PAULINE DANIELE ANNE-MARIE DALY

THE IMPACTS OF TOURISM ON LISBON’ CULTURAL IDENTITY

Scientific advisor: Prof. Doctor Álvaro Dias

Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias Escola de Ciências Económicas e das Organizações

Lisboa 2020

PAULINE DANIELE ANNE-MARIE DALY

THE IMPACTS OF TOURISM ON LISBON’ CULTURAL IDENTITY

Dissertation presented to obtain the Master's Degree of Tourism, with a specialization area in Strategic Management of Tourism Companies, conferred by the University of Lusófona Humanities and Technologies, with the Jury Appointment Order No. 216/2020 with the following Jury

composition: Jury: President: Prof. Doctor Mafalda Patuleia (ULHT). Advisor: Prof. Doctor Álvaro Dias (ULHT) Arguente: Prof. Doctor Anna Rita Costa Peres (ESHTE)

Dissertation defence date: 13.10.2020

Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias Escola de Ciências Económicas e das Organizações

Lisbon 2020

2

Dedication

To my supportive family, that gave me strength when needed and courage to eventually cross the finish line with pride.

3

Abstract In the past last decades tourism was long perceived as a solution to remediate to economic crisis and recessions, while the impacts were secondary and weren’t qualified. Focusing of the consequences of tourism development, the identities of historic urban areas were constantly been neglected as essential features and symbols of their attractiveness. However, long before tourism, modifications of cities spatial structures and social geography were conducted by governments as strategies to repopulate certain urban areas abandoned for historical or economic reasons. For instance, through gentrification, urban rehabilitation or revitalisation, the urban structures became more appealing and attracted investments that strengthen local economies. Nevertheless, these transformations have dismantled cultural patterns and were amplified by touristification. This investigation deals with gentrification and urban rehabilitation as precursors of tourism growth and how it influences a neighbourhood’s cultural identity. Using a historic touristic destination as an example gave leverage to the understanding of the repercussions. Lisbon historic neighbourhoods; Alfama, Mouraria and Bairro Alto, influenced our understanding with the active participation of the residents as co-contributors of this research. Findings confronted our pre-existing understandings on tourism growth to the impacts generated on cultural identity.

Key words: Tourism - Gentrification – Multiculturalism – Touristification – Cultural identity.

4

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 7 2 Literature review ...... 9 2.1 Tourism ...... 9 2.1.1 Overtourism and touristification ...... 10 2.1.2 Residents perceptions and attitudes ...... 11 2.2 Multiculturalism ...... 13 2.3 Gentrification ...... 15 2.4 Tourism impacts ...... 18 2.5 Multiculturalism recent interpretations ...... 21 2.6 Gentrification outcomes ...... 22 3 Methodology ...... 24 3.1 Qualitative analysis ...... 27 3.2 Instruments and participants’ sample ...... 27 3.3 Case study ...... 30 3.3.1 Introduction ...... 30 3.3.2 Alfama ...... 32 3.3.3 Mouraria ...... 34 3.3.4 Bairro Alto...... 36 4 Results and discussions ...... 38 4.1 Cultural identity contents ...... 41 4.2 Impacts related to tourism growth ...... 43 4.3 Illustrated results ...... 45 5 Conclusions ...... 46 5.1 Theoretical considerations ...... 46 5.2 Practical considerations ...... 47 5.3 Limitations and future investigations ...... 49 6 Bibliography ...... 51

5

Indexes Tables Table 1. Criterions of selection 26 Table 2. Sample of the participants 29 Table 3. Cultural identity contents identified in the interviews 40 Table 4. Impacts of tourism on historical neighbourhoods in Lisbon. 41 Figures Figure 1. Lisbon Centre 33 Figure 2. The existential phenomenological research method 39 Figure 3. Illustrated results 46

6

1 Introduction

Tourism is driven by consumption-led growth and the production of cultural images, and for some scholars, tourism development can be characterised as a process that involves social interactions, relations and conflicts (Gotham, 2005). While tourism growth modifies socio- cultural attributes, it can be questioned whether tourism development improves or deteriorates resident’s quality of life. However, in order to understand the bigger picture that underlines tourism, this paper’ opening introduces several notions that had to be considered.

While tourism can either be understood as a result of gentrification or a pre-condition (Gravari- Barbas & Guinand, 2017), gentrification is affected by the changing patterns of tourism flows and is defined as a brutal change of landscapes. Nevertheless, the consequences of gentrification includes social and cultural implications that rise upward tensions in local communities, disrupting the social cohesion and creating exclusions (Sequera & Nofre, 2018). These exclusions are supported by the touristification of certain spaces, responding then again to tourism flows. Touristification may be seen as a vehicle for gentrification, that conducts a form of urban regeneration and socioeconomic revitalisation. However, some scholars questioned the real impacts of gentrification and opened discussion on whether gentrification could offer the possibility to improve the living conditions and be considered as a necessity for survival (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017) or on the contrary, that gentrification should be resisted (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2019). While some are more concentrated towards the restoration of historic homes (Glass, 1964), the social diversification that it engenders (Lees , Slater & Wyly, 2013) and the eventual economic benefits, others accentuated the inevitable spatial destruction of certain spaces (Cocola-Gant, 2015) and represented it as a socio-spatial process that answers to the needs of affluent residents and consumers, neglecting the lower-classes, which by all means are direct actors of the cultural image.

