A Historical Review of Second Homes’ Tourist Patterns in the Geographical and Historical Region of Transylvania. A Case Study: Apuseni Nature Park (Cluj and Alba Counties)

ABSTRACT. – A Historical Review of Second Homes’ Tourist Patterns in the Geographical and Historical Region of Transylvania. A Case Study: Apuseni Nature Park (Cluj and Alba Counties). Recreational activities related to second homes date back to antiquity. However, despite its spatial and temporal extension, the vacation homes tourism has not been analyzed simultaneously from both a typological and evolutionary perspective. Therefore, the objective of this study is to identify the main second homes ̓ patterns from Roman Empire to contemporary times in parallel with the evolution of tourism (as a general form) in the geographical and historical region of Transylvania. To achieve this goal, this study has been divided into two parts. The first part was carried out through a literature review across various fields (geography, history, literature, architecture, archaeology, tourism) in order to identify the spatial evolution of second homes ̓ patterns used for recreation purposes. The second part followed a case study design, with in-depth analysis of vacation homes ̓ patterns in Apuseni Nature Park (Cluj and Alba Counties). The last one was achieved through direct field research succeeded by data processing in ArcGIS10.2 software and mapping of the resulted patterns. Results showed a total of 28 vacation homes ̓ patterns in the studied period, with significant fluctuations due to the sociopolitical and economic background and the development stage of tourism as a general form. These findings with concrete examples enhance our understanding towards the size, forms and length of the phenomenon, and can serve as a theoretical and methodological base for future research.


INTRODUCTION
The recent period has seen a fast development of second homes in many countries or regions in the world. As a result, this form of accommodation has become the subject of a new and controversial research direction; the dominance of tourist versus non-tourist features of second homes have been the subject of intense debate within the scientific community. Dower (1977, p. 160), for example, stated that second homes "are at the point of overlap between housing and tourism -neither squarely one or the other, but having the nature and implications of bothˮ (cited by Paris, 2011, p. 30). Other authors (see Breuer, 2005;Williams and Hall, 2000;Müller and Marjavaara, 2012;McHug et al., 1995;Borsdorf, et. al., 2012;Overvåg, 2011) claim that second homes are at the limit between the migratory and tourism phenomena, but some researchers (e.g. Burby et. al., 1972;Gartner, 1987;Sievänen, et. al., 2007;Kauppila, 2010) consider second homes an individual component of the tourism industry.
However, the fast changes generated by the second homes' activities are having a serious effect on the entire society. As a consequence, most studies in the field of second homes tourism have only focused on its impact on the socioeconomic, cultural, natural or residential environments (see Norris Roca and Roca, 2015), but far too little attention has been paid to investigating second homes from a typological perspective.
According to recent studies, second homes patterns may be divided depending on: type (non-mobile, semi-mobile, mobile), structure (houses and apartments, camping, boats), buildings or vehicles (solitary cottages and houses, second home villages, apartment buildings, trailers or mobile homes, recreational vehicles, tents, caravans, sailing boats) (Newig, 2000, cited by Hall and Müller, 2004), type of ownership (private, intermittently commercial, intermittently private, commercial) (Marsden, 1969), motivation (e.g. second homes used in weekends, vacations, for retirement, for rent and so on) (Visser, 2004;Paris, 2006;Dykes and Walmsley, 2015). On the other hand, another approach in the second home tourism research led to a proliferation of patterns with a significant empirical, spatial and temporal characteristics. In this respect, in some representative studies (see Djist, et  bought, inherited or built for unpaid tourism activities even if it is a house, mansion, villa, cottage or something else. There are three aims of this paper: a) to investigate the spatial and temporal evolution from antiquity to the present date of the secondary dwellings used for tourism purposes in parallel with the development of tourism as a general form; b) to identify the main types of secondary dwellings which have been used in the period mentioned above; c) to suggest a possible research methodology for contemporary second homes patterns.
The overall structure of the study takes the form of five parts including this introductory chapter. The second part deals with the methodology used for this study. The third part presents the findings of the research and is divided into two subsections: a bibliographical research and an empirical case study. Finally, the conclusion gives a brief summary of the spatial and temporal analysis of vacation homes in Transylvania.

METHODOLOGY
Given the lack of vacation homes spatial and temporal data over time, methodological approaches have been limited. The most common research design, methods and sources of the data employed in previous studies have been: the case study, the statistical and spatial analysis (using Geographical Information System), the data from the Population and Housing Censuses, Property Register, National Statistics Institutions or surveys composed of questionnaires addressed to second homes owners.
