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in November 1972, with an emphasis on the integration of the natural and cultural elements of the landscape. Since 1992, cultural landscapes can be listed by UNESCO as having World Heritage status. They are defined as the “combined works of nature and man [and which] are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal” [7]. Cultural landscapes are mostly recognized as UNESCO categories for landscapes of universal significance [8]. The UNESCO World Heritage Convention [9], the European Landscape Convention [10], and the IUCN Protected Landscape Approach [11] promote the protection, planning, management and governance of cultural landscapes [12].

In defining the cultural landscape by the Operational Guide to the Implementation of the 1992 World Heritage Convention [9], the connotations imposed by Carl O. Sauer on the concept can be recognized [13]. The UNESCO approach, which aims to manage the list of World Heritage cultural landscapes, considers the historical dimension of anthropic intervention on the landscape to be essential and the exceptional nature of this intervention necessary. The European Landscape Convention of 2000 [10] operates with a broader definition, considering as a cultural landscape any result of the interaction of communities with their environment over time. Cultural landscape is defined as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”. The two meanings of the concept are different from this perspective [13]. From another perspective, the meanings are close, and they can be considered partially superimposable.

According to the European Landscape Convention, each country must define, plan, protect and repair landscapes within its boundaries. In this context, the identification of the characteristics of natural and cultural landscapes requires a rigorous assessment [14]. The landscape can be defined from several perspectives, but it matters how the elements of the landscape are perceived. The history of the place is important. The events that took place and the way they are reflected in the current condition and in the perception of the landscape are important. A cultural landscape reflects the stories of the people who shaped it, not only in the past but also in the present [15]. Identifying the values of the landscape is the first step in determining the limits that can be drawn to the way the space is used, the activities that can be carried out in that landscape and how to protect it [16]. Every landscape is a repository of cultural values, but given the subjective nature of values, landscape values are not always obvious to everyone. They can only be meaningful to certain communities, and they can only reflect local values, not global ones. Communities decide on the functions they assign to the landscape and to the cultural heritage [15].

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention identifies three types of cultural landscapes: landscape designed and created intentionally by man, organically evolved landscape (relict or continuing landscape) and associative cultural landscape. In the case of the latter, it is about “powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural elements rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent” [17] (p. 86).

Defining the associative cultural landscape through the meanings that the locals give to the elements of the natural landscape brings the UNESCO meaning closer to the European one. In this area, the cultural landscape is a natural landscape that has been marked by human habitation and which, in turn, is perceived by locals as an area of manifestation of their cultural identity. With this meaning we will use the concept of cultural landscape in this article. It is an inhabited landscape, and the management of its cultural resources must take into account the natural dynamics of community habitation. When we talk about landscapes, we can not do this without considering history, economy or ecology. At the same time, the development of the community is marked by the valorization and conservation of local ICH resources. The European Landscape Convention is also important because it statues about the landscape protection and landscape planning.

The meaning that we will use for the concept of cultural landscape is in line with the definitions formulated by the Cultural Landscape Foundation and M. Rossler. According to the Cultural Landscape Foundation [18], ”Cultural landscapes are landscapes that have been affected, influenced, or shaped by human involvement. A cultural landscape can be associated with a person or event. It can be thousands of acres or a tiny homestead. It can be a grand estate, industrial site, park, garden, cemetery, campus, and more. Collectively, cultural landscapes are works of art, narratives of culture, and expressions of regional identity”. ”Cultural landscapes are at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversity-they represent a closely woven net of relationships, the essence of cultures and people’s identity”, highlights M. Rossler [19] (p.334). The cultural landscape appears as a result of the transformation of the natural landscape. [15], it can be identified as a whole made up of natural and cultural elements [20].

The classification used by The Cultural Landscape Foundation [18] includes four types of cultural landscapes, namely Designed Landscapes, Ethnographic Landscapes, Historic Sites and Vernacular Landscapes, since a given landscape can simultaneously have the characteristics of several types of cultural landscapes. Taking into account this classification, we approach Făgăraș Land as a multidimensional associative cultural landscape.

According to Flint, “a sustainable community is one that moves beyond subsistence, to the capability for making choices that promote resilience and long-term benefits” [21] (p. 58) and is characterized, along with other dimensions of socio-economic sustainability, by “cultural vitality” which refers to the communities’ ability to recognize their cultural values, to preserve them in the long term and to "use culture and history to advance societal learning” [21] (p. 59).

Cultural heritage represents an important resource for sustainable development and investments in preserving, promoting and capitalizing on cultural heritage can yield many economic and social benefits [22]. Community participation, ie. the involvement of locals in the development of tourism, supports and improves the functioning of tourist units [23,24,25]. Community participation is also important for the preservation of cultural heritage [23]. Many of the ICH resources are expressions of the experiences of adapting locals to the environment and of the efficient use of local natural resources. Assuming cultural heritage as wealth reinforces the feeling of belonging to the community. Tourism is a complementary alternative to the traditional rural occupations [26]. It can develop low-income communities and, in a social entrepreneurship approach, it boosts the local economy and creates sustainable livelihoods [27]. The success of tourism projects depends on the involvement of local communities [28]. Sustainable tourism initiatives should even start at the local level, capitalizing on the locals’ preferences [29]. The penetration of tourists in the residential space can be felt negatively, as a loss, by the locals and can force displacement or gentrification phenomena [30]. To the extent that the tasks, responsibilities, and benefits of heritage tourism are shared and assumed at the community level, this danger can be controlled. Unlike the urban environment, in the rural environment the external challenges are naturally considered to belong to the whole community. Heritage initiatives and activities involve the agreement and broad participation of locals.

Rural tourism represents “all tourism-related activities that take place outside of urban areas and involve the natural and cultural patrimony of rural territories” [28] (p. 2). We consider that in this definition the emphasis should be on the cultural heritage of the villages. Rural tourism involves the exposure of tourists to the rural lifestyle. Rosalina, Dupre and Wang [31] point to four key dimensions of rural tourism, namely location, sustainable development, community-based features and experiences. The first of these is relevant in all tourist contexts, the next two are especially important in the papers about developing countries, while the last one is highlighted especially with reference to developed countries. In the sense in which we use the term "rural tourism", the interest for sustainable development, community involvement and the experiences offered to tourists are relevant together. Tourism as a complementary source of income to traditional rural occupations can support the development of poor communities [26] and the economic revitalization of declining rural areas [28,29,32]. Rural tourism does not involve large financial resources [33], nor spectacular investments or sophisticated infrastructure [29], but it reduces poverty and is a source of local prosperity [34].

Rural tourism is not only linked to the tourism industry, but also to community development. Community-based development includes three essential elements: community consciousness (with community attachments and a movement perspective), empowerment strategies (involvement strategies and self-reliance strategies), and the establishment of supportive structures (community development organizations to mobilize community resources and external government and non-government organizations responsive to community initiatives) [35].

In the last decades, the tourism industry has registered a continuous expansion and diversification. In this context, rural tourism has become increasingly important [36]. Community based rural tourism is a form of community-based development. It is based on connecting traditional rural communities with a network of people which are outside of that community, tourists [37]. Rural community-based tourism is a way to simultaneously ensure the conservation of cultural and natural heritage and the income needed by communities in a way that values authenticity [38].

Rural tourism is a priority option for the tourists who pay attention to the sustainability of their destinations [26] and can capitalize on niche products [32]. Newsome, Moore & Dowling (2012) [39] identify three areas in niche tourism, namely cultural, event-related, and natural area tourism. These fields develop seven secondary markets, namely tourism of adventure, ecotourism, festival, heritage, nature-based, religious and sports. Niche tourists are well informed and experienced [29]. They seek authentic personal experiences [29,40]. Niche tourism, operating with controlled and homogeneous size groups, is a sustainable alternative to industrial tourism [34,40].

Rural tourism intersects with cultural tourism in the field of heritage tourism. Cultural heritage tourism is a significant segment of the global tourism market [41,42]. Interest in heritage and culture motivates almost 40% of tourism options and increases by 15% annually, says Richards [41], based on the data from the World Tourism Organization. In heritage tourism, the interest in “cultural experiences” is growing. Heritage tourism thus becomes a form of experiential consumption, and understanding tourists’ intentions and expectations regarding heritage destinations is important for improving supply. Authenticity is the main source of memorable tourist experiences in this type of tourism [43]. Tourists are looking for authentic experiences, access to local history and living local culture [44]. The perception of authenticity is an important factor for the satisfaction of tourists [45]. Sustainable heritage tourism guarantees the satisfaction for tourists [44]. This is strongly linked to socio-cultural sustainability. In this context, significant cultural exchanges are needed between tourists and the local community.