In this sense, diversification can be contextualised through residents, new gentrifiers or immigrants. Although multiculturalism can reinforce the ideal of tolerance and cultural heritage, it can also enhance disruption and loss of national identity (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2004), which eventually accentuated scholars’ discussions towards the beneficence of diversified neighbourhoods. Through globalisation, multiculturalism can either be perceived as a cultural degradation and dissolvement, that accentuated the gentrification process and weakened local economies (Fainstein, 2005) or as a gain of attractiveness and precursor of 7

economic added plus value through diversification (Rath, 2007). One of the challenges is to ascertain whether cohabitation between migrants, residents and tourists can be considered whilst preserving a cultural identity.

However, despite the actual literature on the subject, the subject remains underexplored. Thus, this investigation will procure a deepen insight on the impacts of tourism on cultural identity. To do so, the research distinguished numerous factors and contributors towards a more profound understanding; tourism developments and strategies, gentrification processes, touristified neighbourhoods and the unavoidable immigrations that cosmopolitan cities attract. And tended to highlight the eventual conflict between residents and tourists towards a preservation of heritage, opposing tourism development to a deterioration of place identity and quality of life (Bernardo et al., 2016).

The research approach aimed at answering the following questions: Can tourism be considered as a form of gentrification? Does tourism improve or deteriorate resident’s quality of life? How can the cultural identity be influenced by tourism?

To enable this research with concrete examples, we contextualised our literatures with the case of Lisbon’ historical neighbourhoods. Lisbon detains similar characteristics with other European cities; with a touristic demand focused on culture and authenticity. By been affluent and considered as a trending touristic destination, Lisbon’ sudden tourism growth endangered the cultural identity that it once preserved. The case of Alfama, Mouraria and Bairro Alto are studied as examples of historical neighbourhoods that are been directed by tourism flows. To achieve our objectives: to understand the dimensions and repercussions of tourism development upon and within communities; to determinate the internal and external actors of spatial and cultural structures; and finally, to understand how tourism growth is a direct actor upon cultural identity loss, we leaned on residents’ observations and participations, which permitted to extend our pre-existing understandings.

Thus, this article is structured as follow: the section one, mentioned above, gave an introduction to contextualise the research, pursued by the section two that is conducted through a selection of literatures that will be the base of our theory and will define our hypothesis; that gentrification, touristification, multiculturalism and cultural identity can all be vectors for modified cultures. To study further the subject, the methodology introduces the research

8

technique used, a qualitative analysis, towards our case study; Lisbon’ historic neighbourhoods. Section four presents the results and discussion. Finally, the investigation highlights the results in section five as potential issues to be studied more thoroughly.

2 Literature review

2.1 Tourism

Tourism was long perceived as a sustainable economic growth and a driver for economic recovery after the economic crisis of 2008 (Koens, Postma & Papp, 2018). New economic opportunities and perspectives have emerged to revive local economies. Tourism can improve amenities, enlarge recreation opportunities, meliorate cultural structures and encourage cultural activities (Andereck et al., 2005). However, assuming that tourism’ contribution to the local economy outweighs the consequences is neglecting the non-economic dependent residents which aren’t directly concerned by this sector (Brougham & Butler, 1981). Therefore, scholars have argued that tourism can either improve resident’s quality of life or repress it.

Identifying tourism growth as one of the accelerators and generators of inequalities (Milano, 2018), Pizam (1978) pointed out the effects of tourism on social, environmental and economic scales, taking into account the loss of accessibility, privatisation of public spaces, real-estate inflation, economic dependence and a certain loss of cultural identity. Influencing sociocultural changes, tourism can drastically affect the lives of communities (Andereck et al., 2005). Precursor of modified habits, social environment, daily lives, beliefs and values, Dogan (1989) suggested that traditions are frequently weakened under the influence of tourism, thus, the feeling of losing authenticity and cultural identity. Hence, Shepherd (2002) argued that authenticity decline would finally be resulting in its own death. An extreme interpretation driven by the ‘McDonaldization’ and the ‘Disneyfication’ processes.