As pointed out in the introduction, the results and discussions are divided into two subsections. Consequently, the methodological framework is based on two approaches: the bibliographical analysis and the empirical case study.
In the first part, in order to identify the spatial, temporal and typological extension of the early forms of leisure dwellings, a series of tourism-related bibliographical sources were consulted (e.g. architecture, history, archaeology, architecture, literature, etc.). Simultaneously, the following electronic databases were accessed: National Archaeological Record of Romania (RAN) (www.ran.cimec.ro), Castle in Transylvania Project (www.castleintransylvania.ro), (Un)Forgotten Monuments Project (www.monumenteuitate.org), and other official sites of health care resorts in Transylvania. Also, to compare the quantitative distribution of second homes at county level, we used the census data provided by the National Institute of Statistics, Romania.
Because of the lack of second homes studies in terms of tourism in the period between the 14 th century and 1850, it was necessary to research the family tree of every important noble families in Transylvania by means of the Geni Project accessed on www.geni.com. In this way, it was possible to identify and make an inventory (even an informative one) regarding the residences or the multiple domains that belonged to the same person.
In order to map the evolution of second homes tourism in Transylvania ( fig. 1), primary data were made by the authors except: the Digital Elevation Model (from U.S. Geological Survey, accessed on www.usgs.gov), the boundaries of the territorial administrative units (from the National Agency for Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity, accessed on geoportal.ancpi.ro), the spatial and temporal evolution of health care resorts (from Ciangă, 2007) and the routes of Roman roads (from Oprea, 2012). Also, all the map editing work was carried out on the basis of the Soviet 1:50000 scale maps from geo-spatial.org website.
The second part followed a case study design related to a protected areathe Apuseni Nature Park (part of Cluj and Alba counties which are in the geographical and historical region of Transylvania). Thus, in order to identify the spatial distribution of second homes, a direct field research was made with the help of the local people, the local authorities and based on own considerations, which may allow some errors. Once the vacation homes were located, the data obtained was introduced in ArcGIS 10.2 software. For the purpose of distinguishing the second homes patterns, we analyzed the relation of vacation homes to the main elements (particular to the studied area) which may contribute to the decision-making process. Therefore, to achieve this goal, the Euclidean Distance function was used to determine the distance of each vacation home from: the main natural tourism resources (caves, avens, rivers, gorges), the main anthropogenic tourism resources (festivals, historic wooden churches, museums, other historical monuments, Fântânele Reservoir), the roads (communal roads, county roads, national roads), and the existing tourism facilities (approved tourism tracks, pleasure boats, tourism facilities for caves). Furthermore, in order to identify the degree of attractiveness and monumentality of the landforms for each vacation home, we established their location in relation to the slope, elevation and aspect of the mountain. These processes were followed by the automatic assignment of the score obtained to each vacation home through ArcGIS spatial analysis tools (the classes are detailed in table 1).
To map the results, primary data were made by the authors based on satellite images, Soviet maps and the field reality except for Apuseni Nature Park limit which was taken from the Ministry of Environment, Romania (www.mmediu.ro) and the lists of natural tourism resources according to Order no. 604/2005 to approve the classification of caves and cave sectors -natural protected areas (source: www.lege5.ro).

Antiquity
For the purpose of establishing a useful distinction between second home tourism and tourism as a general form in Roman antiquity, the following two essential criteria must be considered: the type of ownership -public or private and the multiple dwellings concept.
The leisure activities in antiquity were closely linked to the thermal water resources. Consequently "Thermaeˮ were developed which, according to Yegül (2013), represented luxury public baths (also called people᾽s palaces) affordable even for the middle classes, or "Thermulaeˮ which represented exclusive small baths. Sometimes privileged people owned private baths within their residence (Fagan, 2002).