However, heritage management and tourism are governed by different goals, interests and motivations; tourism is a potential danger to heritage conservation [27,29]. Maintaining these divergent and challenging orientations in balance [29] requires a sustainable approach [46]. The authenticity of heritage and the perceived authenticity of heritage are two different things. The discrepancies between them act as obstacles to sustainable heritage management and related tourism, but they can be overcome [47]. Sustainable cultural tourism is a compromise between the interest in conservation, financial benefits and public access [47]. The correlation of heritage management studies with interest in sustainable tourism is useful [48]. According to Keyser [49], sustainable tourism has three defining characteristics: quality sustainability (quality experiences for tourists and increased life quality for hosts), continuous sustainable tourism (stability of community resources) and balance sustainability (balancing the needs of tourism operators, the environment and local communities). Properly managed, cultural tourism can sustain a country’s economy and preserve its cultural heritage [50].

A tool for balancing divergent managerial orientations could be tourism social entrepreneurship. It catalyses host communities and protects them from the industrial development of tourism, while boosting the local economy [27]. Tourism social entrepreneurship favours a holistic approach to tourism [27,28]. Quaranta, Citro and Salvia [28] consider local action groups (LAGs) as an efficient interface in tourism projects. By promoting local development, LAGs support the restoration of local social capital.

In this article we will highlight several cultural features of Făgăraș Land (Romania) that support the configuration of this area as a multidimensional associative cultural landscape. We will also highlight the narratives identified at the level of the studied local communities regarding the cultural resources and the development through culture. Taking all of this into account, we will formulate some suggestions for capitalizing on belonging to the cultural landscape in terms of sustainable inter-community development and consolidation of the local identity for the rural communities in Făgăraș Land. We will point out the importance and opportunity of mapping the intangible cultural heritage resources in the horizon of their tourist capitalization. We will present the heritage tourism supported by the locals as part of the community-based development of Făgăraș Land.

Community-based development is a very useful framework for describing contemporary sustainable development efforts through the use of local cultural resources. We consider community-based rural tourism as part of culture-centered community-based development, a strategic approach appropriate to the cultural potential of Făgăraș Land. It is a multidimensional potential with strong historical support.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Făgăraș Land, Geographical and Historical Background

Făgăraș Land is the land between Făgăraș Mountains and the Olt River with its tributaries(to the northern boundary of its watershed) (Figure 1), in the center of Romania (Figure 2). The locals also call it Olt Country. Făgăraș Voivodeship was attested as Terra Blachorum in 1222, one of the oldest Romanian state formations on the later territory of Transylvania. The Făgăraș Voivode Radu Negru is considered the founder of Wallachia as a result of the retreat to the south, over the Carpathian Mountains, after successive defeats suffered in front of the army of the expanding Hungarian Kingdom. Făgăraș Voivodeship was one of the last Romanian intracarpathian state formations with an independent existence, due to its geographical position [51].

At the end of the 13th century, Făgăraș Land was under the control of the Hungarian Kingdom, but due to its traditional ties with the rulers of Wallachia, it was repeatedly offered to the latter as a fief and then taken back by the Hungarian kings, depending on the political relations between the two state formations. King Matei Corvin turned Făgăraș Land into a district, which it then gave to Universitas Saxonum (a form of organization and autonomous self-administration of the Saxons in Transylvania, 15–19th centuries), in order to counterbalance the damages caused to the Saxons by the incursions of Vlad Țepeș, the fierce Wallachian voivode, in the south of Transylvania [52]. After the battle of Mohács (1526), Făgăraș Land became the property of a local Romanian nobleman, and then (in 1573) it was assigned by the decision of the Diet of Transylvania (the legislative and political body of the principality, composed of the representatives of the three privileged estates- the Hungarian nobles, the Saxon patricians and the military Szeklers, and of the Roman Catholic, Evangelical-Lutheran, Calvinist and Unitarian religions) to the princes of the province [53]. In 1691, through the Leopoldine Diploma, the principality of Transylvania came under Austrian rule. After the revolution of 1848, the Făgăraș district became part of the Sibiu Military District. In 1860 the principality of Transylvania regained its autonomy within the Habsburg Empire and, for a short time, the Romanian language was recognized as the official language of the Făgăraș district (previously this status had belonged to the Hungarian or German languages, depending on the administrative affiliation of Transylvania, inwhich until the end of the 18th century the Romanians were only a tolerated nation). The consequence was that Romanian deputies were sent to the Diet. From 1865, Transylvania was united with Hungary. After the First World War, the territory of Făgăraș County, like most of the principality of Transylvania, became part of Romania.

The Tartars’ repeated invasions, the campaign to impose Catholicism ordered by the Empress Maria Theresa and, in the post-war period, the persecution against the people of Făgăraș, considered as supporters of the anti-communist resistance movement in the mountains, added to the successive changes in the political-administrative status and the incursions of punishment organized by Vlad Țepeș, mentioned above. All these are historical attempts that shaped the locals’ cultural identity in Făgăraș Land. The anti-communist resistance will be discussed below.

In the 15th century, the rulers of Wallachia made donations to the locals, thus contributing to the emergence and consolidation of the first category of Romanian boyars in Făgăraș Land. A second category of Romanian boyars from Făgăraș comes from serfs ennobled for their chivalric services in the defence of Făgăraș Fortress or, in the 17th century, for a fee [53]. In 1762, the communities of Făgăraş at the border of the Habsburg Empire received land on behalf of their military services for the defence of the imperial borders. The properties of the boyars and border guards form the basis of a type of commons locale, boyar compossessorates.

The other type of commons, the former serfs’ compossessorates, was established in 1853 after the abolition of serfdom. The compossessorates functioned as a way of managing forests and pastures in the communities of Făgăraș Land until after the Second World War [54,55]. After 1989, in Romania, several laws on land restitution were successively adopted [54,56,57], which allowed for the re-establishment of compossessorates.

The Compossessorates, Local Commons of Făgăraș Land

The compossessorate is a traditional form of commons in Transylvania. The compossessorate targets the property over the forests and pastures. Within compossessorates, the property and the voting rights are genealogically inherited by the descendants of those who participated in the formation of the association, they are divided between the heirs and can be traded between members [56]. The property is indivisible, the parts owned by each member are not distinctly outlined and cannot be sold outside the association [57,58]. Property rights arise from the right of first settlement in unclaimed territories, from land redemptions by peasants from landlords or monasteries, from royal or voivodship donations made to vassals and knights in the Middle Ages, from the reward of border services [54,55,59] and land allotment upon release from serfdom after 1848 [54]. In Făgăraș Land, the compossessorates are nobles or former serfs. In the case of the former, the ownership of the land may date back to the medieval period, when the Wallachian rulers donated land to local freeholders, or later, from gifts made by local rulers and Empress Maria Theresa [54]. In 1762, the communities on the Transylvanian borders of the Habsburg Empire received land on behalf of the military border services. The members of those communities were the descendants of a feudal cavalry class, similar to that of other parts of Europe [55,60]. The former serfs’ compossessorates were formed in Transylvania in 1853, following an imperial decree allocating parts of the lands of the former landlords to the newly free peasants.

After the Second World War and the establishment of the communist regime in Romania, the resources above and below the ground became state property. The state became the manager of pastures and the decision-maker in forest exploitation [55]. After 1989, several laws were successively enacted, targeting land restitutions, including towards commons-type legal entities. In this context, the compossessorates were re-established. The post-socialist process of restitution, programmatically guided by historical and social justice [57,61], ignored the changes produced in the meantime at the social, community, anthropological (regarding the peasants’ relationship with the land) and forestry levels [62]. The process produced chaos and confusion [57,58,63,64]. Direct restitution proved to be the most chaotic of the ways of correcting the injustices of communism [65,66]. In 2018, more than half of the commons had litigation with town halls, the National Forest District, the County Council, and the National Fiscal Authority [58].

However, compossessorates exist and operate. Commons drive the development of local communities [54,58], and some of their revenues are used for the benefit of the community [55,58,59,60,62], for example for infrastructure, festivity halls, fanfares, groups of lads, or festivities over the year.

2.2. Methodological Approach

Between March 2018 and February 2019, a cultural mapping project entitled CarPaTO- Mapping the intangible cultural heritage of Făgăraș Land, was conducted at Transilvania University of Brașov. The project targeted the Eastern half of Făgăraș Land, located in Brașov County. Cultural mapping is “a systematic tool to involve communities in the identification and recording of local cultural assets, with the implication that this knowledge will then inform collective strategies, planning processes, or other initiatives” [67] (p. 2). By identifying local cultural values in order to promote them, cultural mapping can support community development [68].

In addition to the actual mapping of the intangible cultural heritage (ICH), the project also aimed to identify local ICH resources of strategic interest, to highlight the priority directions for safeguarding and to capitalize on ICH, and also to set up a network of thematic cultural routes in the East of Făgăraș Land.

The project targeted only the 16 territorial administrative units (ATUs) located in Brașov County (Beclean, Comăna, Drăguș, Hârseni, Lisa, Mândra, Părău, Recea, Hoghiz, Sâmbata de Sus, Șercaia, Șinca, Șinca Nouă, Ucea, Viștea, Voila). The location of these ATUs is shown in Figure 3. The Western half of the historical territory of Făgăraș Land is currently in Sibiu County.