Therefore, Shepherd (2002) underlined the fact that ‘culture’ and ‘tourism’ are direct opposites, which would eventually lead to an undesirable formula; as tourism increases, culture declines. The author added that tourism has been simultaneously “internationalized, homogenized and demonized” (p.183), reducing tourism to a process of ‘cultural degradation’. Therefore, the issue raised by Lankford and Howard (1994) arouse interest among literatures; “the economic benefits traditionally associated with tourism development are now being measured against its potential for social disruption” (p.122). 9

Scholars such as Dogan (1989) and Goodwin (2017) identified tourism as a sector of consumption that should be analysed as so; tourists are nothing more than consumers. In addition to this interpretation, Dogan (1989) added that tourism also transform human relationships into a source of economic gain (commercialization of relationships). Unfortunately, by responding to consumption, tourism cheapens and banalizes authentic values, monetarizing culture. Shepherd (2002) argued that “tourism is bad because it corrupts culture; it transforms what has been sacred into the merely profane; it cheapens the ritualistic, transforming what was authentic into spectacle” (p.192). Tourism growth unavoidably conducts culture to be modified. However, the massification of cultural traditions can eventually increases the demand for authenticity, promoting a certain market of ‘real’ (Shepherd, 2002). The authors argued that consumption can be interpreted as commodification and that physical touristification of tourists’ areas is mainly driven by non-local retails.

Meanwhile, tourism is an inseparable part of modern life with positive and negative aspects that cannot be eradicated from the surface of the world anymore. People affected by tourism may only try to maximize its positive aspects and to minimize its negative aspects (Dogan, 1989). To address these negative impacts, numerous tourism concepts have been developed; Doxey’s Irritation Index, Butler’s destinations Life Cycle, tourism social costs to destinations and O’Reilly Carrying Capacity concept.

2.1.1 Overtourism and touristification

While discussing ‘tourism’ the term ‘overtourism’ designates the situation when local residents and tourists or visitors feel that the quality of life or the quality of an experience in a certain area has deteriorated due to an excessive number of tourists (Goodwin, 2017). In other words, it expresses the ‘overuse’ or ‘overdevelopment’ of a destination conducted by an overconcentration of tourists (Dobbs & Butler, 2019). They argued that the concerns related to overtourism included the overconcentration of tourists in one place, tourists’ maladaptive behaviours, dissensions between residents and tourists, cultural loss, a lessening of residents’ quality of life and a diminution of attractiveness regarding tourists’ perspective.

To be noted that overtourism occurs when areas are drowning from an excessive number of visitors, and mass tourism occurs when areas are able to cope with a large number of tourists. 10

Perkumienė and Pranskūnienė (2019) definition’ highlighted that “overtourism phenomenon is more related to perceptible tourism encounters, environmental changes, and violations of human life” (p.6). Therefore, overtourism intervenes when the balance between the negative aspects of tourism outweighs the benefits (Anuar et al., 2019). Goodwin (2017) argued that the causes of overtourism are simply the results of a freefall system that focused on the capital gains rather than the resulting disparities.

Alongside with the impacts of tourism itself, overtourism impacts on the lives of host communities by the basis of economic benefits, the grounds of social, cultural and environmental destructions. Koens et al. (2018) argued that overtourism shouldn’t be studied as a tourism problem but as a social problem, which resulted from a failed system that focused on the capital gains rather than the resulting disparities; “the state of overtourism is a consequence of tourism using the destination rather than the destination using tourism” (Goodwin, 2017:10).

Moreover, the term ‘touristification’ is used by scholars to express a certain ‘visitor overkill’ (Koens et al., 2018). Defining all the spatial, social, economic and cultural transformations linked to an increased presence of tourists. Therefore, destinations failure to properly address and manage tourism impacts imposes pressure on local communities physical and environmental aspects, stimulating disruption due to an increasing amount of concentration of visitors, leading to anti-tourism manifests (Kuščer & Mihalic, 2019). The existence of resident protests amplifies the frustration and exasperation of certain communities that are powerless against such touristification. The economic growth is been prioritized over social and environmental repercussions (Dobbs & Butler, 2019). Therefore, Dobbs and Butler (2019) researched raised the question of whether “overtourism can exist in location devoid of local residents?” (p.2).

2.1.2 Residents perceptions and attitudes

The impacts of tourists on the social environment are based on the local communities’ tolerance towards tourism and tourists (Koens et al., 2018). Doxey’s irritation index (1975) was elaborated to mark the different stages of residents’ attitudes towards tourism. Not only he provided evidence that the attitude of locals towards tourist is a volatile concept, he also provided different stages determining the evolution of their perception. Starting with the

11

euphoria stage that illustrates a welcoming phase, to the stage of an apathy relationship between residents and visitors, through the stage of irritation that portraits negative behaviours and overcrowded spaces.

Perceptions differ amongst residents; between the ones aware of the benefits and the ones enduring the costs (Koens & Postma, 2017). Benefits can be illustrated as the economic gain and opportunities, such as real-estate and employment, and an economic support for social and cultural development. And negative impacts as the social exclusion brought by rising costs of living or an overall decrease of hospitality making the cities less attractive. Therefore, Pizam (1978) noted that the attitude varied whether an individual was economically dependent on tourism or not. And Lankford and Howard (1994) interpreted that economic dependency on tourism and resident’s involvement in tourism decision making are two dimensions which varies residents’ attitudes towards tourism.