In the geographical and historical region of Transylvania, public baths were identified at Călan (Aquae) and Geoagiu-Băi (Germisara), and a private bath at the Palace of the Roman Dacia governor in Apullum (the current city of Alba Iulia) which consisted of baths for the governor, his family and staff (Rusu-Bolindeț et al., 2011). Although these private baths were typologically and structurally detached from the common forms of leisure carried out in public spa resorts, yet they do not meet the last criterion: the multiple dwelling concept. Consequently, it is time to bring into question the term "villaˮ with the meaning acquired during the Roman period. The attribution of tourist (recreational) qualities against the agricultural (economic) ones or vice versa to the villa, has been a controversial and much disputed subject between the researchers. Certainly the Roman villa was a rural residence other than the main one. Also, several authors proposed the delineation of recreational and productive functions of the villa by attaching the adjectives "rusticaˮ (the farm and separate buildings to accommodate farm laborers) or "urbanaˮ (the dwelling of the owner and his family). However, Zarmakoupi (2014) points out that such a conceptual delineation is "ideological rather than typologicalˮ (p. 5) and "this ̔ landscape of production̕ was not contradictory to the life of leisureˮ (p. 7). The villas were also used as a place of contemplation and study or for economic, political and social activities in the countryside (Viitanen, 2010); they were a reflexion of the "mounting prosperity and pretentions of the second century BCˮ (McKay, 1975, p. 101); and were located within fertile and easily accessible areas, in the vicinity of the urban centers (Marzano, 2007). Therefore, it may be mentioned that villa rustica (at least for the present studied area) represents a complex form of secondary dwelling where the economic and agricultural activities have a primary role, and leisure as a secondary one. This statement is confirmed by Becker (2013) who claims that "Pliny the Younger, for instance, described a number of his villas that include one by the seaside as well as the more working-class villas that he leased to tenant farmers (Plin. Ep. 3.19)ˮ (p. 312).
Referring to the study area, the villa rustica appeared after the transformation of Dacia into an Imperial Province and, according to Floca (1953), these "were not anything but household settlements, country houses, isolated farms, built where the agricultural exploitation was cost-effective and necessaryˮ (p.743). Villa rustica were coordinated by colonists, veterans, intermediaries or soldiers who were granted land ownership rights. Several owners lived in the main buildings of the villas, but most of them are assumed to have been established in urban areas (Cătăniciu, 1993;Dobre, 2000;Székely, 2012;Ardevan, 1998;Jucan, 2013). As noted by Jucan (2013), villa and land ownership were both a source of income and a place to relax (p. 235).
In the studied area, so far a total of 57 villae rusticae have been discovered, of which 24 in Hunedoara County, 14 in Cluj County, 7 in Sibiu County, 4 in Harghita County, 3 in Alba County, 2 in Sălaj County, 1 in Mureș County and 1 in Bistrița-Năsăud County. Hovewer, it is worth mentioning that this number may be higher.

The period between the 16 th century and 1850
After the Roman period, the bathing and climatic tourism stagnated until the mid-eighteenth century. On the contrary, recreational activities related to secondary residences have existed since the mid-fourteenth century. These activities were in close connection with the nobility of the times, which, besides military concerns, also practiced hunting (both as a source of food and as a leisure sports activity). A confirmed example may be the current town of Dumbrăveni (Sibiu County), where, according to Andron (2000) and Postăvaru (2010), between 1367 and 1374, serfs of that village were responsible for the hunting dogs of the landowner who also had a hunting mansion there. This is supposed to be the origin of the old town᾽s name "Ebesfalvaˮ: eb-dog, falva-village (in Hungarian).
The 15 th century marked an important moment in the trajectory of leisure activities due to the penetration of the Renaissance elements in the studied area. From that point on, the emphasis was put on comfort in the new noble and princely residences. These (the castles and the mansions) represented the medieval residence in the rural area belonging to the agrarian and military aristocracy. Otherwise, from a structural and functional point of view, due to farming and economic exploitation functions, they can be considered a continuation of the villa rusticae from the Roman period but with an increased comfort.
The action of land allotment was carried out in the context of political and social turmoil when noble titles were given by the king or the prince as gratitude for implication in armed struggles. Thus, the new social strata had rights in large areas of land against the indigenous villagers who later became their serfs. Castles, mansions and lands were then inherited, acquired through marriages between the noble families, regained, sometimes even lost at card games. As a consequence, it got to the point where an estate could pass through several generations of the same family or successively through several different families. Therefore, the buildings have undergone interventions on the physical structure through repairs, new arrangements or even the complete reconstruction because of the damages resulting from peasant revolts.
In the context where these buildings were seen as an "alternative residences outside the cityˮ (Milea, 2011, p. 4), and therefore the multiple dwelling criterion is reached, the leisure component was given by the grandeur of the buildings themselves. In some cases, they became "ecclesiastical properties and in this regard an eloquent example was Gilău (Cluj County), which was given as a donation to several owners, including the Catholic Bishopric. Later, in 1473, it was considered the summer palace of the Bishopric (Șteiu et. al., 2005).
