After implementing the proposed methods, the team discovered three sets of factors that may influence the trail user experience. First, the team obtained more demographic knowledge about the trail users and their reasons for coming to Sibiu County. Second, the team identified how local businesses can take part in enhancing tourist experience. This includes highlighting current successful practices and indicating where customers felt the businesses fell short. Third, the team selected technological solutions to present to the collaborators. This consists of a short-term and long-term reporting form, popular hiking apps, and outdoor people counting systems. This chapter presents the findings from each method in greater detail.

​

4.1 Trail Users

To accomplish the first objective, to understand the trail user experience, the team needed to learn who the trail users are and identify the attractions that draw them to Sibiu County. Using two surveys, the team collected information from 138 respondents. The surveys included questions on demographics, experiences on the trails and with local businesses in Sibiu, and desired mobile applications and features. Interviews with trail guides, trail managers, and local lodging businesses also provided data about types of trail users. The next section presents project findings about typical trail users and current local attractions.

​

4.1.1 Trail User Demographics

Figure 4.1 showing combined data from both surveys suggests most trail users in Sibiu County originate from Romania (94%) and are between the ages 22 and 64 years old. However, the country-of-origin statistic may not accurately represent the whole picture as the remote nature of the project means the survey respondents did not come from a random sample. At the time of writing, COVID-19 has halted travel, which may skew the data from tourism seasons when COVID-19 was not present. The team gained additional data from their interviews about the places that trail users tend to come from. Eight out of eleven interviewees (73%) mentioned that foreigners make up at least 50% of trail users. Seven interviewees also indicated that Europeans make up the majority of international trail users, particularly Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. These demographic findings suggest that physically active Romanians and Europeans are the most common type of tourists to visit the Sibiu trails. This information may be helpful to trail managers and local business owners because knowing the types of people that use the trails can help them cater their trail experience more towards the right group of people.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.1 Trail user country of origin (left) and age (right)

​

Twelve percent of trail users from the English survey experience some type of language barrier. Additionally, one trail user from the content analysis mentioned they were lost for hours after misreading a sign while they were on the trails. It is important to try to eliminate all language barriers for trail users to make the trails more accessible. Of course, trail managers and local businesses need to know which languages trail users do speak so they can cater more to them.

​

All survey respondents spoke either Romanian or English. Table 4.1 shows the percent of respondents from the English survey fluent in each respective language. When analyzing by nationality, all Romanians spoke Romanian, and all foreigners spoke English. This is likely because survey was in English. However, interviews indicated a majority of foreign tourists come from Europe, where English is widely spoken. Therefore, it appears English is still a common language spoken among trail users. Additionally, while only 32% of survey respondents indicated they spoke German, interviews suggested this number is much higher. As mentioned previously, German speaking countries account for a large portion of foreign tourists. One trail guide provided a reasoning for this German population by saying, “In Romania there are also German tourists coming because, especially in Transylvania, you have some German heritage and plus Germany is the biggest EU European country, and they also tend to travel more than the other Europeans.” Knowing that most foreign tourists come from Europe (and specifically Germany), it appears that most foreign tourists can speak English or German, if not both. Therefore, trail signage that displays Romanian, English, and German should accommodate most trail users. Alternatively, trail managers could use recognizable icons on their signs rather than words to overcome any possible language barrier. Local lodging businesses that cater to trail users would also benefit by offering their information in these three languages.

​

Table 4.1 Language fluency of respondents from the English survey

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.1.2 Trail Attractions

Hiking and biking are the main reasons why trail users visit Sibiu; however, the county has several other popular attractions. Figure 4.2 shows responses to the question “Why did you come to Sibiu?” from both the Romanian and English survey. Over half (53%) of the respondents cited hiking and biking as a reason why they came, and 18% cited cultural attractions. Interviews with trail guides and managers further strengthened these findings, with participants indicating that individuals come to hike trails like the Via Transylvanica and to explore fortified churches and villages surrounding Sibiu.

 

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 Reasons trail users come to the Sibiu region

​

Understanding the reasons people visit Sibiu is important because, while it makes sense that trail users come to Sibiu to hike and bike, the team did not expect almost a fifth of respondents to indicate they also come for the culture. Lodging businesses can use this information to cater to trail users so that they can focus on promoting these attractions along with hiking and biking.

​

4.2 Interactions Between Trail Users and Local Businesses

An important aspect of the trail user experience is the way in which trail users interact with local businesses, and particularly with local lodging. The team gathered data about these interactions through their English survey, interviews with lodging business owners, and the content analysis. This data was valuable in helping the team achieve Objectives 1 and 2: understand the trail user experience and identify how local businesses can address the needs of trail users. Using the data collected from the described methods, this section discusses where businesses have succeeded in catering to trail users and identifies areas for improvement.