By being cultural agents that enables tourism development (Muler Gonzalez et al., 2018) residents’ attitudes towards tourists can influence a destination’ hospitality and attractiveness. Residents protests and social movements emerged, just as the term ‘tourismphobia’, to describe a social discontent neglected by the pressures of tourism growth. First adopted by Spanish medias to emphasize the drastic changes occurring against the interests of local communities, generating inequalities and social exclusions (Milano, Novelli & Cheer, 2019). Seraphin et al. (2019) defined tourismphobia as “a lack of interaction between locals and visitors in destinations victim of overtourism. (…) due to the fact that the interests of locals and visitors are perceived by being contradictory, whereas they are actually complementary and interrelated” (p.5). To be noted that the increase congestion and the privatisation of public places eventually echoes on the excessive number of tourists generating the loss of belonging and diminishing the sense of place (Milano et al., 2019). Meanwhile, resident support for tourism can be explained by the awareness of economic and cultural benefits, however, studies have shown that tourism effects on traditions, family values, cultural commercialization are direct consequences of residents’ hospitality declination. To be noted that although residents may be perceived as favourable to tourism, it doesn’t restrict them from having concerns for the health of their communities (Andereck et al., 2005).

Residents’ discontentment reverberates the poor tourism development management (Seraphin et al., 2019), where overcrowded locations and visitor pressure disrupt local communities’ daily 12

life, draining all its sociocultural assets, eventually affecting the visitors’ experience (Kuščer & Mihalic, 2019). Doǧan (1989) feared that tourists would cause the weakening of cultural traditions which would eventually create a certain hostile environment. For some scholars, hostility and resentment towards tourists are referred as the ‘tourist impact on others’ which assumes a certain superiority and invincibility detained by tourists, raising unfairness among residents. As a source of conflicts and disparities, tourism can amplify barriers between social groups. Doǧan offered two scenarios; or the residents manifest a certain resistance to this touristification, or they incorporate tourism to their daily lives.

2.2 Multiculturalism

While ‘tourist impact on others’, immigrants are also counted in the equation. By definition, immigrant represents “a non-resident arriving in a state with the intention to remain for a period exceeding a year” and migrant refers to “a person who is outside the territory of the state of which they are nationals or citizens and who has resided in a foreign country for more than one year irrespective of the causes, voluntary or involuntary, and the means, regular or irregular, used to migrate” (EMN).

For many scholars, immigration allowed urban and rural demographic changes, representing an essential resource for the refinement of cities (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2004). They emphasized the need for a cohabitation of different communities to promote integration and diversification. However, fundamental features such as the freedom of speaking their own language, engaging in the cultural institutions of their choosing and practicing their own religion can be at sake while fostering multiculturalism. The International Encyclopaedia of Social & Behavioural Science (2001) defined ‘multiculturalism’ as the challenge that society has to cope with an ethnic diversity which mostly results from immigration (and ethnic minorities). Thus, two different perceptions: the perception of multiculturalism as the ideal of tolerance, equality and freedom, which integrates education, employment, religion, cultural heritage and language. Or the perception of multiculturalism as an ideal way to disrupt a national identity and to end the social cohesion (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2004) and to “erode civic virtues, identities and practices that are necessary (…)” (Levrau & Loobuyck, 2018:2).

Characterized as a ‘feel-good celebration’ of diversity that that encourages citizens to embrace the features of multi-ethnic groups. Kymlicka (2012) gave prominence to the empowerment

13

that signified multiculturalism as the liberation of centuries of discriminations and racial segregations. By enabling equality, diversity and awareness, Fainstein (2005) argued that it can “attract human capital, encourage innovation, ensure fairness and (give) an equal access to a variety of groups” (p.4), representing a key for growth and equity. Moreover, Fincher et al. (2014) pointed out that even though multiculturalism is perceived as a failure by some national leaders, many urban residents live happily within ethnic and racialized differences and neighbourhoods.

Whereas, diversity can also produce abhorrence through culture degradation and dissolvement. A mutual loathing that is highlighted as an issue for those who endure discriminations and for those who suffer from a loss of place and identity (Fainstein, 2005). An anti-migrant sentiment can take place when natives feel threatened by immigrants regarding their economic situation, political, cultural or even for their safety (Rustenbach, 2010). Creating a low life satisfaction, Safi (2009) argued that discrimination can obstruct immigrants’ social and economic achievements and lower their well-being. Ethnic and racial discriminations obstruct the integration process (Maxwell, 2010).

Meanwhile, scholars and literatures have assimilated migration to tourism as a direct result of globalisation. For instance, Moufakkir (2014) argued that tourism represents “the freedom of mobility and right to travel” (p.111). The effects of globalisation on mobility and accessibility enable the creation of ethnic neighbourhoods (Krase, 2012), developed as spaces of leisure and consumption, which reverberates a certain diversification of the market (Rath, 2007). Thus, commodified and diversified neighbourhoods are precursors of tourism flows and immigrants are perceived as an economic added plus value through innovation and diversification, allowing cities to gain attractiveness (Gheasi et al., 2011; Rath, 2007).