A particular case is related to the castles of Constantin Brâncoveanu (Prince of Wallachia between 1688 and 1714), some of which were built for the exploitation of land properties, others for entertainment activities, near the roads to serve for rest during his movements, and others for leisure. The latter has crossed the border of Transylvania᾽s historical region in Sâmbăta de Sus (today Brașov County). The Castle of Sâmbăta de Sus served "as a resting place or perhaps as a refuge if he were deposed from the reignˮ (Stan 1928 cited by Niculescu-Varome, 1941, p. 17) or as an "asylum abroad in cases when unrest in the country, or external events would force him to grasp the path of exile in foreign countriesˮ (Draghiceanu, 1913, p. 13). However, one may also mention Ciceu and Cetatea de Baltă domains which were given by Matthias Corvinus (king of Hungary between 1458 and 1490) to Stephen the Great (in Romanian: Ștefan cel Mare, voivode of Moldavia between 1457 and 1504) for political and strategic reasons (Gorovei, 2005).
The 18 th and 19 th centuries corresponded to the Baroque period when second home tourism became more visible due to the emergence of imposing summer residences. The most representative ones were those of Samuel von Bruckenthal, Baron and the Habsburg governor of the Grand Principality of Transylvania between 1774 and 1787, who, besides the native house at Nocrich and the Palace in the city of Sibiu (Sibiu County), also owned a summer residence at Avrig, a summer house in the city of Sibiu, a castle at Micăsasa (all in the county of Sibiu), a castle at Sâmbăta de Jos, a summer residence in the city of Brașov (all in the county of Brașov). Furthermore, according to Țiplic (2013), the documents mention that some of Transylvanian Saxon colonists (Grafs), probably the wealthiest of them, owned more residences, one of which would have been located in urban centers (Sibiu, Cisnădie, Sebeș) (pp. 354-355).
Against this background, the tradition of hunting and summer castles continued. A representative example is the former hunting castle of Rákoczi György I (Prince of Transylvania between 1630-1648) at Lăpușna (Mureș County) that became the property of Rudolf Jozsef (Crown Prince of Austria) in which he used to organize numerous hunting events (source: www.castleintransylvania.ro). Also, there could be other examples: the Bethlen Hunting Castle in city of Beclean (Bistrița-Năsăud County), the Nopcsa Castle at Zam (Hunedoara County), Imre Miko᾽s summer garden in the city of Cluj-Napoca (Cluj County) and so on. In the mid eighteenth century the spa tourism began to revive, therefore the first sanatoriums and other specific facilities appeared (Ciangă, 2007, Ciangă andDezsi, 2007). At that time, the benefits of salt or carbonated mineral water for health came to the attention of nobles who built dwellings in the future resorts either for their own interest or as an investment opportunity. For example, in 1747 at Borsec resort (Harghita County), the District of Gheorgheni had built several houses for bathing which were subsequently destroyed by the shepherds of Count Lázár (who also owned hunting areas here) (Călimănescu and Zaharia, 1981, p. 32).

The period between 1850-1918
This period was marked by the discovery of new mineral water and thermal resources such as those at Sovata (Mureș County), Toplița, Băile Tușnad (all in Harghita County), Malnaș-Băi (Covasna County), Sângeorz-Băi (Bistrița-Năsăud County). On the other hand, in 1870, the establishment of the Royal Summer Residence at Peleș Castle in Sinaia, Prahova County (located outside the Transylvanian historical region, but with great echoes in the typological evolution of tourism), was a trigger for tourism development in the mountain region.
Regarding second home tourism, the mansions and castles were further used wholly or partly for leisure and other recreational purposes, but the interest in spa tourism intensified. Therefore, resorts tourist facilities created at the time were related to the investments of barons, earls or military personnel (for example Malnaș-Băi, Balvanyos, Toplița or Sângeorz-Băi resorts).
From this point onwards, the villa gets a new meaning; according to a definition provided by the Universal Encyclopedia of Brockhaus of 1903 (cited by Nemțeanu, 2009), villa is an individual holiday house (vacation) of small proportions, containing ornamental gardens and built on a homogeneous artistic plan for a family or maximum two (p. 463). Thus, an example located outside the study area but with reflection in the historical region of Transylvania is Moneasa Resort (Arad County) in which it is assumed that "beautiful and modern villas were builtˮ by the Count Wenckheim᾽s family (Oarcea and Groza, 2007, p. 48 in tourism infrastructure at Lake Ursu in 1893, primarily for the interest of building his own summer residence near the lake. Later, his example was followed by other future vacation home owners (source: http://muzeum.szovata.ro/).