In the first stage of the project, six documentary interviews were conducted with local heritage specialists (from the Ethnographic Museum of Brașov, “Valer Literat” Museum of Făgăraș Land-two interviews), County Centre for Preservation and Promotion of Traditional Culture, “Negru Vodă” Foundation of Făgăraș and Astra Sibiu Museum of Transylvanian Civilization). At the next stage, the CarPaTO team capitalized on the information obtained during the documentation stage by conducting in-depth interviews on intangible cultural heritage resources with mayors, deputy mayors or employees of the ATUs town halls in Făgăraș Land. At this stage, 16 interviews were conducted, one in each ATU. Thus, a provisional inventory of heritage resources was made and the next stage of the project, that is, field research, was prepared. During the field research, 33 interviews with well-informed informants (between one and six in each ATU, depending on the availability of the locals and the relevance of the information on ICH resources obtained) were conducted, direct observations on specific cultural events and practices were achieved, audio and video recordings were made, and photographs and other social documents were collected.

All of the interviews were semi-structured, following the six dimensions of ICH: the five in the UNESCO classification (2018), namely ”(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship” [69], and the one added by WTO [70], namely gastronomy and culinary practices. During the interviews, the interviewees were encouraged to approach the ICH resources in the order in which they attach importance to them.

The interviews were thematically analysed. The thematic analysis is flexible, independent of a pre-established theoretical framework, and appropriate to some previously less-researched topics [71]. These characteristics of the method determined the option for its use in the processing of research data.

Based on the information obtained in the field research, mapping sheets for each ATU were compiled, and strategic ICH resources were identified, i.e., those resources assumed to be representative by local communities and/or that can be used to effectively strengthen community identity. Several models of good practices for safeguarding and capitalizing on the ICH resources were identified and highlighted, and several cultural tourism routes in Făgăraș Land were set up. The final report of the CarPaTO project is available on the website of the Transilvania University of Brașov [72]. In this article we use the mapping sheets found in this report.

After concluding the CarPaTO project, as a follow-up and with a view to suggesting additional ways to capitalize on the ICH resources, we analysed the online communication about ICH on the official websites of the town halls. In June 2019, we conducted a content analysis on the official websites of Făgăraș Land town halls, its objective being to identify what kind of information about ICH is presented there and how it is promoted. In the first stage, we identified all the information related to ICH, written and visual, on these sites. We quantified the presence/absence of information. In the event of their presence, we followed the type and location of the ICH information on the site. In their absence, we followed the presence/absence of some buttons to empty cultural sections still, as an indicator of the intention to upload some ICH information in the future. In the second stage we quantified the data according to an analysis model proposed by Brancati [73], namely using as the criteria of content analysis size (with the indicators I1.1 Number of words referring to intangible cultural heritage-length of text, and I1.2 Number of distinct ICH resources mentioned on the site), counts (with the indicators I2.1 Number of locations where the information on ICH is loaded, I2.2 Number of occurrences of the word “heritage” and I2.3 Number of photographs related to ICH on the website), location (with the indicator I3.1 Number of clicks to get to the information on ICH) and similarity (with the indicators I4.1 Number of sites that have a similar design and I4.2 Maximum number of sites that contain references to the same type of ICH resource) of the information ICH. At the third stage, we correlated the results of the content analysis with those of the field research in the CarPaTO project, outlining an overview of how local governments communicate about their local ICH resources through their official websites. Subsequently, based on the data collected, we made a typology of local narratives related to the culture-centered community-based development.

Narratives are institutional discourses on a certain subject [74]. Narratives come from shared individual stories [75,76]. They correspond to the informative narratives in Cersosimo [77] (p. 2). The authorized voices of some specialists (narrative voice) can strengthen the links of the locals with the space they live in, and they can catalyse community involvement [78]. Piñeiro-Naval, Serra [79] consider that Authorized Heritage Discourse is a kind of narrative in which identities or cultural attributes are symbolically taken over.

Finally, we used the results of the CarPaTO research and of the one on the online promotion of the ICH resources to outline some directions for the efficient use of ICH resources of Făgăraș Land. We present these directions in this article. They are associated with the consideration of Făgăraș Land as a multidimensional associative cultural landscape. We present our arguments in this regard as well.

3. Results

3.1. Resources of Făgăraș Land as a Multidimensional Associative Cultural Landscape

3.1.1. Groups of Carolling Lads and Foster Christmas Relatives in Făgăraș Land

The thematic analysis of the interviews conducted in the CarPaTO project highlighted the unequal information coverage of the six ICH fields. The poorest of these turned out to be the one of knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe. The best covered by information is, by far, the field of social practices, rituals and festive events. Within this field, almost without exception, the first topic addressed by the locals in interviews was that of the group of lads.

Traditionally, each village in Făgăraș Land has its own group of lads. However, field research has shown that in some of the smaller villages no groups of lads have been formed in recent years, or every year. The fact was attributed by the locals on the one hand to the very small number of young people in villages (effect of depopulation of rural localities in Romania) and the high price demanded by musicians to accompany the crowds throughout the winter holidays.

The groups are formed at St. Nicholas (6 December), when the lads choose their leaders. However, their main activities take place between Christmas Eve and St. John (7 January, according to the Orthodox Christian calendar). The main task of the group of lads is to carol the villagers. The carolling is perceived as a ritual act meant to bring health and prosperity to the carolled ones. The group also performs other ritual acts associated with the end/beginning of the calendar cycle and organizes dance parties for young people during the winter holidays. From Christmas Eve to St. John, the members of the group of lads live together with the host, a family from the village who makes their home available for this purpose, becoming the mother and father of the lads. The lads help them with household chores. The group has a flag which they hoist at the host when the boys are there, or which the boys carry with them to carolling and dancing, and which they guard with great care. During the holidays, the group and the community measure each other. Boys enter all households even in the girls’ homes; they see and appreciate, they are seen and appreciated. During the winter holidays, future marriage agreements are formed in the community.

The whole life of the communities is organized after the formation of the group of lads around it. Relatives of the group leaders temporarily gain additional prestige. The guests of the locals, relatives, or friends, are co-opted in the development of community events. The locals are happy to show their guests what happens in their villages during the holidays; they are proud of their group of lads.

At the same time, the locals are reluctant to deal with foreigners. In order to admit them with friendship and joy to community events, the locals need to know what is with them, what they are looking for in the community. He must associate them, as a kind of guarantee, with acquaintances. This attitude could be an echo of the period of anti-communist resistance after World War II [80]. During that period, trying to capture the members of the armed groups in the Făgăraș Mountains, the Securitate, ie. the repressive body of the newly installed communist regime, spread the villages under the mountain with informants. Many families have suffered from being suspected/proven to be helping the fighters.

Returning to the groups of lads, a way to capitalize on them as an ICH resource in niche tourism was proposed on another occasion [80]. We focused our proposal on the concept of foster Christmas relatives. It is about activating the locals as host-owners of the tourists and, thus, as their initiators in the local events associated with the groups of lads. Accompanying them and explaining to them what is happening, the host locals implicitly mediate the connection with the other locals. The type of tourism proposed requires, in order to be sustainable, a careful management of the number of tourists present simultaneously in the community, so as not to disturb or divert the holidays from their traditional purpose. However, niche tourism naturally operates with a small number of tourists [34,40]. In addition, this niche tourism favours the return of tourists [80]. This way, the proposed niche is adequate for capitalizing on the group of lads as ICH resources.

3.1.2. Sour Soups of Făgăraș Land as a Gastronomic Brand

In terms of the ICH dimension of gastronomy and culinary practices, the field research in the CarPaTO project highlighted the local culinary specificity, in fact the importance given to sour soups and soups in the cuisine of Făgăraș Land. These dishes are currently present at the locals’ lunch. They are seasonal and cooked with local ingredients. Some of them are or have been specific to certain events in the Community calendar. We collected the recipes of the most famous sour soups and soups. White sour soup with smoked meat and tarragon is one of the most frequently consumed from the period subsequent to the autumn harvest until the end of spring. Tarragon is an aromatic plant that the housewives of Făgăraș Land cultivate in the garden next to the house. It also seasons another characteristic soup, namely bean sour soup. Instead of potatoes or beans, a version of noodles, locally called “zdrente” [rags], can be used (fresh homemade pasta, passed through a funnel). This is a less common type of tarragon-flavoured soup, based on the same ingredients as the previous sour soups (onion, carrot, parsley, celery, smoked pork, cream, egg, vinegar).

Next come the larch-flavoured sour soups: Easter lamb soup, meatball sour soup during the winter holidays, and mutton sour soup, with pickled tomatoes, during the threshing. The base of these soups is similar to the tarragon-flavoured ones. Another sour soup associated with a certain period of the year is the sausage soup made of minced pork entrails and potatoes. This is a winter sour soup, made in a period when, in all households of Făgăraș Land, traditional dishes for the pork event can be found. From late spring to autumn, the salad sour soup with lard is often cooked. This is a garlic- and dill-seasoned sour soup which can also be eaten cold in the field, during agricultural work. When the beans are young, in Făgăraș Land, thyme-seasoned string bean sour soup is often cooked.