Perceived as a diversification process, multiculturalism contributes to cultural and place marketing, constituting an asset for tourist experiences (Fincher et al., 2014). For instance, neighbourhoods such as ‘Chinatown’ or ‘little Italy’ can be interpreted as commercial ventures; their ‘products’ were first created to be consumed by ethnic groups, but were later on modified to be consumed by tourists (Rath, 2007). Or as a marketing strategy to internationalize cities and to promote place branding (Belabas et al., 2020). Increasing the cultural events, the ethno- cultural neighbourhoods allowed residents and visitors to be part of diversified experiences (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2004). 14

However, while gaining attractiveness, many destinations tends to lose their identity along the way; commodified places can have impacts on the relation between individuals and their environment (Ujang, 2012). The term ‘place attachment’ is highlighted as the need for individuals to have a certain feeling of belonging, also related to the term ‘place identity’ which impacts on individuals’ self-esteem and personal uniqueness (Gu & Ryan, 2008). Racial, ethnic and class identity are social characteristics that tourism development tends to neglect while impacting directly on community’s well-being. Ujang (2012) argued that “place identity is linked to meanings and perceptions held by the people in relation to their environment (and that) the loss of identity weakens the depth of meaning, attachment and diversity of place experience” (p.156); culture influences place identity and emotions allows the development of place attachment.

However, by welcoming diversity through religion, linguistic or culture, many scholars discerned that cohabitation between migrants, residents and tourists can be delicate. The acceptance can be embedded by inequalities, identity and cultural loss, exclusion and loss of attractiveness, which can eventually lower the quality of life and well-being. Meanwhile, Rath (2007) argued that community’s strength to accept modifications are “symbols of cultural diversity and an object of civic pride” (p.10) that eventually foster’ social cohesion (Watters et al., 2020).

2.3 Gentrification

Diversification is also interpreted by scholars as one of the ‘gentrification’ process results. During the late 70’s the term ‘gentrification’ emerged to describe the sudden arrival of middle and upper classes into traditionally working-class neighbourhoods (Philips, 1993). Shifting from a desire for social mixing to a more individualistic concept, gentrification means the substitution of existing population by a gentry (Lees et al, 2013). Defined as a process of capital investment and a change of the social structure, Philips (1993) and Cocola-Gant (2018) called it the ‘back to the city movement’. Assimilated to an urban rebirth post-recession, Lees (2000) perceived gentrification as a ‘cure’ for inner cities, driven mainly by investment flows, allowing an urban renaissance. Related to social, economic, cultural and physical transformations, gentrification is discerned as a displacement vector. Hence, Butler (2007) identified

15

gentrification as a “process of class change; for some it is a process of colonising the city, for others a manifestation of belonging” (p.162).

Perceived as a positive process which increases standards of living, heightens education, allows social-mixing and social inclusion, diversification, employment, decreasing crime rates and elevating the liveability in inner cities. However, the notion of gentrification is also perceived as a negative attribute that restrain accessibility with privatization, social injustices, leading to social segregation and isolation of lower-income inhabitants (Lees et al., 2013; Glass, 1964). The loss of local power is interpreted as a displacement factor.

Glass (1964) and Butler (2007) underlined the need to dismantle the idea of gentrification as a deindustrialisation of urban spaces or as a concept of working-class displacement. Whereas it should be interpreted as a ‘mediation’ between individuals and flows. Butler (2007) argued that the concept of gentrification can “elucidate some of the spatially and socially specific mediations between globalisation, the emergence of global cities and the construction of local identities” (p.178). Furthermore, Glass (1964), pioneer of the concept, doesn’t assimilate gentrification to all the transformations occurring in neighbourhoods, for her, other factors are to be accounted for the displacement of working-classes.

Through sociological debates, Butler (2007) distinguished a changing pattern linked to the sense of identity, which can be directly linked to economic, social and spatial modifications consequences. Therefore, he emphasized the need to understand the relation between people and places; “where you live became an important source of identity construction for individuals” (p.163). Thus, his interpretation of gentrification as a concept is mainly driven by geographical and sociological aspects.

However, many scholars referred to gentrification as a process of capital flows, responding to affluent classes that unavoidably displace’ indigenous populations. Cocola-Gant (2016) interpreted three different forms of displacement: the direct displacement, based on an involuntary ‘out-migration’; the exclusionary displacement, which reflects the difficulties to find decent and affordable accommodations; and the displacement pressure, that is a result of a loss identity. Thus, gentrification is identified as a threat to residents ‘right to stay put’ (Cocola- Gant, 2018) and is accentuated as a violent process that dismantles the connection between ‘people and place’ (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2019).

16

In the context of displacement and populations right to stay put, many literatures assimilated gentrification to tourism, which is directly affected by changing patterns of tourism flows. Gotham (2005), Gravari-Barbas and Guinand (2017) argued that tourism plays a cultural role in the gentrification process, which in return increases development, allowing changes in businesses landscape and a wider consumption for contemporary tourism practices. Regarding gentrification’ input on tourism, Cocola-Gant (2018) perceived it as a precursor to promote places. Many scholars fear that online-platforms for short-term rentals, such as Airbnb, support and facilitate the gentrification process (Wachsmuth & Weisler, 2018). The term ‘tourism gentrification’ is dominant in economies that rely on tourism growth and development, providing consumption facilities and increasing visitors power to purchase. Tourism here substitutes the lack of local demand creating new opportunities for capital investments. Luring tourism through gentrification can be perceived as an ultimate solution (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017) that eventually can become a fatal risk for cities’ authenticity and uniqueness. Developed to be consumed by higher income groups, gentrified neighbourhoods can either celebrate diversity or reinforce differences (Fincher et al., 2014).

