Tourism Development in the Borderlands of Romania: A Case Study of the Danube Gorge–Iron Gates

Tourism development is a national priority for Romania. Not all border areas of the country have a remarkable tourist potential, as is the case of the Danube Gorge–Iron Gates region, located on the Romanian-No-Serbian border. In this sense, it is absolutely necessary to investigate how the border regime can influence the development of tourism. Border areas are usually assimilated to the peripheries from a socio-economic point of view. Often, however, they have a natural potential and attractive landscapes very little transformed by human activity (Haselsberger 2014). In addition, these areas sometimes have many historical and cultural attractions. Therefore, they have a considerable tourist potential, but it is not enough for the effective development of tourism, and the capitalisation of this potential is strongly influenced by the degree of permeability of the border (Caccomo 2007).

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between borders and tourism in a specific territorial framework (a border area on the Romanian-Serbian border) and how the development of tourism can overcome a difficult historical and political context. To achieve this purpose, the following targets of scientific investigation are proposed:

a conceptual approach to the relationship between tourism and borders – a complex relationship, difficult to analyse, with multiple influences in the development of border regions,

A less permeable European border sector was chosen for this analysis, namely the border area of Romania with the former Yugoslavia, where the most spectacular sector of the Danube is located: the Iron Gates Gorge (Pătroescu, Vintilă 1997). The need for this research derives from the fact that this border region of Romania, with a certain natural tourist potential, has evolved, at least in the last 70 years, under the influence of a border regime that has undermined the territorial development and implicitly the tourist practice. In this context, the article is based on the following research hypotheses: (1) the current situation of the Romanian-Serbian border (external border of the European Union) is favourable to the development of tourism; (2) the development trends of tourism activities located in the Romanian Danube Gorge area are generally positive. There are certain factors that undermine the development of tourism in this border region of Romania.

The complexity of the tourist phenomenon imposes difficulties in understanding the spatial phenomena and social processes that characterise the border regions. An exhaustive definition of tourism is practically impossible given the multiple economic and psycho-social implications. Tourism as a whole is a vague, essentially subjective notion, considering the intrinsic combination of many profile activities with other economic sectors (Britton 1982). It is difficult to separate what is touristic or not in a given space, as the same arrangements can serve multiple purposes. Boyer (1996) wrote that “for those who want to write about tourism, the most difficult thing is to define it” (Boyer 1996). In a technical approach, Pearce (1993) defines tourism as “a set of relationships and phenomena resulting from travel and temporary stay of people, especially to relax and recreate.” In the same register, tourism is defined as a system of actors, practices and spaces, participating in the ‘recreation’ of people according to travel and temporary stay, away from the usual location (Knafou et al. 2003).

On the other hand, the tourism system is the result of three distinct fields: economy, society and space. Each of them has a specific weight, which is why it is mandatory to carry out preliminary studies before launching a tourism planning programme. The initiators of such programmes usually pursue three main purposes: job creation, revenue accumulation and balance of payments adjustment. This approach is a priority for any tourism enterprise, once the tourism development process has started (Muntele, Iațu 2003). Tackling tourism as a system is essential in understanding the tourism phenomenon. The concept of the tourism system focuses on interdependence in tourism, on the fact that it consists of several interrelated parties working together to achieve common goals (Leiper 1990; Gunn 2002). A functioning tourism system incorporates the offer of attractions, services, promotion, information and transport, but, regardless of how labelled or described, tourism is not only made up of hotels, airlines or the so-called tourism industry, but rather of a system of major components linked to each other in an intimate and interdependent relationship (Gunn 2002). Thus, a tourism system consists of five elements (Leiper 1990): a human element (tourist), three geographical elements (the passenger-generating region, the transit route and the tourist destination region), and an industrial element (the tourism and travel industry).

In order to identify the degree of tourism development in the area and to establish the tourism competitiveness of a tourist region, the concept of tourism potential plays an important role. Tourism potential refers to the natural or man-made elements that can be the object of tourist attraction. Often a certain ‘tourist vocation’ is invoked, without any real justification, since many places with such qualities were initially absolutely ordinary (Muntele, Iațu 2003). Even if no natural or man-made element is in itself of tourist value, the process of space occupation by tourism is dependent on the intrinsic qualities of the environment, with tourists seeking out anything that is spectacular, apparently unique and unrepeatable. The tourist value of a place is only meaningful in the presence of the tourist and can have a completely different connotation for others. Tourism potential is therefore the sum of objective, natural or social conditions, but also subjective conditions, which are linked to motivations and needs that are in a constant state of flux (Dewailly, Flament 2000).