Even if in Făgăraș Land sour soups are the most sought after, chicken soup remains the distinctive dish of Sundays and holidays. It can be with noodles or semolina dumplings, the size and consistency of the latter being an indicator of the housekeeper’s skills. Chicken soup is seasoned with parsley.

Most of the above-mentioned sour soups can also be prepared in the fasting version. For the Orthodox, this means no meat, no milk, no eggs. We also identified in our field research some recipes for fasting soups: cumin soup, fasting noodle soup with pumpkin seeds and noodles with sauerkraut juice.

These recipes have discreet particularizations in the different rural communities researched. Their enhancement as an ICH resource has already been proposed in another study based on the CarPaTO results [81]. It is about the opening of points of sale for soups and sour soups, prepared with ingredients of local origin by local women from Făgăraș Land, near the tourist attractions of Făgăraș, the town that represents the historical centre of the area, and of Brașov, the county seat, also close to other tourist attractions spread in the area, and the Orthodox monasteries that are pilgrimage destinations. For the Romanian pilgrim, a hot soup, if necessary, is an attractive gastronomic option. Points of sale in the same network could be opened in the parking lots of the main car routes that pass through the area, near the railway stations and bus stations, but also inside cities, near schools or business centres. Sour soups and soups would thus become the core of the gastronomic brand of Făgăraș Land. At the same time, they are a resource for the sustainable development of the area. The proposal for their sustainable capitalization signals the protean character of ICH: any of its dimensions, down to the least spectacular, reveals its carefully researched sustainable potential.

As already mentioned, the groups of lads are indicated by the locals as the main strategic resource of ICH. These groups organize the community life around them during the winter holidays and other events throughout the year. Interviews with locals also highlighted the local folk costume, local legends, folk music and the local housewives’ pies as strategic resources. In addition to these resources of importance recognized and assumed by the locals, the CarPaTO team highlighted two others: the impressive repertoire of romances in the area and, from a gastronomic point of view, the soups and sour soups mentioned above. They are strategic resources because they have the have the greatest potential for sustainable exploitation within the community towards consolidating the local identity.

Any of the identified ICH strategic resources would reveal its potential on closer inspection, as happened in the case of the group of lads and sour soups/soups of Făgăraș Land. We have referred explicitly to these resources only because in their case there have already been highlighted ways of capitalization in heritage tourism [80,81].

3.1.3. Unitary Character of ICH Resources in Făgăraș Land

We discuss the unitary approach of ICH because it was imposed as a natural suggestion to improve the capitalization on the ICH resources of Făgăraș Land. The unitary character of ICH was clearly highlighted in the processing of CarPaTO field data. From the groups of lads [80] with their garments, carols and ritual practices, to gastronomy [81], the belonging of the communities to the same cultural entity clearly stands out. It is only within the specific ICH of Făgăraș Land that the characteristics of each community set themselves apart, with local identity stake. For locals, the clothing of the person they meet acts as a sign, indicating the place where this person comes from. The need for differentiation, which signals the importance given to community membership, is embedded in the unitary support structure. These variations-on-the-same theme are clearly seen in the popular garment of (carolling) lads and, more clearly, of girls [82] and women. Figure 4 shows groups of lads from Voivodeni (ATU Voila) and Sâmbăta de Sus, in the 1970s. Figure 5 shows differentiations of the basic garments of the women from Drăguș and Viştea.

The unitary character of the ICH of Făgăraș Land suggests a unitary approach of resources for a more efficient capitalization. This is not just a collection of resources. Within the cultural entity of Făgăraș Land, these resources can be highlighted by each other, precisely by virtue of mutual differentiations. They are interconnected. For this reason, their coordinated management would be useful. We are referring here mainly to the capitalization of ICH through cultural tourism.

3.1.4. Some Community Initiatives to Capitalize on ICH Resources

Făgăraș County hosts cultural events that highlight ICH resources and there are local initiatives for heritage conservation and development. At the heart of most of these events and initiatives are formal or informal community leaders. In some cases the main actors are the simple inhabitants of the villages in the area.

For example, women from Făgăraș Land meet on Christmas Fast at festive evening sittings successively organized in different villages. These evening sittings, opportunities to compete in manual work, cooking, singing and shouting, are echoes of current practices until the middle of the last century, to work together on long winter evenings. At that time, only girls and women from the village, grouped by marital status and age, worked in the evening sittings. Currently, women from different villages invite each other and the meetings are more of a show and a party than an actual work meeting. The groups of lads from the villages of Făgăraș meet at the orthodox cathedral in Făgăraș of St. John, that is, at the end of the cycle of winter holidays [83] and, more recently, at the festival organized by the town hall of Șinca Nouă [84].

In Veneția de Jos (a village in Părău ATU), in a wider current spread in recent years in the villages of Transylvania, brunches are organized, and they are appreciated by the participants. These include local dishes, among which, in place of honor are soups and sour soups [85]. The food is prepared by the housewives of the village with the support of all local entrepreneurs.

At Mândra there is the Museum of Canvases and Stories [86]. The museum is located in the house of the grandmother of the project initiators. With the help of the whole community, a traditional interior was rebuilt there and an impressive collection of clothes made in the households of the locals was put together. The museum holds workshops to revitalize traditional crafts, with demonstrative performances put on by older women of the community [87]. These are intended for adults and are related to the resumption of rural evening sittings mentioned above. The museum also runs various projects to bring children closer to traditional practices and occupations. At the museum there is also a room with transcripts of local stories, which are collected from the locals. All initiatives coordinated by the museum can be considered as steps to strengthen the local cultural identity.

There are such museums in several ATUs in Făgăraș Land, usually set up at the initiative of the school or the village priest. Figure 6 shows photos with the interiors of several such museums, taken in the field research for the CarPaTO project.

3.1.5. The Fortresses of Făgăraș Land as Cultural Tourism Objectives

ICH is not the only tourist resource of Făgăraș Land. Not nearly. In Făgăraș Land there are the fortresses that tradition attributes to Radu Negru: in Breaza, in Făgăraș, in Comăna de Sus [53], in Sâmbăta de Sus. The highlight of the first of these is the objective of a recent project of “Valer Literat” Făgăraș Country Museum in collaboration with Făgăraș Country Association [88]. The fortress of Făgăraș, where the aforementioned museum operates, has maintained its importance throughout history. It is one of the most beautiful fortresses in Romania. In a list of the most beautiful cities in the world, made by the Huffington Post in 2014, the city even occupies second place [89]. The others are in ruins, but their ruler’s aura of legend and their positioning under the mountain, on subalpine routes of medium difficulty and great beauty, would easily turn them into tourist attractions. This is all the more so where the substratum of Dacian habitation can be highlighted. In fact, rather sporadic archaeological research has revealed over time the Dacian vestiges throughout Făgăraș Land [90]. An organized archaeological research programme, with local enhancement of the results, could increase the tourist attractiveness of the area as soon as the first sites are indicated.

3.1.6. Anti-Communist Resistance in Făgăraș Land as a Challenge for Cultural Tourism

Făgăraș Land also hosted, in the first decades after the Second World Warand after the fraudulent winning of the Romanian elections by the communists [91], one of the most powerful anti-communist resistance movements. There were such movements in all the mountains of Romania. In the Făgăraș Mountains, on the northern slope, the Carpathian Făgărăşan Group, led by Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu, was active. The group nucleus was made up of students or young faculty graduates, former colleagues at ”Radu Negru” College of Făgăraș. The young people knew the mountain well, as they had grown up there. With the locals’ help, they made themselves an aura of heroes and, for a long time, they faced the Securitate’s attempts to annihilate them. They seemed to be everywhere at the same time. They had a reputation for being very good shooters, and they were better than the Securitate guards, whose lunchboxes they pierced with a bullet [92]. They were not violent towards the civilian population with whom they interacted (shepherds, forest workers, tourists), and they did not rob private households. Their correctness towards the civilians was acknowledged by the Securitate and recorded in its documents [92].

In 1952 they were considered by the Securitate as the most dangerous group, consisting “only of intellectual elements” and maintaining an “unhealthy mood in the population” [92] (p. 465). In 1957, some members of the resistance group fell into direct confrontation with the Securitate troops, others were trapped, arrested, tried and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu was not arrested until 1976. However, until the disintegration of the group, the fighters in the mountains were continuously supported with supplies, information, and medical care by the inhabitants of the villages under the mountain. The number of families in Făgăraș Land that were persecuted because for being suspected of helping the fighters was over 1000 [92].