​

4.2.1 Qualities of Successful Businesses

Most of the collected data centers around businesses that are already successful at catering to trail users. The most critical business type for trail users is lodging: many tourists visiting Sibiu come for multiple days and need a place to stay. In fact, all of the trail guides and one-third of the trail managers talked about tourists that spend multiple days exploring the trails. The content analysis further attested to these findings by revealing the mountain chalets and guest houses are the most popular types of lodging. Of the nine blogs that talked about places to stay, six (67%) mentioned chalets and three (33%) mentioned guest houses.

​

Trail users indicated that lodging was easy to find and provided all of the amenities they needed and expected. Figure 4.3 graphs the responses to the survey question, “How easily could you find lodging?” based on the count of each response choice. Notice that no survey respondents expressed difficulty in finding lodging in the Sibiu region. Additionally, when the survey asked trail users if their lodging had all the amenities they needed and expected, not a single respondent answered “No.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.3 Opinions of survey respondents on the difficulty of finding lodging

​

To gain a better perspective of the exact strategies that businesses employ to cater to trail users, the team interviewed business owners of three successful businesses. Each business owner runs a different type of lodging: one guest house, one mountain chalet, and one resort. All three businesses encouraged visitors to use the nearby trails. The owner of the guest house rents bikes for visitors to take on nearby trails and offers bike repair services should a biker get a flat tire. The mountain chalet owner provides trail maps and can repair hiking boots and gear. Lastly, the resort owner advertises and encourages their guests to go out and explore the beautiful surrounding area rather than staying inside the hotel all day. They stated, “you are not just a hotel to come to sleep and then go away; it's more than that, it's an experience.” Overall, our research indicates that the best businesses for Sibiu trail users are the ones that encourage and enable their guests to use the trails.

​

4.2.2 Reviews of Sibiu Businesses

While many of the trail users’ comments regarding businesses were positive, several responses were critical of certain aspects of the local businesses. Figure 4.4 graphs the ratings that survey respondents had to the prices of businesses in Sibiu. Although between 40% and 55% of respondents had no strong opinion on whether prices were cheap or expensive, approximately 40% of respondents did rate prices as somewhat expensive. After further investigating through content analysis and interviews; however, the team discovered that price varied considerably depending on the product/service and the location within Sibiu. For example, the three lodging owners set varying prices because they provide different services. The guest house and resort are much more expensive than the mountain chalet. Additionally, one source in the content analysis indicated the available food options in Sibiu depend on a tourist’s comfort zone for price range.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.4 Sibiu business prices rated by type

​

Another aspect of businesses that the owners indicated needed improvement was advertising. Two of the three business owners the team interviewed mentioned issues experienced advertising their business. The owner of the mountain chalet indicated that they do most of the advertising for the chalet via word of mouth from previous customers. While they do have a website, they would like to expand the methods they use to advertise. In contrast, the owner of the guest house indicated that the surrounding areas sometimes become overcrowded with the “wrong type of guests,” or those who do not appreciate the surrounding village. He would rather attract people that come for the nature and culture.

​

These findings suggest that trail users have some level of concern over business prices and lodging businesses have concerns about advertising and how to target marketing to attract certain kinds of people.

​

4.3 Implementing Technology on the Trails

Beyond the physical nature of the trails and tourists’ interactions with local businesses, technological solutions have unrealized potential to enhance the Sibiu trail user experience. Objective 3 of this project focuses on researching how to integrate a problem reporting form and which mobile applications hikers use to plan their trips. Objective 4 involves researching which people counting systems the collaborators can use on the trails. The following section presents the teams’ research findings for each type of technology.

​

4.3.1 Problem Reporting Forms

The team developed the core of the problem reporting form by analyzing four existing reporting forms from four other parks first mentioned in background section 2.5.2. Table 4.2 details the features that each form contained (sorted by count) and the features the team chose for their suggested form.

 

Table 4.2 Features observed on each problem reporting form and corresponding links (linked in first row)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on these findings, the team decided all but four features were useful for the recommended form, prototyped in Figure 4.5. The first of these cut features, the trail name, is not a helpful identifier in the Sibiu trail network where most trails are several miles long and certain sections may not even have a name. GPS coordinates are a far more useful identifier. Second, explicit consent to contact is not necessary, as a reporting party effectively consents by submitting their contact information. Next, a standalone feature identifying what activity the problem relates to is not necessary. If a particular activity (e.g., biking) is relevant to the report, the reporter can mention that in the problem description. If no activity is relevant to the problem, this feature is pointless. Lastly, the form should not ask for a problem’s severity, as submitters may not be able to accurately gauge a problem’s severity. Trail managers should be the ones to assess a problem’s priority, and they can do so using submitted descriptions and photographs.