The study of social and economic literature on different border models (Brunet-Jailly 2005) reveals that borders are complex phenomena (Haselsberger 2014) and lead to the shaping of two directions. By border, the first direction means a demarcation, a line between two countries, which affects anyone or anything that crosses it and which, depending on the factors acting on it, adjusts and forms a wider area of economic integration. The other meaning involves a fixed representation of the border and the area next to the dividing line of two countries, with some specific characteristics: periphery, marginal position, a need for regional development and a specific context (Caccomo 2007).

In the postmodern world (Ihab 1985), there was a change in perception of borders (Passi 2000) from the classical way of looking at borders as dividing lines, separating two entities, to the literature related to the constructivist perception, which also brings to attention the cultural, social and political aspects, as well as the mental dimensions (Newman, Paasi 1998). In many cases, border tourism can have a great potential for development and there are numerous studies that confirm the upward dynamics of tourism activities in border areas (Arreola, Curtis 1993; Gallusser 1994; Timothy 2002; Caccomo 2007). Even in the absence of outstanding tourist potential, cross-border travel has a tourist component, since border crossing points and neighbouring localities often have reception infrastructures that would not be justified in the absence of such flows (Więckowski 2010).

Depending on their character and the function that the borders fulfil, they can constitute barriers or filters regarding the development of tourism, being able to modify the constitutive elements of the spatial integration (Abler et al. 1972). Borders can influence the development of tourism by motivating and stimulating travel, developing tourism infrastructure through marketing and efficient promotion of regional brands. Borders have a strong influence on the surrounding landscape, and in some cases, the development of tourism can be contrasting on both sides of the border (Timothy 2002). Borders can also have significant implications for tourism, especially in terms of planning, promotion and taxation. The flow of tourists, the choice of destinations, the planning and physical development of tourism, and the scale of marketing campaigns can all be affected by the presence of political boundaries. Borders are also often associated with a sudden change in language, religion, national traditions and holidays, and political attitudes and working hours. In a national context, borders have the most significant impact on the natural environment, the economy and models of socio-cultural interaction (Pumain, Saint-Julien 1997).

Tourist areas are sensitive to changes in the location of borders and the functions they perform. A new border or the disappearance of another may affect the functionality of adjacent spaces. Usually, the disappearance of a border or its opening can positively influence the development of tourism through cooperation, but there are also cases where the closure of a border has the opposite effect by the disappearance of attractive tourist locations, rising prices, disappearance of offers, etc. (Więckowski 2010). The disappearance of borders or their greater permeability have positive effects over time by enhancing the flows of goods and people, increasing the importance of border localities that had a marginal significance in the past, decreasing the number of cross-border conflicts, establishing good relations between neighbours and communities, and reduction of insulation (Beeton 2006). Cross-border cooperation is a useful tool for transnational integration and conflict reduction, if we look at borders as places of exchange and cooperation, rather than as barriers (Smith, Eadington 1992).

One of the key issues related to cross-border tourist areas is attractiveness. This is often associated with the evolution of tourist behaviour in parallel with the progress of tourist infrastructure (Cazes 1992). In the first phase, there is a gap between the awareness of the advantages that tourism practice can bring at the local level and the attraction exercised. Subsequently, there is a balance between these factors, and in a third phase, the respective tourist place develops at the level of maximum potential (Butler 1996). On the other hand, models have been built showing that tourist attraction depends on a multitude of factors (Lew 1987; Leiper 1990; Richards 2002) and in the case of a border region it depends, along with tourist resources, on elements such as political decisions or human needs and social capital (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

As for the types of tourism in border areas, they are mainly based on specific activities based on ‘otherness’, such as shopping, gastronomy, leisure, healthcare, transit, nature knowledge, cultural (including urban) or event-oriented tourism. In other countries located in mixed spaces of different cultures and religions, the elements of otherness on which the tourist attraction is based are generated mainly by the different urban and cultural landscapes, which adds the advantageous factor of proximity (Więckowski 2010). Tourism based on common values present in cross-border areas is based in particular on the attractive elements of the natural environment when they belong to both sides of the border (for example the Danube Gorge in the border area between Romania and Serbia) (Hamilton 2001).