The episode of the anti-communist resistance in Romania is not very well highlighted either in the history lessons in the school, or through the museum display. The Făgăraș Land residents do not easily address the issue of resistance, either. We noticed their reluctance in the field research conducted in the CarPaTO project. This is largely due to the tag of legionnaires who are members of the Michael Archangel Legion, a far-right group in power in 1940–1941, tag that was applied indiscriminately by the communist authorities, with a view to discrediting all mountain fighters. The tag, which connotes active anti-Semitism, was not removed after 1989. Many of the former pupils of ”Radu Negru” College had been part of the High School’s Brotherhood of the Cross. Brotherhoods of the Cross were the youth organizations of the Legion. In Romania, the promotion of ideas, conceptions or legionary doctrine is sanctioned by Law no. 217/2015. But not all of the former Brothers of the Cross kept their legionary orientation after high school and members of very different political orientations have been active in the resistance movement [93,94]. On the other hand, communism was officially condemned in Romania in 2006 [94]. It is a tangled historical context. For a history teacher, talking to students about the anti-communist actions, which were heroic and commendable, and of young people with a legionary past, which were reprehensible, is a real challenge. The same goes for a local museographer, who, furthermore, listened directly, at home, to the stories in the community about the fighters in the mountains. However, the provocative nature of the approach of the episode of the anti-communist resistance in Făgăraș Land should not inhibit, but rather enhance the interest in knowing it. Transformative history teaching is a potentiating perspective [95]. It involves developing and consolidating a critical sense of historical events. From this perspective, the past can be interpreted in different ways, and from different angles. Heroes are complex characters, set in certain historical conditions. Historical representations are modifiable interpretations of the past, and the moral judgments about the past are not definitive [96,97]. In such a critical perspective, the resistance movement in the mountains can be valued as an important part of local history, with both an identitary and a tourist stake.

3.1.7. Orthodox Monasteries of Făgăraș Land

Făgăraș Land is also a regionally known religious tourism destination. This is due to the many Orthodox monasteries located on the valleys that descend from the Făgăraș Mountains to Olt. The area has a long and dramatic history of religious life. Prior to the destruction campaign led by General Adolf Nikolaus von Bukow in 1761, there were nearly 40 monasteries and hermitages in the area that were supported by rural communities. Some of these places of worship had been attested since the 14th century. By order of the Empress Maria Theresa, these places were burned or demolished with cannon shots in an attempt to impose Catholicism in Transylvania. Their memory is preserved in toponyms such as La mănăstiri, In Chilia, La Călugăriță, Poiana Mănăstirii, Pârâul Mănăstirii [98,99]. During the interwar period, after the unification of Transylvania with Romania, there were several attempts to rebuild some of the monasteries. When the post-World War II regime change blocked these initiatives, Sâmbăta de Sus monastery had already been rebuilt. At Sâmbăta de Sus, the priest Arsenie Boca, the confessor of Făgăraș people, whom they called the “Patron Saint of Ardeal” had ministered for a few years. The monastery museum has an impressive collection of glass icons from the surrounding villages. Icon manufactures have opened in Făgăral Land since the 18th century. After 1989, in the enthusiasm of regaining the freedom to confess their religious faith, in Făgăraș Land several monasteries were re-established, in some cases even on the places of the former places of worship. With welcoming monastic communities and spectacular stories of how the old sites of churches, altars, and fountains were miraculously found, the monasteries soon became points of interest on the pilgrimage routes. The most important of the monasteries, the one in Sâmbăta de Sus, is the centre of the spiritual life of the whole Făgăraș Land.

3.1.8. Făgăraș Land, a Potențial Cultural Landscape

Therefore, Făgăraș Land was an old Romanian state formation, attested since the first half of the 13th century. Administered by the the Kingdom of Hungary later that century, it was repeatedly offered as a fief to the rulers of Wallachia and taken back and later assigned to the Universitas Saxonum, then part of the Principality of Transylvania, sharing the challenges of its history, from Tartar invasions to internal power struggles, to the union with Romania, after the First World War. Făgăraș Land has a unitary ICH, has ruins of medieval fortresses, Orthodox monasteries that attract pilgrims and the memory of many other monasteries located on the valleys that descend from the mountain. After the Second World War, the inhabitants of Făgăraș Land supported the strongest anti-communist resistance movement in Romania. They formed a network of supporters, with places known for leaving messages and supplies, with signals and with false informants to confuse the Securitate troops [51,92]. They paid for it with arrests, torturous interrogations, years in prison and even death. Each of the sub-mountain communities has its own memories and heroes.

Făgăraș Land is crossed by a network of roads that connect the villages located on the edge of the valleys that descend from the mountain to Olt. On each valley are the villages from the river, further down the plain, then the villages and hamlets from the mountains. In many cases, the localities from the mountains come from the same hearth as those from the plains. The relationship is indicated toponymically, the pairs of villages being called de Jos [Lower]/de Sus [Upper] (ex. Comăna de Jos/Comăna de Sus; Ucea de Jos/Ucea de Sus). The local legends attribute the creation of new hearths to the retreat of the locals from the invasions. Historians believe that the duplication of villages was rather due to periods of peace and population growth, resulting in the need for new agricultural land [82] and, consequently, with the relocation to the mountains of a part, possibly of a generation, of the old rural communities. However, along all the parallel watercourses, separated from each other by the slopes, one after another, the villages of Făgăraș lined up. At the border of the villages or above the water, there are the places preserved in the collective memory that belong to the old monasteries and hermitages destroyed. The main road, which follows the course of Olt river, is seconded by the multitude of other local roads and paths. Locals can get to any village they want without going down the main road.

All of these features justify considering and managing Făgăraș Land as a cultural landscape. It is about a multidimensional cultural landscape, where the dimensions of designed, ethnographic, historic and vernacular lanscape [18] intertwine, supporting the unitary cultural character of the area. According to the classification made in The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [17], it is about an associative cultural landscape of the type. The dimension of designed landscape, given by the network of villages built on all the valleys of the mountain, could be further strengthened by another human intervention, of a recent date, in the appearance of Făgăraș Land. These are two former large industrial platforms which belonged to the chemical plants in Făgăraș and Victoria. The most important industrial units of the area during the communist period of Romania went into decline after the change of political regime in 1989, and they were closed. The industrial buildings were dismantled or demolished, and factory roads fell into disrepair. The town of Victoria, built in the 1950s to serve the plant, was almost devastated by the decline of the latter. What is left of the two industrial platforms and even the city with a dramatically undersized population are results of the political intervention on the landscape. From this perspective, they acquire relevance and tourist potential; they could become points of interest in a wider approach to sustainable cultural development of the area.

We consider culture-centered community-based development to be an appropriate solution for Făgăral Land, with all its cultural tourism resources highlighted above. We will further present some ways to optimize the use of these cultural resources.

3.1.9. Some Dimensions of the Tourist Potential of the Natural Landscape in Făgăraș Land

The natural landscape of Făgăraș Land is an open-air activity provider. The Făgăraș Mountains are crossed by mountain hiking trails of varying difficulty. The development of alpine slopes could be interesting for developers. A slope is already arranged at Drăguș, and there were some unfinished projects for other slopes at Lisa and Saturday, even for the establishment of a large ski area spread on both sides of the mountain, a project financed from public funds [100]. In addition to these developments, which would bring their own tourists to Făgăraș Land, cross-country ski trails could be set up at the foot of the mountain. The profile of downhill skiers is different from that of cross-country skiers. The latter are more attentive to their own “sustainable development” through effort, movement, cultivation of group life, etc. This opens the possibility of a complementary development of the area, correlated to a certain form of education through outdoor activities. In the other seasons and even in the winter periods when, due to global warming, the snow is missing, cross-country ski trails could be used as bike trails. Cross-country skiing and cycling activities, linking several localities, would support the integrated approach of the tourist potential of Făgăraș Land. The winding road under the mountain in the area could be support the network of sports routes.

3.2. Approaching ICH Resources in Town Halls of Făgăraș Land

3.2.1. Online Promotion of ICH Resources on the Town Hall Websites

Regarding the online promotion of the ICH resources on town hall websites, we found that 12 of the 16 contain information about these resources, and in the case of the other four there are links to sections such as culture, tourism/tourist sites and heritage, empty sections or those relating to nature. Our analysis showed that the websites did not follow a standard structure, as no website is similar to another (I4.1). In this context, we considered that the lack of content, or references only to the nature in the web sections about tourist attractions, indicate an inefficient management of communication about local ICH resources. The existence of blank fields indicates the recognition of the value of ICH resources at the same time as the low concern for their valorisation.

Table 1. Values of content analysis for indicators I1.1−I3 and ICH categories, source [101].

	Community	I1.1	I1.2	I2. 1	I2.2	I2.3	I3	ICH Categories
1	Comăna	647	2	1	0	2	1	SPRE
2	Hârseni	608	8	7	1	46	14	PAM, SPRE, TC
3	Hoghiz	190	3	2	0	3	2	SPRE
4	Lisa	27	6	2	0	8	2	SPRE, TC
5	Părău	240	2	1	0	0	1	SPRE
6	Sâmbăta de Sus	313	6	3	0	2	3	OTE, SPRE, TC, KNU
7	Şercaia	3139	5	3	0	5	3	OTE, PAM, SPRE, TC
8	Şinca	452	7	3	0	5	3	OTE; PAM, SPRE, TC
9	Şinca Nouă	271	8	5	1	6	10	PAM, SPRE, TC
10	Ucea	19	8	3	0	31	3	PAM, SPRE, TC
11	Viştea	367	11	1	0	0	2	PAM, SPRE, TC
12	Voila	239	1	1	0	0	1	SPRE

[101] shows the values of the indicators I1.1–I3.1 and the ICH dimensions referred to on the sites, namely oral traditions and expressions, OTE; performing arts and music, PAM; social practices, rituals, and festive events, SPRE; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, KNU; traditional craftsmanship, TC. There is a complete lack of information about gastronomy and culinary practices.