​

Finally, the team used surveys and interviews to identify the most common trail issues, which became preset options for the “problem selection” feature of the form.  The English survey (seen in Figure 4.6) noted seven common trail issues.  The team then finalized the options by cross-referencing the survey results with interviews (which consistently mentioned sheepdogs, signage, and litter) and with existing reporting forms (which consistently mentioned erosion and overgrowth). The final options cover the most common problems, and if a problem is not listed, the reporter can also select “other.” Reporters always have the choice of describing the problem further, but if they select “other,” a description becomes required.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.5 Prototype layout of the Sibiu problem reporting form

 

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.6: Count of commonly encountered problems

​

4.3.2 Popular Hiking Apps

Before obtaining and analyzing the survey results, the team performed preliminary research to uncover hiking/biking applications and websites that might be potential partners for promoting the Sibiu County Trail network. These apps already have trail coverage in Europe, and some have even expanded into Romania. Popular apps like ViewRanger/OutdoorActive and AllTrails showed the most potential after preliminary research. 

Both the Romanian (Appendix G) and English (Appendix H) surveys asked respondents about their use of mobile devices and applications on a trip along the trails. On average, 96% of respondents at least sometimes carry a mobile device on a trip and 86% at least sometimes use a mobile application before or during their trip. These statistics show that trail users are already utilizing technology on their outings, so an application containing information about the trails in Sibiu has potential for widespread use. The surveys also asked about the most desirable features for a hiking app. Both surveys showed similar results, with downloadable maps for offline use as the most popular choice, followed by general trail information (length, elevation gain, difficulty, etc.) and information on trail facilities (visitor centers, campsites, etc.). This was valuable information for the team as it helped create the criteria used to determine the final app recommendation. Surprisingly, one of the features that was least important for trail users was a way to report problems.

​

The surveys also specifically asked trail users what apps they currently use. The results, shown below in Figures 4.7 and 4.8, uncovered 17 new apps in addition to the ones from the team’s preliminary research with Muntii Nostri, a Romanian app, proving to be the most popular. This is likely because it is currently the only application to contain information about all of the major trails in Romania. Despite its popularity, however, Muntii Nostri does not have the route planning capabilities that the project collaborators desire. Additionally, the app is only available in Romanian, making it difficult for foreign guests to use. For these reasons, Muntii Nostri was not considered as a final option. The other prominent hiking apps that appeared in the results were AllTrails, ViewRanger/OutdoorActive, Komoot, and Wikiloc.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.7 Romanian survey results – mobile apps used

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.8 English survey results – mobile apps used

​

Through additional research, the team found that Wikiloc already has a feature available for organizations to upload new trails and create their own trail list in order to be promoted to the app’s community. This feature is called WikiOrg and trail organizations can purchase it with a yearly payment of 120 euros. This feature would make working with Wikiloc very easy for the collaborators, since they would not have to contact any of the app developers to expand the trail database. Additionally, if an organization uses WikiOrg, their followers can download any of their trail maps for offline use, free of charge. Survey respondents indicated offline maps as the app feature they find most useful, so this feature has potential to be a key factor in promoting the use of this app to the trail users.

​

After the team researched these four apps to compare for the final recommendation, they compiled the information (see Appendix I for all details) to discuss with the collaborators. The team then created a final ranking of the researched apps to recommend to the collaborators which can also be found in Appendix I as indicated by the order in which the apps are listed. The report ranks Wikiloc first because of the WikiOrg feature that could make it easier for the collaborators to upload their own trail maps for trail users. Since AllTrails, ViewRanger/OutdoorActive, and Komoot all have very similar features, the team ranked them second, third, and fourth respectively because this was the order of their popularity among survey respondents.

​

4.3.3 Assessment of Potential Counting Systems

By using technology to count trails users, trail managers can more accurately identify the most popular routes, predict trends in trail usage, and develop maintenance schedules. Initially, the team researched a broad scope of counting technologies designed for outdoor environments (Appendix J) and presented their findings to the collaborators. The collaborators indicated that they prefer a temporary system that they can move between trails and that they would rather purchase the system from a European company to make installation and support easy. One example of a temporary solution are the active infrared beams used in Naturtejo National Park, described in the background in section 2.4.1. On the other hand, this criterion eliminates the acoustic slab sensors used in the Swiss National Park, since those are a permanent solution. The team narrowed their scope to the types of counting technology that adhere to the collaborators’ requirements (Appendix K).