In many cases, borders only play the role of mandatory transit points, without tourists using the existing infrastructure in one way or another. The presence of cities with high tourist potential near the border usually generates significant flows. A particular case is presented by the Lilliputian states in Europe (Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino) whose visitors are largely citizens from neighbouring areas of neighbouring states, attracted by lower prices and their tourist reputation. Another special case is represented by some states with a precarious tourist infrastructure, sought by a limited number of tourists for their exoticism, tourism being possible only in the border regions, as is the case with the state of Bhutan (Muntele, Iațu 2003).

Located in the south-western part of Romania, the Danube Gorge is the first sector of the Danube River that runs in its Romanian course. It has a length of 144 km and stretches between Baziaș (Danube entrance in Romania) and Gura Văii (Fig. 2). The Gorge crosses a mountainous area, unique in Europe both in terms of extent and diversity of the natural environment and is an area of interference of natural elements of geological, morphological and climatic order, as well as cultural, ethnic and ethnographic diversity.

Fig. 2

The study area includes all 11 rural communes located near the Romanian side of the Danube Gorge, plus three towns, and one medium-sized (Drobeta-Turnu Severin) and two small towns (Orșova and Moldova Nouă). These administrative units cover the entire length of the Danube Gorge. The whole territory under analysis has an area of 974.51 km² and a population of 13,526 inhabitants (according to the 2011 Population and Housing Census).

The Danube Gorge overlaps with a tectonic corridor that was created by abrasion, and later by river erosion (Menković, Košćal 1997). From a morphological point of view, the Gorge is made up of a succession of narrow and wider sectors. This succession occurred due to the fact that the Danube crosses in the Gorge an alternation of hard rocks (crystalline shales), as well as softer sedimentary rocks. In this sector the Danube has a low slope that shows the age of the Gorge, and its general direction is West-East (Pătroescu, Necșuliu 2008).

The most spectacular part of the Gorge is the Danube Boilers area, which is the main area of tourist attraction. This region is a nature reserve consisting of two sectors: Cazanele Mici (Fig. 3) and Cazanele Mari. In the Cazanelor area, the course of the Danube narrows a lot, making navigation difficult. At the same time, from a morphological point of view, the river is bordered by vertical, rocky walls that create natural landscapes characterised by originality and diversity (Pătroescu, Vintilă 1997).

Fig. 3

The Small Boilers take place between the Știrbățul Mic and Ciucaru Mic hills, being a calcareous area that is characterised by a narrowness of the Danube valley, with a riverbed width of approximately 150 m. Near the bay of Mraconia, on a limestone rock, was carved the face of King Decebalus, a tourist attraction appreciated by tourists but controversial in terms of artistic will (Fig. 3).

The face of the Dacian King Decebalus is a 55 m high bas-relief, located on the rocky bank of the Danube, between the localities of Eșelnița and Dubova, near the town of Orșova. The bas-relief represents Decebalus, the last king of Dacia (87–106 AD), being carved into a rock by the sculptor Florin Cotarcea, from the city of Orșova. It is the tallest stone sculpture in Europe and the second tallest in the world.

Cazanele Mari are located between the hills of Ciucaru Mare and Știrbățul Mare, an area where the Danube riverbed varies between 200 m and 350 m. In this area on the Ciucaru Mare hill are characteristic karst forms, and the Ponicova brook has formed small gorges in the limestone massif.

The Danube Gorge is also an area of bioclimatic interference, transitioning from continental to Mediterranean, which is reflected in the variety of flora and fauna. The mild climate, with strong sub-Mediterranean influences, made possible the presence of elements of flora and fauna with numerous endemisms (Necşuliu, Necşuliu 2005).

Cultural, ethnic and ethnographic interference are also important features of this area. On both banks of the Danube coexist mixed Serbian and Romanian communities, or Serbians and Romanians living in separate communities, but always in good relations (Manea 2003). In addition, the Banat region of Romania (where most of the Gorge is located) is considered to be exemplary in this regard, in terms of friendship between several minorities. The mixed villages on the Romanian bank of the Danube (such as Berzasca or Eşelniţa) demonstrate the possibility of cohabitation (Zbicz 2000). For example, the Czech communities in Romania and Serbia participate together in festivals and events, even if they take place on the other side of the border, which strengthens cultural relations between the two countries. Statistical data from the last census (2011) show the multi-ethnic nature of the population, with a large Serb minority west of Moldova Nouă (Pătroescu, Necșuliu 2008).