The longest texts on ICH (I1.1) are in descending order on city hall websites of the Șercaia (3139), Comăna (647), and Hârseni (608), and the shortest ones were found on the sites of the communes Hoghiz (190), Lisa (27), and Ucea (19). Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show screenshots of some pages of the sites with the longest texts about ICH, namely Şercaia, Comăna, and Hârseni. The number of distinct ICH resources mentioned on the site (I1.2) varied from one (Voila) to 11 (Viștea). The number of online locations in which there was information on ICH (I2.1) varied from one to seven, with an average of 2.6 locations. Information was found in a single location on four websites (Comăna, Părău, Viștea, and Voila) and in seven different locations in the case of a single website (Hârseni). The word heritage (I2.2) appeared only twice: in Hârseni and Șinca Nouă. Most websites contained photographs illustrating various forms of ICH (I2.3), but without having systematic explanations for each photograph. Three of the websites (Părău, Viștea, and Voila) had no photos, and others had a number of photographs that varied from two (Comăna and Sâmbata de Sus) to 46 (Hârseni) instead, with an average of nine photographs per website. Regarding the access to information on the websites (I3), we calculated an index as a product between the minimum number of clicks to access information starting from the home page and the number of ICH locations on the site, which resulted in a variation from one click (Comăna, Părău, and Voila) to 14 (2 × 7) in the case of Hârseni, with an average of 3.7 clicks per site. The ratio of images to text across sites varies considerably. The only ICH resource mentioned in all 12 cases (I4.2) is the group of lads.

The best represented of the ICH fields is that of social practices, rituals and festive events (SPRE). Of these, the most frequent and detailed are those during the winter holidays (in ascending order: Throwing of Lads into Garments, The New Year’s Plow ritual practice, designed to ensure the wealth of households and hosts in the coming year, The Star carol of children wearing an adorned wooden star, announcing the Birth of Christ, Herods, the carol of boys playing the scene of Herod’s killing of babies, and the group of carolling lads.

In the East of Făgăraș Land (in the villages of ATUs Hoghiz, Comăna, Părău and Şercaia), the Ploughman is also mentioned, a practice that focuses on the most industrious of the young villagers. His ritual watering in the village brook is meant to ensure a rich harvest that year.

As we have shown on another occasion [101], the research highlighted the lack of a coherent strategy for the official communication (on the ATU sites) of online information on local ICH resources. Different and very local, the information on the sites are generally presentations of some customs and folk costumes made for foreign community users. So we thought it was about ”an insufficient capitalization of such real resources in the online environment and also a stronger orientation of the message towards external audience (potentially tourists) than towards community members, in relation to whom ICH can play an important role in strengthening local identities and producing community development” [101] (p. 16).

3.2.2. Types of Local Narratives about the ICH Resources

Correlating the data on the online promotion of ICH resources on the ATU sites in Făgăraș Land with the data from the semi-structured interviews made with representatives of local authorities (in the second stage of CarPaTO) and with direct observation data from the field research, we configured several types of visions on culture-centered community-based development as local narratives on ICH:

(a)

Glocal vision—the commune as a global network node (the leaders knew the lines of international policies, trying to apply them at the local level: emphasis on understanding the mechanisms of sustainable development, obvious extra-local openings, availability for association and inter-community cooperation, promotion of local identity and resources);

(b)

Dynamic local vision—the commune as a stage (the leaders felt that the unique, specific local identity was worth communicating to visitors: emphasis on promoting identity and resources abroad);

(c)

Static local vision—the commune as a protected area (leaders believed that the unique, specific local identity must be protected: emphasis on strict preservation of tradition, with no interest in promoting it outside the community).

In

Table 2. Types of vision on culture-centered development that characterize the ATUs of Făgăraș Land.

	Tipe of Vision	ATUs
a	Glocal vision	Comăna, Mândra, Părău, Șinca, Viștea
b	Dynamic local vision	Beclean, Drăguș, Voila, Șinca Nouă, Sâmbăta de Sus
c	Static local vision	Hârseni, Hoghiz, Lisa, Recea, Șercaia, Ucea

, ATUs from Făgăraș Land are grouped according to the type of vision on culture-centered community-based development that characterizes them.

This is not a value classification, in the sense that one is better than another. It is just about different approaches. Each of the three visions enhances another dimension of the relationship of local communities with their ICH resources. In a sustainable unitary approach of the ICH of Făgăraș Land, the visions should act in a complementary way, each community assuming the role that suits it better.

3.3. Suggestions of Efficient Capitalization on the Cultural Potential for the Sustainable Development of Făgăraș Land

3.3.1. Unitary Approach to Resources of Făgăraș Land

The first of the proposals has already been mentioned above. Făgăraș Land has a long history of unitary administrative organization and unitary ICH patrimony. It is natural to approach the area as a whole in development strategies. This means coordinating area strategies at the level of the two neighboring counties, Brașov and Sibiu. Făgăraș Land has been administratively divided by the two counties since 1968. It was then that, in Romania, the Soviet-inspired administrative division of regions and districts, in force since 1950, was abandoned and the organization was divided into counties. Făgăraș County was not re-established, the result of a late sanction of the communist authorities for the strong anti-communist movement organized and supported by the locals. However, for the authorities of the two counties, supporting a unitary cultural approach of Făgăraș Land should only require coordination efforts. Complementary narratives of local authorities regarding ICH should act in consonance. In these narratives, the emphasis is on different facets of the community’s relationship with its patrimony resources. It is for this reason that the narratives together create the chance to find the most efficient unitary variant of development through the culture of Făgăraș Land.

3.3.2. Integrated Approach to Resources of Făgăraș Land

The cultural characteristics of Făgăraș Land justify a local orientation towards culture-centred development. The cultural resources make up a large part of the tourist potential of the area. However, it also has other resources. We have previously presented some of the characteristics of the natural landscape with tourist potential. It is not an exhaustive review of the tourist resources that nature makes available in the area. We only referred to the features that are easier to associate in an integrated approach, due to the compatibility of the profile of the tourists who consider them attractive with that of the tourists attracted by the ICH resources.

In the final report of the CarPaTO project, we outlined some tourist routes for capitalizing on ICH [72]. It is a one- or two-day route dedicated to the winter holidays, with a differentiated emphasis on learning carols or on accompanying the groups of carolling lads, a religious tourism route to the open monasteries in Făgăraș Land with a meal prepared from local ingredients, suitable for the Orthodox Lent, a one- or two-day route to hear the local stories, from those with flames on treasures to those about the fighters in the mountains, a route of the memorial houses and monuments dedicated to the local personalities and a route of the crafts and craftsmen in Făgăraș Land. These are monothematic cultural routes. Nevertheless, the routes can be configured in a composite way, taking into account the place of the objectives and/or even the bicycle lanes.

3.3.3. Consolidation of Local Cultural Identity

Sustainable heritage tourism needs a cultural identity that can meet the challenges. On the one hand, the relationship between the necessary preservation of traditions and the integration of novelty, which is just as necessary, must be managed, especially in terms of standards of comfort, hygiene, respect for the environment, etc. On the other hand, it is about hospitality and honesty. Comfort is not necessarily related to the accommodation conditions, as they can lose their importance where tourists find mental comfort. That is, where, due to the encounter with a consonant philosophy of life, or due to the reactivation of some old memory contents, they can feel at home. A strong local cultural identity that is well-configured and assumed is needed, so that the locals can support such a tourist offer. In this regard, several things can be undertaken.

ATU town hall sites can be used for the desired purpose. These are already existing communication channels. As they are currently designed, their culture sections are primarily addressed to community outsiders [101], and they inform about the cultural characteristics considered relevant. The sites can become tools for the locals’ intergenerational training, and they can host notifications, exchanges of ideas, and collections. Young people are encouraged from school to use the Internet as a source of information in various fields [102,103,104], with the COVID 19 pandemic accentuating this trend [105]. An attractive ATU site would facilitate the bringing of young generations closer to the ICH resources, supporting the assumption of community identity.

In the process of consolidating the local cultural identity, local schools can then be associated. In Romania, in the pre-university school curricula, some of the disciplines are optional. The decision on the content of these disciplines belongs to the school management. In Făgăraș Land, students could learn about the voivode Radu Negru and his fortresses, about dominions, battles and invasions, about the local legends, about the traditional attire, about the groups of carolling boys and their community attributions, and about the anti-communist resistance. The knowledge of the history and value of local t ICH resources is a prerequisite for assuming the community cultural identity [95]. Only if based on identity assumptions can a culture-centered community development be configured.