​

First, the team considered temporary outdoor counting systems. Through their findings, the team evaluated active infrared technology (Figure 4.9), passive infrared technology (Figure 4.10), and radar sensor technology (Figure 4.11). Table 4.3 provides a comparison of how each technology works, its applications, and its strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.9 Typical configuration of active infrared beams

(Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2013)

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.10 Typical configurations of passive infrared beams

(Eco-Counter, n.d.)

 

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.11 Drawings of the radar sensor position and range in a natural environment

(SensMax, 2018)

​

Each type of technology can serve as a short-term application and is capable of counting both hikers and bikers. The strengths of both active and passive infrared beams are very similar: each system is portable, and the owner can easily hide it in the environment. Likewise, the weaknesses for these two systems are almost the same. In each case, beams cannot distinguish between hikers and bikers unless combined with another technology and are less accurate for pedestrians traveling in lanes or groups. Passive infrared beams also risk becoming less accurate when outdoor temperature nears human body temperature, as this is how the system counts pedestrians (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2013).

The strengths of a radar sensor are that it is portable, more accurate than infrared beams, and can track the amount of time that a pedestrian spends in the specified zone. Weaknesses include that the sensor has a less camouflaged appearance, it requires a connection to a power source and an Internet router or hotspot, and it is less accurate if the user defined zones become crowded (SensMax, 2018).

​

Table 4.3 Characteristics of Active Infrared Beams, Passive Infrared Beams, and Radar Sensors

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With these three types of counting technology in mind, the team considered the collaborators’ second requirement and selected the companies Eco-Counter and SensMax since both companies are based in Europe. Table 4.4 outlines a comparison of five counting devices offered from either company. All of the devices listed can withstand different kinds of weather and terrain on the Sibiu County trails. Almost all devices require a cellular connection to transmit the count data, but the team’s survey results indicated that 88% of respondents (n=25) had Internet access while on the trails, so a cellular connection is not likely to be an issue.

​

Table 4.4 Comparison of Trail Counting System Devices

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eco-Counter (https://www.eco-counter.com/), based in Lannion, France with subsidiaries in Montreal, Canada, and Köln, Germany, offers two passive infrared counting systems: the PYRO Sensor and PYRO Box Evo-Nature. Eco-Counter includes a subscription to Eco-Visio, their data analysis platform, with every counter. Through Eco-Visio, the owner of the counting device can manage counting sites and data, analyze data, share data between multiple users, and export graphics for external information. The owner does not need to have prior data analysis skills since there are tutorial videos.

 SensMax (https://sensmax.eu/) customers can purchase their counters through two distributors in Romania: 4Retail Romania (http://www.4retail.ro/) and GO DIGITAL LTD (http://www.go-digital.ro/). SensMax makes two active infrared counters, the SE Unidirectional Sensor and the DE Bidirectional Sensor, and one radar sensor, the TAC-B Real Time Bidirectional Sensor. To make the SE and DE sensors compatible with data analysis, SensMax offers the SE/DE Data Collector that can read and transmit count data. To download and analyze statistics, the owner must preinstall the SensMax EasyReport software on their PC and connect it to the Data Collector. On the other hand, the TAC-B Sensor requires an Internet connection on site so the user can view the count data live (or later) on a cloud platform. In natural environments, the TAC-B sensor can use mobile phone hotspots and temporary power banks to meet this requirement.

​

4.4 Summary of Findings

The team’s results are not only important for the collaborating organizations, but also the hiking industry in general and the Romanian economy. As discussed in the introduction chapter, hiking is the most popular outdoor activity in Romania, but it is only successful when information, facilities, and well-maintained trails are available to tourists. In Sibiu, the team identified specific ways businesses can cater to trail users, such as advertising their business as part of the natural cultural experience. Furthermore, the team explored different technology to implement to improve the trail users’ trip to the Sibiu trails. Possibilities include designing a reporting form, encouraging more use of hiking applications, and suggesting a counting system for the trails. Having systems to efficiently resolve trail problems and centralize trail information will encourage more trail usage and likely result in more spending at local businesses, ultimately benefiting the economy. With this new information, the team developed guidelines for local businesses to better understand who their customers are and suggested certain actions for the collaborators to take to integrate new technology.