Even if that part of the Romanian–Serbian border which constitutes the European Union's external border is discouraging, all these advantages demonstrate that the Romanian area of the Danube Gorge has all the potential elements necessary for tourism development and sufficient arguments to become one of the most important tourist areas in Romania and one of the most original tourist destinations in Europe.

The need to develop a paper on tourism development in the Danube–Iron Gates border region stemmed from the fact that this geographical area is characterised by many native forms, fundamental values of human existence and specific elements of tourist attraction which, in the context of an optimal exploitation, could generate a plus in terms of development of the area. Thus, most research directions have aimed at an objective analysis of the diversity and quality of natural and anthropogenic development resources, as well as the ways in which they can be exploited, in the particular context of a border region located at the external border of the European Union.

The working methodology was adapted to the objectives of the article, each of these objectives corresponding to different stages and specific activities, with a well-established development over time. The research methods and procedures used were both traditional (analysis, synthesis, comparison, direct and indirect observation, description, algorithm, cartographic and historical methods) and modern (diagnosis, quantitative analysis, interpretation of GIS maps, mathematical modelling, etc.). In this sense, the GIS software was used for the mapping of the analysed elements and the interpretation of the maps, the analytical approach being based on the cartographic representations (Mitchell, Murphy 1991).

The realisation of this work, from a methodological point of view, presupposed the structuring of the research in several stages (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

The process of collecting data and information was completed by an identification of elements of natural potential as a support for tourism development in the study area. In order to achieve this objective, a thorough documentation was made, regarding both the approached topic, in order to avoid confusions about the terminology used, and the study area. In order to know the particularities and the political and historical context in which the Romanian-Serbian border evolved, a series of documents and historical studies were used, because the historical method remains relevant in decoding the socio-political background of a territory (Ogborn 2010). Although the literature concerning Romanian-Serbian relations during the communist period is quite poor, unlike that which deals with the period before 1945, sufficient studies and historical documents have been found with the help of which the main stages in the evolution of the Romanian-Serbian relations and the issues related to the borders have been delimited.

The next stage, which followed the documentation, focused on the field analysis, because this method is useful both in the analysis of the tourist potential and in the visual analysis of the main tourist facilities (Laurier 2010). In order to argue the remarkable tourist potential of the investigated area, the variety of natural elements, accommodation structures, tourist infrastructures in the Danube Gorge, etc., numerous objectives and tourist areas were repeatedly observed and visually examined to capture the main transformations and evolutions.

In the development of tourism, interviews and discussions were conducted with local actors. A total of 150 people aged between 18 and 70 were interviewed in 2019–2020. The following randomly selected categories were targeted: locals, Romanian and foreign tourists, hotel and hostel owners, and public administration representatives. The semi-structured individual interview method was used. According to the nature of the information acquired, the interviews had both structured and unstructured components, as different aspects of reality were followed during the field research. This variant of the interview is specific to geographical studies and gives the researcher the possibility to ask additional questions, to change the order of the questions and to adapt on the spot in order to achieve the objectives. The open-ended, biographical and narrative questions highlighted facts experienced by members of the community in a context in which the recent history of the Romanian-Serbian border is little studied and there are not enough documents in this regard, and in order to reconstruct some conflict situations, the testimonies of special respondents, who were witnesses of the events, were necessary. It was also necessary to collect subjective data (interpretations, points of view) from those directly involved in the development of tourism in the Danube Gorge. The questions in the interview guide were based on three pillars:

perception of the individuality of the Romanian-Serbian border area,

This was followed by an evaluation of the observed potential tourism elements, which aimed to record data on their value and importance. In order to evaluate, the criteria for assessing the potential of each element were taken into account, the elements of attractiveness being quantified according to the degree of interest, complexity, knowledge, accessibility and facilities. Taking into account the difficulties involved in quantitatively assessing these characteristics (e.g. in Romania, access to data on real estate transactions is not allowed), the value and importance of the attractiveness elements were determined based on tourist flows (tourist arrivals) to these tourist attractions. The elements of tourist potential were evaluated by a score from 1 to 5 according to the number of tourist arrivals in the administrative unit in which they are located. The highest scores were obtained by: Eșelnița (5), Dubova, Berzasca (3).