This may also increase the number and identitary role of small village museums. The establishment and permanent expansion of museum collections are opportunities to involve community members in an approach to consolidating the local cultural identity. Either by collecting old garment pieces, decorative fabrics, ceramics, tools or documents, with a view to capitalizing on them in the permanent exhibition, or by borrowing them for temporary exhibitions, bringing the pieces to the museum would encourage their owners to tell the associated family stories and help them understand the importance of passing on community traditions.

3.3.4. A Challenge for Local Entrepreneurs

The locals of Făgăraș Land cultivate their lands with cereals, potatoes and other vegetables. They raise cows, buffalo, pigs, sheep and birds. The capitalization on their products can be directed towards the gastronomic support of the local tourism industry. Women are accustomed to cooking together, as they do it on various community occasions. Most dwellings in Făgăraș villages have at least one room furnished and decorated with care, but currently uninhabited. It is the room where the great events of the family cycle take place and where the important guests are received. As we have proposed in the case of niche tourism focused on the activities of the group of lads, the locals could host tourists. They could also guide the tourists, or give them craft demonstrations. All this potential must be activated and organized. We consider tourism social entrepreneurship an appropriate and sustainable way to manage local resources. The creation of a network of service providers covering the whole of Făgăraș Land, responding to the tourists’ various requirements, is a challenge that suits an entrepreneurial approach. In Făgăraș Land, there are two rural LAGs on the territory of Brașov County, the Valea Sâmbetei Microregion (based in Drăguș) and Răsăritul Țării Făgărașului [Eastern Făgăraș Land] (based in Șinca Nouă), plus one in Sibiu County, called Țara Oltului. The declared interest of these organizations for the protection of the natural and cultural capital of the area [106] (p. 2), for the rational exploitation of resources and the establishment of producer networks [107] should also cover the approach through tourism social entrepreneurship of the culture-centered community-based development of Făgăraș Land.

3.3.5. Support from the Compossessorates in Făgăraș Land

Due to their intrinsically sustainable orientation, the optimization of their operation supports the sustainable development of Făgăraș Land [108]. Recent commons on both sides of the Făgăraș Mountains had to deal with a tense situation related to the intention of the Carpathia Conservation Foundation to set up a Făgăraș Mountains National Park, forcing the purchase of land from the locals [109].

The determination of the compossessorates’ representatives regarding the imposition of their right to decide on how to capitalize on the compossessoral lands signals the importance of the compossessorates in the configuration of the zonal development projects. Moreover, the compossessorates should be considered legal partners in any sustainable development initiative of Făgăraș Land [110]. The owners of forests and pastures in Făgăraș Land act together in the Nostra Silva federation [111] to protect their interests.

3.3.6. Better Management of Local Cultural Potential at the Level of Town Halls

The design of the official websites of the town halls is their attribution [101]. There is neither a standard structure nor a content recommended for the whole county. This freedom has the effect in some cases of the poor valuation of local resources. On the other hand, the same freedom can be the background for shaping a unitary and coherent presentation of Făgăraș Land. In such a presentation, each ATU would stand out with its specificity in relation to the others. Each site would highlight its own community cultural resources, while referring to the others and to the common cultural substratum of the area. ATUs should extend the same coherent approach to tourism performance management, building and maintaining a zonal network of all potential actors, from local storytellers to NGOs and entrepreneurs.

It is useful in this context to advise ATU employees, both for the improvement of the cultural sections of their sites and for the integrated management of the cultural landscape of Făgăraș Land. This advice can be the topic of a collaboration with the Transilvania University of Brașov, as a follow-up to its projects in the area and against the background of the existing agreements between the University and the Brașov County Council.

4. Discussions

The unitary approach of the cultural resources of Făgăraș Land is not a simple theoretical suggestion which resulted from the logic of the research. It has a correspondent in initiatives and activities that are already underway. We have already referred to some of these (in subchapter no. 3.1.4).

In Făgăraș Land, the Intercommunity Development Association Regional Center for Sustainable Development and Tourism Promotion “Făgăraş Land” has been operating since 2008. It is an “association of inter-community development, private law and public utility” which has as its stated purpose “to promote and support the sustainable development of the region in all its aspects: economic, social, cultural mainly by promoting and supporting tourism and of all its complementary activities” [112]. The approach proposed by the association under the invitation “Discover” [113] and by the suggestion “Seven days of dreams in the Făgăraș Land” [114] is an integrated one. At the same time, as the core of a local tourism brand, the initiator and president of this association, one of the leaders we interviewed in the CarPaTO project, defines tourism in Făgăraș Land as a “serenity tourism”.

All these activities, positioning and initiatives indicate the existence of a culture-centered community-based development trend in Făgăraș Land, and locals have already understood the importance of a unitary, integrated and social entrepreneurship approach to the challenge of efficient capitalization of local tourism potential. The consideration of Făgăraș Land as a multidimensional associative cultural landscape is justified in this context.

The interest in preserving traditions and artifacts enhances community interactions, and heritage protection measures encourage locals to participate in local resource assessments [115]. Women from Făgăraș Land meet in sittings, cook together, take care of/enrich the textile collections from the village museums or present their traditional costumes with enthusiasm. We consider that this enthusiasm is due in large part to the importance given to the area in the interwar field research campaigns conducted by the Sociological School in Bucharest, led by Dimitrie Gusti. The villages in Făgăraș Land are still fertile ground for ICH conservation initiatives, and any sign of interest is spread. Both the local identity and the pride of the locals can motivate the involvement of the locals in the management of heritage resources, as shown by Luo and Ren [116]. The motivation of the locals in educating future generations can be capitalized on with activities such as workshops or guidance, in which parents and children work together to preserve the heritage. The CarPaTO field research highlighted the pride of the locals from Făgăraș Land regarding their ICH resources, and this can be considered in the context of an asset for the steps of conservation and capitalization of the heritage. At the Museum of Canavases and Stories in Mândra, children are attracted to heritage activities, and women’s seats can be considered workshops.

The role of compossessorates in community development could be wider and more diverse than direct financial support, through infrastructure investments, sponsorships or grants. By-laws of the compossessorates, through their provisions regarding the rights of the members, can favor local tourism. Membership provides local entrepreneurs with preferential prices for renting commons land to build tourist cottages [60] and to carry out tourist activities. Many of the large commons themselves carry out tourist activities [57]. The commons from Valea Mureșului functions as a start-up for private initiatives of tourism members, with benefits for all community members [117]. They are examples of good practices that can be followed by the compossessorates from Făgăraș Land in the perspective of an integrated management of tourist resources.

Private initiatives do not always converge with each other or with the narratives of local authorities. For example, the development plans of the neighboring ATUs Drăguș and Sâmbăta de Sus, with land up to the northern slope of the Făgăraș Mountains, had as main objective the development of a tourist infrastructure (pensions, hotels, restaurants and leisure places) combining the mountain tourism component and religious tourism. It is valued for the natural landscape, as a place of relaxation and for the grazing of the big cattle of the village, and when the town hall wanted to concede the land for tourist infrastructure, a strong resistance built within the community, as they did not want boarding houses near the village, although it would bring income, but wanted to preserve the natural landscape and the “purity” of the valley.

The decision of the Local Council providing for the concession to private investors was abrogated in the public assembly. Both sides are arguing, but decisions are blocked at this time. The local authorities have to find the way to findconsensus between the opposing sides regarding the optimal valorization of the valley. In another example, the authorities also have to manage the conflicting relations between compossessorates and environmental NGOs (in this case, the Foundation Conservation Carpathica) [110].

These examples are about preventive or remedial actions by local authorities. Town halls can also act edifyingly. Due on the one hand to its ICH resources and on the other hand to the historical context after World War II, which encouraged the departure of young people from rural areas to the big cities as part of the industrialization process, Făgăraș Land is suitable for roots tourism. It is based on “international travel to places of one’s own, or one’s family, relatives, or ancestral origin for sentimental or other emotional reasons-is a significant and growing part of global travel. There are many reasons for “traveling back” to where one or one’s family is from rediscovering one’s roots, searching for identity and belonging, visiting friends and relatives, exploring family history, reliving past memories, exploring the places from stories shared by family members or history books, or simply because of practical convenience or familial obligation” [118] (p. 245).

Făgăraș Land also has a resource that is as of now very little used, that being tourism development programs, namely the rivers. This is a resource reported in the literature: the river culture [119]. Făgăraș Land has an extensive network of running waters consisting of the Olt River and its small tributaries. There are several hydropower plants on the Olt River, and some of the water from the small rivers that flow from the mountains is captured for industrial purposes and for a few trout farms. Otherwise, these rivers are not included in any eco-tourism strategy. The literature proposes a very interesting model of regeneration of areas crossed by rivers under the umbrella of the concept of river culture, which proposes “a holistic approach to river basin management” [119] (p. 14), starting from the premise that “preservation and restitution of biological diversity in and near rivers will directly improve the material and immaterial cultural diversity, and vice versa, that «learning from the river» allows the development of technologies and management options that are targeted to maintain and improve ecosystem functions and diversity in a more sustainable way” [119] (p. 10). This is an integrated approach to tourism resources, and is in line with one of the suggestions we made earlier. It also agrees with the finding made by Castillo-Manzano et al. [120] on the tourist areas of Spain. Cultural tourism and nature tourism can work in synergy, increasing their attractiveness and acting as a catalyst for complementary tourist offers, such as, for example, local cuisine. Oremusová, Nemčíková and Krogmann [121] point out the tourist attraction of the vicinity of an old railway route with a forest museum in Slovakia.