Moreover, during this period another form of second home tourism appeared. According to writings of Sextil Iosif Pușcariu (b.1877Pușcariu (b. -d. 1948) we can figure out the intensity and even the weekend character of second home tourism from that time through the following remarks: "when I was a kid, this village (Satu Nou, Brașov County), located near some beautiful forests, began to become instead a holiday village, where the wealthy Saxons of Brașov built their summer housesˮ (Pușcariu, 1934, p. 389).
Vacation homes also represented an interest among the cultural personalities of the time. A useful example is the Hungarian architect, ethnographer and writer Kós Károly (b. 1883-d. 1977), who in 1910, from his desire to get closer to the traditional architectural culture as well as the mutual influence of the mixed population (Romanians and Hungarians), built his own dwelling in Stana (Sălaj County), which he used seasonally for 6 years, and then permanently until 1944. For him, this house was the home of Transylvania, the main workplace, the recreation home and its real creative place (Beke, 1972).

The interwar period
As mentioned in the previous historical period, the establishment of the Royal Summer Residence in Sinaia (Prahova County, in the proximity of the studied area), was a catalyst for second home tourism development. So, this led to an important influx of political and cultural personalities who were to build their own holiday villas in the mountain area. Related to this, it is worth mentioning that Paul Smărăndescu was one of the most important architects who left his mark on numerous neo-Romanian style villas of Prahova Valley (Nemțeanu, 2014  Another essential form of second home tourism of the interwar period was related to the properties owned by the Royal Family: 9 hunting houses (with a total of 58 rooms), 29 palaces and castles (with a total of 1081 rooms) (Tîrnă, 2011, p. 264), of which, within the studied area are found: Bran Castle (Brașov County), Lăpușna Castle (Mureș County), Ucea de Sus Castle (the former county of Făgăraș, currently Brașov County), Clăbucetul Taurului cottage and ski houses at 2,023 m (currently located in Brașov County) (Tîrnă, 2012). In this respect, according to Bucharest Museum (Muzeul Municipiului București, 2013), there were mentions of some recreational activities of Queen Maria who used to spend her leisure days either at Bran Castle received from the citizens of Brașov in 1920, or at Bicaz where she "was retiring to a country house (…) or in Balcic where was her favorite summer residence on the Black Sea coastˮ (the last two are out of the study area; p. 36).

The contemporary period
After 1945 tourism as a general form suffered a dramatic decline until 1965 when efforts began to be made to revitalize the tourism activities. However, second home tourism has continued its ascending trajectory and the evidence are the new villas that have appeared in Tușnad (1940, Harghita County) or the rest houses at Predeal (1940) (Teodorescu, et. al., 2014a).
Continued interest in this type of construction is confirmed by the architectural specialized studies such as New projects for private property vacation homes by architect Mariana Bucur and her team in 1968, or Prefabricated vacation homes by Mircea Enescu (architect) and Ștefan Angelescu (engineer) in 1968 (bibliographical notes taken by Giurescu, 1989).
On the background of the communist regime, a new type of holiday home appeared: the hunting lodges and the so-called "protocol housesˮ located in attractive tourist areas. These types of second homes (also known as special villas) were owned by personalities specific for the period.

Vacation homes patterns in Apuseni Nature Park (Cluj and Alba counties)
Apuseni Nature Park is a protected area of the V-IUCN category (International Union for Conservation of Nature). Due to its landscape quality and the anthropogenic and natural tourism resources, it represents a powerful centre of attraction for both tourists and the potential owners of vacation homes.
The protected area is spread over three counties: Cluj 38%, Alba 36% and Bihor 26% -according to ArcGIS 10.2 calculation. However, since this paper focuses on the analysis of second home tourism within the historical region of Transylvania, our case-study area is limited to Cluj and Alba counties.
This part of the study was designed to determine the peculiarities of vacation homes patterns in the case-study area. Therefore, based on the criteria considered in table 1, the results indicated that most of the vacation homes were located on the slopes oriented to the South, South-East and South-West, which means a higher degree of solar radiation and thus a longer period of sunny daysan important factor for the development of recreational activities.