The main types of tourism, classified according to the aggregative principle, were identified based on field observations and diagnosis. Based on the principle associated with diagnosis, specifically that involving the recognition of forms, the main types of tourism associated with the Danube Gorge were established. A priori knowledge, a necessary priority for all form recognition systems and based on field observation in our case, has led to the definition and establishment of the characteristics of each type of tourism.

The method of statistical analysis complemented the previous ones given that the description and exploration of statistical data is important in accurately understanding (Dorling 2010) the main processes in a given space. The processing and analysis of data consisted in establishing a correlation between the degree of attractiveness of the area (number of tourists) and the degree of equipment with tourist reception structures. For this purpose, the calculation of some indicators regarding the number of tourist arrivals and the equipping of the territory with accommodation structures was taken into account. For this, on the one hand, the official data obtained from the National Institute of Statistics were taken into account, and on the other hand, a set of unofficial data, obtained as a result of observations during field trips, was gathered. Also, based on the statistical analysis of some indicators such as the dynamics of tourist flows, accommodation capacity and the type of accommodation structure, the tourist competitiveness of the studied area was identified.

In order to portray and geographically evoke the main spatial features of the Danube Gorge and to reveal certain features of tourism development, the cartographic method and GIS tools were used. It is an essential method in geography for the synthesis of some essential data, for the investigation of the spatial distribution of some phenomena or for the illustration of some spatial characteristics.

The Romanian-Serbian border has a length of 546.4 km, of which 289.6 km form the river border (Danube river), and 256.8 km land border. The current border was drawn at the end of 1918 by an international commission chaired by the French geographer Emmanuel de Martonne and confirmed by the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, which divided the historic province of Banat (which until then belonged to Austria-Hungary) between Hungary (a small area near the city of Szeged), the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (one-third of the territory of the province) and Romania (about two-thirds). This border separates the northern part of Vojvodina and the districts of Central Serbia from the Romanian counties of Banat (Timiș, Caraş-Severin, Mehedinți) and currently has 11 points for border control, all in international traffic (eight roads and two railways) and a port one. Along the Romanian-Serbian border, the Danube can only be crossed at the Iron Gates I and II, where the two bridges connect the cities of Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Romania) and Kladovo (Serbia), respectively, with the villages of Ostrovu Mare and Dušanovac. It is a complex of two hydroelectric dams that serve both countries, providing them with electricity.

From a historical point of view, the Romanian-Serbian border has been marked by several stages (Herța 2011; Moscovici 2013) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

Although during the post-World War I peace negotiations there were some animosities between Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) over the division of the historic province of Banat, the interwar period normalised relations between the two countries and even consecrated certain diplomatic alliances with a view to prevent the outbreak of another conflict. Historical research (Herța 2015) indicates that, in the context of World War II, the two states did not face insurmountable disputes and that they were rather willing to cooperate and engage in regional cooperation efforts (Moscovici 2013).

In the post-war period, the Romanian-Yugoslav relations and the character of the border between the two states went through several stages. After the period of 1948–1954, in which hostility with Yugoslavia doubled during the reign of Tito, including by way of conflict-involving incidents and tensions at the border, there followed a period of gradual normalisation culminating in the 1970s with an intensification of interstate relations and economic cooperation (Herța 2015). For this period, both these countries exhibited their willingness to work together by ensuring a high degree of cooperation in various sectors warranting collective efforts, and among these ventures, the great Romanian–Yugoslav Project Iron Gates I remains emblematic; this is the largest hydropower and navigation complex in Europe, built on the Danube at the border between the two countries. The economic crisis in communist Romania in the 1980s marked a distinct period in Romanian-Serbian relations not so much through major changes in official relations between the two states, but especially through the dramatic change in the status of the border that became the border sector with the highest flows of the clandestine emigrants who left communist Romania, in the perspective of a better life in the countries of Western Europe. There are no official data on the exact number of those who tried to cross the border illegally or the number of those arrested and convicted, ill-treated or shot by the military on time, with the tacit permission of the officers (Johann, Doina 2008). There are certain ways to cross, on land, with the help of guides, or by swimming through the Danube. There is not enough historical research in this regard, but it can be seen that during this period the Romanian-Serbian border became the bloodiest border in Europe; a few studies estimate that thousands of Romanians tried to cross the border illegally during 1980–1989. However, the authors of the present study are struck by the lack of archival information. Despite this situation, the authors managed to discover a statistic which shows that only in the years 1980–1989, 16,000 people tried to leave Romania illegally, 12,000 people were caught by border guards and 4,000 managed to avoid the border obstacles [Johann, Doina 2008]). Also, during this period, there was a high-intensity and small-border traffic, used especially by Serbian citizens, for smuggling products and consumer goods that were missing in Romania in the 1980s.