As we have shown before, the unitary approach at the level of Făgăraș Land of the management of the tourist resources is efficient, as it enhances the complementary dimensions of the local narratives. This is an approach that reveals unity in diversity and encourages diverse expressions of interest in ICH. Individual policies effectively capitalize on local potential, encouraging competitiveness, according to Castillo-Manzano et al. [120].

These are the ways in which the town halls of Făgăraș Land can act edifyingly in the direction of an optimal capitalization of the local cultural potential. Optimization brings into question the smart governance of tourist destinations. Town halls must collaborate in this context with tourism managers. Destination management organizations in heritage tourism are interested in the sustainable development of tourism, according to Mandić and Kennell [122]. Smart governance of these tourist destinations capitalizes on issues related to social inclusion, environmental performance and citizen-centered services, helping to optimize the development of tourism. Town halls can constructively exploit this interest by coordinating local tourism social entrepreneurship initiatives.

In the case of heritage tourism carried out in the context of community-based development, optimization aims at controlling the number of tourists simultaneously in/near the same tourist objective. Niche tourism addresses a small number of consumers anyway [34,40]. However, heritage tourist destinations that face an excessive flow of tourists is useful to be managed by access scheduling [122,123]. This is a move from maximizing to optimizing tourism development [124,125]. Făgăraș Land locals need to know how many guests they can receive for Christmas in foster Christmas relatives activities, that is, how many they can host, feed and guide to community events. Women who prepare brunches also need to know how many guests they have to cook for. Most of the village museums are housed in old, modest-sized houses. The activities can take place there with a controlled number of participants. Good coordination is needed in all of these situations in which town halls can be effectively involved.

The issue of constitutively divergent interests in tourism and heritage conservation remains a sensitive one despite the attention paid by tourism managers to sustainable development. The publication of sufficient information and discussions of specialists with the public can make heritage conservation compatible with heritage consumption in a sustainable approach to heritage management. Sustainable management requires well-informed tourists that are knowledgeable about the significance of cultural heritage and authenticity in heritage conservation [47]. In this context, the way in which the cultural and tourist sections of the town halls sites are organized is of additional importance. They are a communication tool that can and should be improved. The information shared on social networks influences the decisions to choose tourist destinations [43]. Site administrators might encourage sharing impressions on these sites themselves by creating related sections.

Returning to the divergence of interests, tourism developments in rural areas are not necessarily sustainable. Heritage tourist destinations are vulnerable to significant changes in infrastructure, and they can have a counterproductive effect, threatening the authenticity of the tourist attraction. An excessive increase in the number of tourists (excessive tourism) disrupts the life of the community, becomes a burden and can generate tensions between locals not involved in tourism and tourists [121]. This is also an optimization issue. In Făgăraș Land, solving it involves wide community involvement, supported by tourism social entrepreneurship and responsible control of the flow of tourists. Sustainable management of the area as a cultural landscape operates with tourists welcomed as guests in communities. Tourists are invited to meet the locals and adapt to the rules of the place, as the hosts keep their habits.

Rosalina, Dupre and Wang [31] highlight the internal and external challenges associated with rural tourism. Among the internal challenges listed, planning, improving management, and developing marketing strategies are found in the context of the culture centered community-based development of Făgăraș Land. There is also the need to improve advanced communication technologies, which we highlighted in the research on the websites of town halls.

Better cooperation on vertical and horizontal social networks, efficient conflict mediation and reducing the mistrust of the various involved actors are also useful. We referred to these issues as a unitary approach to Făgăraș Land resources and concerning the role of local authorities in resolving misunderstandings in Drăguș. Deficiencies in infrastructure and facilities could also be outlined.

Howver, we consider that the main internal challenges are related to the balance between preserving the characteristics of rural life and tourism development, between authenticity and quality standards of hospitality, between community life and the temptation to maximize profit, between sustainability and economic success. These are the challenges at the heart of Făgăraș Land’s management as a cultural landscape. Their proper management is a necessary condition for the culture centered community-based development of the area.

On the other hand, the tourism developments proposed or already underway are programmatically sustainable and create jobs in an area that is not very attractive in this respect, after the closure of large industrial enterprises. They are not real challenges.

Even among the mentioned external challenges, we did not identify some that would constitute real threats for the rural tourism centered on ICH resources from Făgăraș Land. The inability to attract a large number of tourists, the dependence on seasonal patterns, and the consideration of tourism as the only additional source of income are natural characteristics of some cultural tourism destinations, with the potential for niche tourism. Competition with more mature and/or more popular tourist destinations is also not relevant in the case of tourist offers centered on the local, authentic experiences of rural life.

The availability of tourists to revisit a destination affects their tourist behavior and future choices, and this must be taken into account in the construction of tourist offers [126]. We mentioned above the tourist potential of returns as foster Christmas relatives, and it is one of the defining connotations of the concept. The same is true for roots tourism. The last years, those of the pandemic, have increased the relevance of previous impressions regarding tourist destinations. In the context of COVID-19, authentic and memorable past experiences become important reasons for return decisions, and they are appreciated in travel planning [127]. They respond to the contextual need for travel safety [127,128,129]. “Serenity tourism” characteristic of Făgăraș Land thus becomes an additional reason to return to the area.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the mapping of Făgăraș Land’s ICH resources highlighted the wide coverage of ICH dimensions in the UNESCO and WTO classifications. These are resources with considerable potential for sustainable development, they just need to be looked at carefully. Făgăraș Land is a very old administrative formation with its own identity that has been preserved from the beginning of the Middle Ages in the conditions of successive affiliations to the Kingdom of Hungary, Wallachia, the Principality of Transylvania, the Saxon University, the Habsburg/Austro-Hungarian Empire and Romania. In Făgăraș Land there are ruins of some Dacian settlements and medieval fortresses. There are also Orthodox monasteries rebuilt on the site of other old monasteries destroyed by the armies of the Austrian General Bukow and informally subordinated to the Sâmbăta de Sus Orthodox Spirituality Center. In the memory of the inhabitants of Făgăraș Land are kept the memories of the anti-communist resistance. The villages of the area are placed one after the other on valleys that descend from the mountain. The locals can identify each other by the traditional clotheing, which differs subtly from one village to another on the background of a unitary clothing structure.

All of these features suggest considering Făgăraș Land as an associative multidimensional cultural landscape. The inhabitants of the area, local entrepreneurs and local authorities have approaches and initiatives related to the unitary, integrated, and with identity stake capitalization of cultural resources and natural landscape, in a sustainable tourism. This signals their openness to culture-centered community-based development. For compossessorates, such an opening is an additional opportunity to support sustainable community development. The ATUs town halls from Făgăraș Land are able to coordinate the networked tourist valorization of the cultural resources, both effectively, in the field, and at the level of their presentation on the official sites.

The consideration of Făgăraș Land as a cultural landscape suggests, as a future research direction, a detailed analysis of the local differentiating particularities. We have already identified such differences in CarPaTO field research on folk costumes, carols, party songs and gastronomy. A comprehensive cataloguing of the similarities and differences in ICH resources between eastern and western Făgăraș Land, between the villages near Olt River and those located at the foot of the mountain, not least between the villages on the left bank and those on the right bank of the Olt, would support community-based development.

Furthermore, as a future direction of research, it would be useful to see how the members of the communities in Făgăraș Land, who are quite conservative in general, respond to the European and global challenges related to the preservation and promotion of identity and cultural heritage. Specifically, how the locals understand the cultural projects and strategies designed by local town halls or entrepreneurs. It would be useful to explore the vision of locals as potential actors in the process of culture-centered community-based development, even the forms of association and cultural activism in which they are involved.

Starting from an observation from the field research, related to the high level of activity on the Facebook account of the community from Drăguș, given that the town hall from Drăguș is one of those that did not upload information about ICH on the official website, future research on the trend of transforming social networks into the main vehicle for information on community identity and legal heritage would also be useful.

Research Limitations

The last two possible future directions of research are related to the limits of the present research. In the latter, from a methodological point of view, we used mainly a qualitative approach that focused on local leaders. They are better informed about ICH and the current interest in conservation than most locals. A quantitative approach with a wider data collection base could provide different results on community members’ appetite for culture-centered community-based development.

In connection with this limitation of the research, the determination of the Făgăraș Land town halls’ interest of the in capitalizing on their ICH resources through the materials uploaded on the institutional sites may be incomplete. A brief additional investigation on the local administration of the sites would have been useful. The correlation of the results of this investigation with the ICH related content on the official websites would have increased the relevance of the analysis.