Another important finding was that the largest share of the total vacation homes was located on low slopes with a slope of less than 9 %, and at relatively high altitudes. Consequently, there is a predominant typology of vacation homes that are located in the areas with high degree of visibility and therefore with a significant visual quality.
Concerning transport infrastructure, we found that most of the vacation homes were built up to 200 m away from an important road. So it can be assumed that owners considered road accessibility as an important decision-making criterion.
Surprisingly, no significant number of vacation homes were found near the hydrographic network. Therefore, the results showed that most of vacation homes were located at a distance greater than 600 m from Fontanel Reservoir and the important rivers.
Also, another unanticipated finding was that a very small proportion of the vacation homes were located in the proximity of natural and anthropogenic tourist attractions, or tourism facilities.

Table 1. The analysis criteria and the experiment results
Next, the most relevant tourist patterns regarding vacation homes in the case-study area are illustrated.

The tourist pattern 1
In this category, the results show that the vacation homes are located on sunny slopes, at relatively high altitudes (868-1325 m). The attractiveness of the landforms is due to a complex morphological and geological background (Ianovici, et al., 1976, p. 40), which consists of rounded peaks and plateaus with a particularly attractive panoramic landscape. However, in spite of the high altitude, the transport accessibility is in a relatively good condition due to the newly asphalted communal roads that are linked to the national road 75.
Furthermore, in this area there are anthropogenic attractions related to the historical and cultural heri-tage with prominent rural features, as in the case of the scattered villages or hamlets (in Romanian: crânguri) (Apolzan, 1940), which are typical of mountain areas. Additionally, the recognition of the area as having a particular historical and cultural significance is evidenced by the Memorial House of Vasile Ursu Nicola (known as Horea, leader of the Transylvanian Uprising of 1784) in Fericet village.
Also, the peculiarity and uniqueness of the area was transposed into the concept of an ethnogeographical country: The Land of Moți (in Romanian: Țara Moților). This region, besides the territorial individualization and the physicalgeographical components, the typical mental and spiritual component, draws defining traits (Boțan, 2008). Thus, the main feature of vacation homes in this area in terms of architectural and building materials is closely related to the ethnographic, historical and cultural specificities of the area. Consequently, the results indicated that the second homes in this area are converted constructions bought and refurbished by foreigners to the area, or they are inherited and reused for leisure purposes.
The tourist pattern 2 refers to Casa de Piatră village, Alba County. Due to the relatively close distance between the first and the second tourist patterns, the cultural and historical heritage is the same as the one mentioned above with the exception of the ethnographic museum of Țara Moților located in the center of the village. The major difference, however, is the attractiveness of landforms both locally and in the regional tourist context. Situated at the upper edge of Gârda Seacă River, it is the last isolated village accessible only by the forest road. Also, through the village one may access the Padiș Karst Plateau, which represents a special interest for caving or speleology practitioners. Thus, according to Ciangă (1995), the tourist attractiveness of the caves in this area is divided into two categories: a) those that are distinguished by the great variety of speleotems (stalactites, stalagmites, columns, etc.) (such as Vârtop Cave, arranged and located in the immediate proximity of the village), and b) caves that are remarkable by the monumentality of underground landscapes: Ponor Fortresses or Coiba Mare Cave, the latter also located at the edge of the analyzed village. This is one of the reasons why Casa de Piatră village represents a center of interest for cavers, some of whom built their own vacation home or acquired a co-ownership vacation home.
The tourist pattern 3 is represented by the village of Poiana Horea, Cluj County. It has developed along the Beliș River and its tributaries, and represents an attraction centre for vacation home owners due to the high accessibility through the national road 1R that connects the counties of Cluj and Alba. Furthermore, this dual accessibility both from the northern and southern counties is reflected in the main residence area of the owners. However, the vacation homes in Poiana Horea are divided into two categories: vacation homes situated near the national road (in a proportion of 48%) and to the same extent, the vacation homes to which access can be made only through forest roads The results show that most vacation homes are of small size (63% of them), built mostly from wood on slopes between 0° and 16°, but also on steep slopes ( fig. 7). Also, they are located along the valleys carved in the crystalline rocks which form massive landforms specific to Gilău Mountains (Berindei, 1972), at altitudes between 868 and 1,325 m. These peculiar features limited the construction of vacation homes along the water courses, all being at a distance of no more than 400 meters and 88% of them less than 200 meters from a valley.