While tourism gentrification substitutes residential life with tourism, Sequera and Nofre (2018) argued that the touristifying process commodifies inner cities through the affluent growth of tourism, resulting in a dispossession of residents’ material and symbolic attributes. Touristification can be linked to the impacts of gentrification; affecting the social, cultural and urban assets, which contributed to the deterioration of communities’ liveability. And is attributed to the inevitable loss of residents (Jover & Diaz-Parra, 2019). Therefore, Cocola- Gant (2015;2018) discerned three forms of displacement related to tourism gentrification: the residential displacement, driven by tourist-oriented facilities and policies which increased with the creation of online accommodations platforms. The commercial displacement, which is based on the destruction of local businesses and the drastic changes modifying the landscapes. And the place-based displacement, referring to the loss of place due to tourism consumption of space. As a ‘snow ball’ effect, gentrification and tourism are driven by growth that progressively converses into a ‘collective displacement’ (Cocola-Gant, 2016). However, to be noted that literatures have shown that the displacement of residents is not only motivated by the incapacity to afford gentrified accommodations but by the ‘loss of place’. The radical changes

17

made to certain neighbourhoods arises cultural loss. Inasmuch, the author suggests another outcome to this phenomenon; a progressive population decrease as a result.

2.4 Tourism impacts

In the last five years, tourism literatures and scholars have distinguished that culture has often been wrongly measured, and the consequences undergone are directed by the changes occurring inside the inner cities, which takes into consideration; touristification and overtourism, cultural identity and authenticity, gentrification and multiculturalism.

Regarding tourism impacts, Milano et al. (2019) argued that tourism growth should be identified as a generator of inequalities; rising house prices, price inflation, low access to public spaces and loss of cultural habits. To resolve these inequalities, the author highlighted the strategies been placed around capitals and affected cities to go against the ‘social discomfort’ felt by residents. While policies and authorities often ignore residents’ quality of life, social movements are been created to address their actual situation. Taking Barcelona as an example of a city been underwater due to overtourism, he discerned the complexity of tourism developments and the repercussions which eventually can become a burden for the destination and its residents. Interpreting overtourism as a precursor of hostilities and a vector of weakening a destinations’ attractiveness.

Furthermore, Seraphin et al. (2019) research aimed to establish a pattern between local residents and tourists in overvisited destinations. Based on the following question “How to distinguish the various archetypes of local residents with regards to their attitudes towards and relationships with visitors in destinations suffering from overtourism?” (p.1) they focused on the negative impacts of overtourism towards locals. Through ‘tourismphobia’ and ‘anti-tourism movements’ they highlighted the deterioration and dissatisfaction held by residents leading to a certain rejection of visitors. Tourism growth is perceived as a neglection of authenticity harming culture and heritage. Associated with equity, community’s quality of life and residents’ sense of place attachment are weakened by the loss of cultural identity. Their research is conducted by the ‘volatile attitude’ of residents that is been challenged by tourism. The authors identified four categories of locals; victims, peaceful activists, vandals and resilient locals. Based on those four archetypes they underline the necessity to understand the relationship between locals and tourists to minimize the negative impacts.

18

While discussing the impacts of tourism, Goodwin (2017) research addressed the challenges of decline, rather the challenges of success. For instance, data on international arrivals is discerned by many scholars and authorities as a positive figure, however, the author argued that it represented an incorrect metric which doesn’t reflect a destination’ ability to manage tourism. Acknowledging the fact that overtourism is the antonym of sustainable development, the author highlighted the necessity for authorities to take responsibilities in order to avoid inequalities amongst residents. Consequences and their management should not be directed towards the end of tourism, but towards regulations. His paper weights up the benefits, which are driven by economy, and the costs, which are axed on cultural loss that finalizes a displacement.

Moreover, Koens et al. (2018) interpreted overtourism as a ‘multidimensional and complex’ issue. Caused by tourism and non-tourism stakeholders, overtourism should be analysed as a societal matter. Although tourism responded well to the economic crisis in 2008, the growing accessibility and development created an undesirable environment. Public facilities and transportations were divided among residents and visitors, which eventually lead to an overuse and to a ‘visitor overkill’. Through a thorough qualitative survey among 13 different European cities, the authors axed their research on the physical and social impacts. To prevent residents’ hostilities and displacements, they suggested the use of existent models, such as Carrying Capacity, in order to guide authorities towards a more responsible management.