Due to the major political events after 1989—the fall of communism and European integration, to which we can add the phenomena of globalisation and migration—borders have redefined their characteristics (Holger 2016). They are related to contemporary world events and phenomena and therefore reflect the reality of relations between states (Hansen 1977). Consequently, ideological and political tendencies to create a Europe of regions that could diminish the role of the nation-state in the context of globalisation have also been reflected in the construction of borders (Weidenfeld 2013).

Unfortunately, in the 1990s, the wars that led to the break-up of Yugoslavia affected the Romanian-Yugoslav relations and, implicitly, the character of the border between the two states. Romania had to choose, on the one hand, between the objective of the Belgrade authorities to preserve the integrity of the Yugoslav state and, on the other hand, to accept the decision of the Yugoslav peoples for self-determination, which was supported by most Western European states. It was not until 1999 that Romania tacitly opted for the second alternative, authorising NATO aviation to use Romanian airspace to bomb the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war. Romania's option was justified by Romania's major objectives at the time, which aimed at rapid integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. However, a large part of the Romanian public opinion did not agree with this decision, since, while NATO aviation forces were using Romanian airspace to execute belligerent military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the one hand, on the other the Romanian public remembered the history of good relations between the two states, which did not justify this gesture on the part of Romania.

The process of European integration that followed the fall of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe generated major changes in European policy (Keck-Szajbel 2013). A new doctrine has emerged in all free states, as well as a new approach oriented towards economic and social policies. Former communist countries began to participate in the challenges of the free and democratic world and joined regional and international geopolitical structures (Hjalager 2007). The European Union has gradually expanded to the east, the number of member states has increased, as has the number of cross-border cooperation areas, with more than 100 cross-border cooperation areas in Europe alone (according to the Association of European Border Regions [AEBR]).

The gradual enlargement of the European Union through the accession of the new member states, including Romania, has once again changed the perspective of the approach towards the opening up of the borders of European countries. After half a century of communism, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have made efforts to regain their lost identity and change their unwanted past (Light 2000) into a Europe that pursues the economic and social integration of states, its member states and pre-accession states.

Unfortunately, this favourable European context was marked by the transformation of the Romanian-Serbian border into the external border of the European Union. Although the border-traversal procedure required to be followed (by citizens of both countries, who wish to cross the border) has been simplified (citizens are allowed to cross the border only upon producing an identity card), it is obvious that there is a lack of economic dynamism and an absence of major projects in the field of tourism, although the area benefits from a remarkable tourist potential, especially at the Iron Gates (Causevic, Lynch 2013). The level of border permeability (Ricq 2000) is an indicator of the degree of cooperation between two countries and can be calculated according to the following formula: P=100/(y/n) {\rm{P}} = 100/\left( {{\rm{y}}/{\rm{n}}} \right) where P = border permeability index, y = the length of the border (km) and n = No. of border crossing points.

A result close to 0 could indicate very little cooperation between countries. A good level of cross-border cooperation is indicated by a result >2. Between Romania and Serbia there are 11 border crossing points. According to the calculation, the permeability index of the Romanian-Serbian border is within the parameters of a permeable border (P = 2.01), which indicates a good cooperation between the two countries. Indeed, at first sight, the intensification of cross-border traffic is noticeable, including for tourist purposes, and the multiplication on the two banks of the Danube, especially in the Gorge sector, of tourist reception structures (especially tourist pensions [guesthouses]); however, tourist flows in the Romanian-Serbian border area remain low, according to statistics, and the area remains limited to small-scale regional tourism.

Often in Romania, the development of tourism is approached only through the prism of the tourist potential of a certain tourist region. It was intended in this article to emphasise from a theoretical point of view the idea that, especially in a border area, tourism is influenced by a multitude of factors, among which the historical and political ones have great weights. Although limited in terms of the statistical data available to us, in practice the results that were obtained can provide future studies with a starting point for identifying trends in tourism development in the Danube Gorge and the characteristics of tourism infrastructure that have developed in the preceding periods.