The tourist pattern 4 is in close relation to the diverse natural landscapes, the high road accessibility and the growing interest for tourism capitalization. On the other hand, villages that include several households have recently become a point of interest for tourism investors. An example may be Smida Park Tourist Complex, which has been an impetus for building other accommodation units. Simultaneously, most of the vacation homes that were built are rented to tourists. The opportunity of renting vacation homes to tourists is supported by the annual International Festival dedicated to contemporary jazz. Thus, Smida may represent an early form of second home tourism resort with potential for future development.
The tourist pattern 5. Beliș, a village displaced around the 1970s with the decision to build an accumulation dam -Fântânele Reservoir -represents a new settlement, which is structurally different from those specific to the Apuseni mountain area. Thus, on the background of favorable transport accessibility, by means of the present 1R national road and the relatively small distance from the main area of the primary residence both for tourists and vacation homes owners (the city of Cluj-Napoca is at a distance of 54 km on the shortest route), the village is one of the most representative models of vacation homes development.
The higher living standards in Cluj-Napoca are reflected both in the high density of holiday homes and in their size and shape, all being new constructions with an estimated number of 1-2 rooms in a proportion of 12 %, 3-4 rooms -52%, 5-6 rooms -29% and more than 6 rooms -7%. The extension of the village in the form of clusters is similar to that of pattern 3 previously analyzed, while the difference is in terms of the landform structure and the hydrological network absent in the present case. In Beliș, vacation homes are dispersed peripherally, radial-concentric around the locals' homes. Placed on a platform at an altitude of 1,096-1,325 m, on relatively flat terrain (67% of the land has a slope between 0° and 9° and the remainder in the range 9°-16°), the holiday houses situated peripherally benefit from an open frame with a panoramic view that validates the primary recreational character of tourism activities against those who require complex tourist facilities.
The tourist pattern 6 is the most visible form among vacation homes development. These tourist patterns fit into a category of spontaneous clusters, consisting exclusively of vacation homes used for personal purposes.
Most vacation homes located on the shores of Fântânele Reservoir were built on slopes between 9° and 20°, at an altitude of over 1,000 meters. These new medium to small con-structions are made of wood, without either urban facilities or easy road accessibility (access is made only by the forest road). Also there are no tourist facilities (eg. approved tourist routes). Also, we identified caravans which are permanently located on the shores of the lake in order to be used seasonally for tourism purposes. The specific activities of this type of tourist pattern are related to boats or motorboats owned by the owners themselves, fishing, ATV rides or berry picking.
The tourist pattern 7.
Fântânele is a resort of local interest and a result of the works at Fântânele Dam, during which a few constructions for workers were built, then used as tourist acco-mmodation units.
The reduced capacity of tourist accommodation in parallel with the privatization and the lack of interest of the new owners to invest and modernize the resort, has led to the emergence of a significant number of vacation homes located at the base of the reservoir.
The works for the dam also opened the way to a new area exploited by the vacation homes owners, so there is a cluster settlement at an altitude of up to 1100 m with vacation homes and some tourist accommodation units scattered along a partially asphalted forest road (probably from the time of stone quarrying) in a forested area.
This type of pattern is often encountered both at national and international level, the resorts being a centre of attraction for potential owners. The main reasons may be: their recognition locally, nationally or even internationally which perhaps represents a validation regarding the qualities of the tourist resources in the area; the existence of tourist facilities (depending on the complexity and specificity of each resort); the psychological and social characteristics (social status, the desire to explore and exploit a favorite tourist area on the long-term); the high level of road accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the aim was to analyze vacation homes from a spatial and temporal and typological perspective. Also, a comparative analysis was made between the evolution of vacation home tourism and tourism development as a general form. In other words, it was desired to create a solid foundation of what today's residential tourism or second home tourism means in the historical and geographical region of Transylvania, both through an extensive historical bibliographic study, as well as a case study that captures the second home patterns in their present form.
Preliminary conclusions consist of the assertion that second-home tourism has been in close connection with the socio-economic and political environments. Thus, starting with the antiquity period and up to the 1990, 21 models of tourist accommodation with vacation homes were identified from a spatial and temporal perspective: 1) villae rusticae (the leisure characteristics were of secondary importance compared to the economic ones); 2) hunting mansions or castles, practiced both as a form of recreation and for the provision of food; 3) mansions or medieval castles used as secondary residences -a similar form to the villae rusticae; 4) mansions or castles received as a gift by foreign voivodes for political and strategic reasons; 5) castles and mansions built by foreign princes as residences for rest or political asylum; 6) ecclesiastical castles or mansions used as summer residences; 7) mansions or castles built to be used as summer residences; 8) secondary residences built within the spa resorts; 9) vacation homes built by the cultural personalities in the countryside; 10) vacation homes in the vicinity of the large urban centers belonging to the wealthy population; 11) vacation villas in the mountain resorts; 12) rest homes of the institutions; 13) cottages built by the cultural personalities in the mountain regions; 14) castles -the summer residences of the Royal Family; 15) Royal hunting houses; 16) Royal Family Ski Houses; 17) villas within spa resorts; 18) hunting cottages of the communist period personalities; 19) protocol houses of the communist period personalities; 20) cottages for rest and cultural activities for miners; 21) creation houses for writers and philosophers.