Therefore, Dobbs and Butler (2019) argued that the concerns related to overtourism included the overconcentration of tourists in a specific area, a decline in hospitality, visitors’ behaviours, cultural loss and unavoidably a diminution in residents’ quality of life. Overtourism threatens destinations authenticity, which weakens directly the attractiveness. The chapter four of their book axes on the necessity and importance to preserve authenticity while developing tourism. Hence, their research focused on whether tourism should be expanded regardless of the consequences.

Which joined Anuar et al. (2019) research; focusing on the impacts of overtourism towards local communities. Through a quantitative analysis, they highlighted that tourism development gives greater positive impacts than negative ones, which communities mainly support. Nevertheless, overtourism deteriorates’ the lives of host communities by modifying their social system, cultural assets and environment. Manifestations and protests are results of these

19

inequalities amongst different social groups, driven by an excessive tourism development neglecting the role of local communities and their significance.

To enlarge the reflection, Muler Gonzalez et al. (2018) focused on the residents’ perceptions of tourism as an indicator of social carrying capacity. They used it as a tool to centre discussion on the negative impacts of tourism and to highlight the limit between tourism benefits and its drawbacks. Although they argued that a destinations’ willingness to cope with more tourism is eager by their dependence, they emphasized the necessity to utilise the concept of ‘carrying capacity’ to avoid a ‘turning point’ where tourism becomes a burden. Through a survey, they showed that the outgrowths of tourism impact’ directly the perceptions, which doesn’t respond to any willingness towards tourism.

Which brought authors such as Kuščer and Mihalic (2019) to monitor overtourism through a risk model. Their research was based on the existence of a responsible tourism which assess overtourism risks. By studying the residents of Ljubljana, they discerned residents’ dissatisfaction and irritation that can be shown in fast-growing tourism destinations. Axed on the role of destinations to address and monitor their risk model, a noticeable disruption amongst residents and stakeholders showed a degradation in their attitudes. Therefore, their monitoring model would enable decision making towards meaningful sustainable policies and attitudes.

Meanwhile, Koens and Postma (2017) research focused on how can visitor pressure can be managed in urban tourism. Observing visitor pressure in six participating cities; Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Copenhagen, Lisbon and Munich, they were able to put forward solutions and means to overcome these pressures (65 strategies were suggested). Although their research showed that the perception of tourism differed amongst residents and communities, they also highlighted the complexity of tourism management which doesn’t have a one-size-fit-all model. Interviewees were generally aware of tourism beneficial attributes, such as, economically and socially, which brought along new possibilities and opportunities. However, the negative effects remained the same; rising costs of living making life in the centre a challenge. They argued that in tourism there will always be ‘winners and losers’, hence the necessity for tourism management to account residents’ quality of life, that will eventually meliorate visitors’ experiences.

20

While Milano et al. (2019) gave prominence to the social movements that emerged to describe a social discontent. By studying the cases of Barcelona and Palma de Mallorca, they drew attention to the displacement phenomenon occurring between working and upper-classes. While tourism development increased economic disparities and generated inequalities, the authors added the social and cultural loss. The sense of belonging and the sense of place attachment are both been overlooked. Their research aimed to understand how destinations can sacrifice their cultural assets and inhabitants for economic purposes. Legislations and regulations are both been underlined as brutal necessities to secure local resident’s well-being and visitors’ search for socio-cultural connections.

2.5 Multiculturalism recent interpretations

Socio-cultural connections and multiculturalism can either be beneficial to society or enhance disruption, the following scholars discerned a common pattern through different interpretations: diversification is endorsed as an advantageous economic and societal modern phenomenon.

Kymlicka (2012) characterized multiculturalism as a ‘feel-good celebration’ of diversity, encouraging citizens to embrace the features of multi-ethnic groups. The author interpreted multiculturalism as a revolution process towards acceptance, which can either be seen as a success, failure or future solution. Mischaracterized and misidentified by political leaders, the author dismantled multiculturalism myths: discerning certain negligence’s towards the beneficial aspects of social mix and offered evidence towards common values, social cohesions and civic integrations. The author emphasized the risks involved towards a new era of discrimination if immigrant multiculturalism was to be rejected by societies and policies.

Whereas, Pardo (2017) based her analyse on the changing pattern of multiculturalism over the years. By studying Canada, Australia and the United States, considered as the countries with the highest rate of immigration, the author was able to give a time-lapse evolution; multiculturalism went from being interpreted as a dissolution concept to be accepted as an ethno-cultural practices’ diversification. Implementation was then a political and economic strategy: immigrants were mostly given a low-paid labour, while their place within societies became essential. Immigrants eventually became part of the cultural identity and therefore, proclaiming equal status with residents: this collective identity is analysed by the author as the modern multiculturalism.

21

Meanwhile, Fincher et al. (2014) approached multiculturalism as a planning manner, which is driven by three interventions; social mixing, commodification in ethnic businesses and public spaces planning. Their approach is based on eight different cities characterised by ethnic and racial diversity, and political governance differences. They considered multiculturalism as a commodification process of cities spatial and social aspects, which then lead to a ‘showpiece’ for tourist-oriented attractions. By promoting multicultural-modified cities, their research highlighted the redevelopment of cities for visitors and tourism, based on a place-marketing. Focusing on the involvement of planning towards enhancing diversity and accentuating differences, their study showed a similar pattern within multicultural cities. Eventually, they linked commodification of ethnicities to the gentrification process, which can either be a precursor or a result.