Regarding the hypothesis that the current situation of the Romanian-Serbian border (constituting the external border of the European Union) is favourable to the development of tourism, first of all, we can see the lack of large investors and, surprisingly, those in Serbia, which could be explained by the remnant of the imprint of the unfortunate history of the border during the communist period, but also by the legislative barriers in Romania that make it difficult to invest outside the European Union. Secondly, although declaratively, at the political level, it is stated that although the relations between Romania and Serbia are good, there is a reluctance on both sides to get involved in major infrastructure projects, as happened during the communist period. The reasons given by the Serbian side refer mainly to the economic and customs obstacles between the two countries, but for the Romanian side it weighs heavily on the uncertain political status of Serbia in terms of accession to the European Union. In this situation, without an impulse from the state, the development of tourism in the area of the Gorge is based on complementarity and punctual investments, which are incoherent most of the time. It is well known that any major investment in tourism is started by investors only when there are at least two or three anchor elements. In the absence of such flagship elements (for example, modern transport infrastructures), the tourist spaces in the Gorge area, on both banks, shaped only by the local initiative, will have a residual character and will not be able to benefit from a coherent planning exercise.

At present, it can be said that the Romanian–Serbian border has at least three directions of influence on the development of tourism in the studied area:

the fact that the Romanian–Serbian border functions as the external border of the European Union discourages large investments in tourism, making room only for small entrepreneurs,

The evolution trends of the tourist activities located in the Romanian space of the Danube Gorge, as it results from the existing statistical data, are generally positive (second hypothesis). Regarding the number of tourist arrivals for the whole region in the period 2015–2019, the trend is generally positive, although the growth is concentrated in two or three localities. In this context one should mention the relatively backward position of Drobeta-Turnu Severin in terms of tourism development and apparent degree of attractiveness for tourists; considering its capacity as the largest city in the region, it should function as a true centre of concentration/dispersion of tourist flows, but yet it is characterised by a stagnant evolution of tourist arrivals. In fact, the weak position of the urban centres in the Danube Gorge is also confirmed by the picture of tourist reception structures in 2019. There are a variety of accommodation units of different types, but tourist and agritourism guesthouses remain dominant. The dominance of rural tourism and the function of the Natural Park of the area can be an asset, given the need for preservation of a minimum balance between tourism and the functionality of ecosystems. At the same time, the evolution in this direction will imply a much more careful planning of the tourist spaces, which comes in contradiction with the spontaneity of the tourist developments from the recent period.

For the third hypothesis, it is noted that, in essence, the factors that undermine the development of tourism in this border region of Romania, with a recognised tourism potential at national and European level, are not subject to the impacts of the political decisions affecting all border regions, but refer especially to the lack of synergy of tourism development. The absence of long-term strategies (local or national) for tourism development in this area, the simplistic nature of exploitation and promotion of tourist resources, the lack of correlation between the tourism market and the labour market, and ignoring the multiplier and dynamising effect of tourism in the economic sphere are factors that undermine the punctual efforts of investors in the field.

It can be concluded that the development of tourism in border areas is primarily dependent on the existence of tourism potential. However, the tourism system is not a rigid form: it is rather dynamic and constantly changing. New concepts and phenomena are constantly emerging and influence the development of tourism. The tourism system is also largely affected by external influences such as politics, demography, technology, etc., and changes are constantly driven by political uncertainty and technological innovations.

At the same time, it is clear that political decisions that influence the existence and functions of state borders have important effects in general on development and implicitly on tourism, especially in less permeable border areas, such as the Romanian-Serbian border that operates at present as the external border of the European Union. It is difficult to demonstrate which elements make a decisive contribution to the development of tourism in a border region, given the multitude of internal and external factors that influence this complex area.

The results obtained from this study contribute to a possible deeper reflection on the contradiction between the declared tourism development potential and the complexity of the field data attesting tourism development. For this reason, for the Danube Gorge area in Romania, based on statistical data, there is a contradiction between the upward pace of tourist flows and the delay of endowments with large tourist infrastructures, dominant being the flexible accommodation units of low capacity, which do not require large investments.

The idea of the remarkable tourist potential of the Danube Gorge is unanimously accepted among the specialists from Romania. It should be noted, however, that the tourism potential alone is not enough to generate a sustainable development of tourism activities and the desired status of a major tourist region in Europe.