Therefore, the first form of leisure activities related to vacation homes (the term tourism being too pretentious for this type of activity since this period), has been identified in the antiquity within the context of the establishment of the Dacia Felix province after the conquest of Dacia by the Roman Empire. Tourism activities (as a general form) were focused on Thermae for the curative use of thermal waters, while agricultural exploits, which were one of the main occupations of the aristocracy of the time, were organized at the villae rusticae.
A period of 1500 years followed, when the concerns regarding the exploitation of thermal resources decreased since the Roman Empire period to the 18 th century, when balneo-climatic tourism was rediscovered. However, it is not the case of second home tourism. Starting from the 14th century until the middle of the 19th century, the second home tourism was the result of sociopolitical circumstances. Thus, the medieval features were found in almost all the typologies of the recreational facilities related to the use of secondary residences in this period, in some cases being even a structural and functional continuation of the villae rusticae belonging to the period of the Roman Empire's domination. Specific to the privileged elite, vacation homes were also found in the form of edifices built for recreational or leisure activities such as hunting or the capitalization of the thermal or thermo-mineral waters. A period followed when the studied area was under the domination of the Austrian Empire, then of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in terms of second home tourism, vacation homes have been also built in rural areas or in the proximity of urban centers.
After the Great Union of 1918 when the Romanian State was established, tourism as a general form continued its trajectory, creating tourist facilities in new spas, climatic and mountain resorts, but also related to cultural and weekend tourism. Regarding second home tourism, the villas started to be built in the new mountain and spa resorts, cottages in the mountain regions, but the most important aspect was the inclusion of castles, ski houses or hunting cottages in the property of the Royal Family.
The contemporary period was marked by the nationalization of 1948, with an important impact both on tourism as a general form and on second homes tourism. Thus, tourism as a general form has undergone dramatic changes by the taking over of the tourist accommodation units by the state. However, there was a revival after 1965 when new tourist developments were made.
From the perspective of second home tourism, the tourism facilities for the Royal Family, the castles and the mansions that existed up to this period, went into state ownership. Instead, on the backdrop of trade union tourism, new forms of tourism development emerged that can be considered at the border between vacation homes and tourist accommodation units: leisure cottages for miners or creation houses for writers. At the same time, another type of second homes used for tourism purposes were the hunting cottages and protocol houses used by Nicolae Ceausescu or other personalities of the communist period.
The year 1989 marked an important moment for vacation homes tourism by moving from the centralized economy to the market economy, and implicitly the possibility that a person owns more than one dwelling. This was the moment when the vacation home tourism in its current form gained the largest scale in both numerical and spatial terms.
Thus, in the present case-study, seven representative vacation homes patterns were identified: 1) pattern 1 with vacation homes located on high altitude plateaus, with relatively good accessibility. In this case, the vacation homes are traditional re-used dwellings, built or purchased for recreational purposes; 2) pattern 2 which is specific to areas with a high potential for cavers, with minimal tourist facilities and poor road accessibility; 3) pattern 3 has a structure conditioned primarily by the landform physiognomy, being in the form of an extension of the old villages and there are 2 subclasses: cluster zones with reduced road accessibility or areas with vacation homes located in the vicinity of national roads; 4) pattern 4 is closely linked to the tourism development initiatives of the area and cultural events that provide the possibility for the owners to rent their vacation homes; 5) pattern 5 is the most representative model and is noticeable by the important number of vacation homes generated by the city of Cluj-Napoca. In this case, the vacation homes are newly built, medium to large buildings; 6) pattern 6 is the most visible type of settlement with vacation homes that is encountered in the form of clusters unrelated to other settlements; 7) pattern 7, encountered in many areas with tourism potential, is characterised by vacation homes with high comfort, whose owners have a social and economic condition above the average.