Thus, Rustenbach (2010) research explored the different possibilities to which natives would develop anti-immigrant attitudes: cultural marginality theory, economic competition or human capital theory are examples. Cultural marginality theory refers to the natives struggles to understand and to relate to immigrants’ cultural differences, whereas, economic competition accentuated a general feeling of being replaced by immigrants on the job market. A fear that can be altered with the human capital theory; which discerns education as an alternative explanation towards acceptance and awareness.

2.6 Gentrification outcomes

More recently, authors pointed out the current effects of gentrification on our societies. For instance, Gravari-Barbas and Guinand (2017) research established a time phrase for the gentrification process: first coined as an improvement of inner cities, gentrification became an aggressive strategy to develop contemporary metropolises. By exploring three different cities; Barcelona, Rome and New York, they addressed the common patterns occurring in touristic destinations. Introducing tourism and leisure mobility as vectors of gentrification in urban spaces, they determined that gentrification is affected and modified by tourism flows. They argue that “tourism, urban development and gentrification have always been strongly imbedded” (p.3), which for the same reason, they highlighted that it is difficult to know when tourism became a gentrifying process. Meanwhile, although their research prone the

22

modifications and transformations which resulted in the loss of neighbourhoods uniqueness, they opened a debate whether gentrification really destroyed lives of residents, and if it would be possible that “gentrification (could be) perceived as the means to offer the possibility of surviving as a community with improved circumstances?” (p.17). To dismantle the idea that gentrification and tourism are the only actors that deteriorate landscapes, they pointed out the major role played by local residents and local stakeholders, contributing directly to the phenomenon.

Another theoretical approach was elaborated by Sequera and Nofre (2018); the use of the term ‘tourism gentrification’ can be explored as an urban touristification. The concept of touristification combines the social, spatial, economic and cultural changes that enables gentrification. They argued that gentrification included displacement through real-estate markets, a material and immaterial dispossession, consumptions practices non-regulated, defined locations of tourists-oriented experiences/attractions and the dislocation of independent retailers replaced by tourists-oriented businesses. Contributing to residential and commercialisation gentrification, tourism and touristification are discerned as potentials risks for the liveability of certain neighbourhoods.

Cocola-Gant (2016) explored the differences between gentrification and tourism gentrification. First perceived as the displacement of working-classes, tourism gentrification displaced middle and working-classes in response to tourist pressure. Based on the growth of tourism, they highlighted the process of social change culminated in the out-migration of residents. Displacement is perceived as the ‘snowball’ process that endures residents that felt their daily lives disrupted and too modified to be part of it. The mutation of their spaces, by privatization or based on tourists’ consumption, made living in these neighbourhoods a daily challenge. Their research emphasized the need to explore thoroughly the social aspects that are been neglected as valuable assets for neighbourhoods.

Furthermore, in 2018, Cocola-Gant continued to investigate on how tourism gentrification threatens the local residents right to stay put. Perceived as a promotion of place, gentrification is whether an economic asset or a destruction vector. While tourism gentrification is seen as the ‘second wave’ of gentrification, the consequences inflicted on low-income residents are unavoidable. Displacement remains identified as a regular result of tourism growth, marked by privatization and economic disparities. 23

Gotham (2018) approached tourism as a vector and generator of gentrification, he argued that “tourism gentrification is heuristic device that draws analytical attention to a previously unrecognized driver of gentrification – tourism activities” (p.1). Regardless of other scholars and literatures on the subject, the author suggested an ‘original and innovative’ analysis, highlighting the transformations of urban spaces within tourism and gentrification processes. Concealed as superficial by many, tourism is at the centre of his research as a crucial characteristic and the battleground of urban restructuring/strategies. His paper dismantled the classical perspectives where gentrification failed to identify the real actors and was underlined as an individualistic process, arguing that gentrification shouldn’t only be accountable for spatial modifications and class changes, nor for displacement. Meanwhile, little was focused on the interplay of tourism processes and its social contribution to urban development. Based on a study made in 2005 on ‘New Orleans and the Vieux Carré’, he theorized the necessity to understand the connectivity between tourism and gentrification, and the political mobilizations to address the consequences of ‘gentrification’ inequalities, displacements and threats to quality of life’.

3 Methodology

The method used in this article was divided into three sections; the first section was based on a scientific approach, that introduced the subject as a global consequence of tourism development upon touristic destinations; the second section proposed a case study providing specific examples; and the third section was directed by a qualitative analysis which provided a more profound understanding with the participants perspectives.

The use of cases studies to extend the subject was justified by what it arises; an examination of a current phenomenon and/in its real-life context, which are distinguished by Yin (1981) as two inseparable variables. Used for knowledge utilization, the approach can be supported by a survey, which eventually integrates the knowledge to the practice. Multiple methods can be used to study a phenomenon, which in our case, will be conducted by interviews to contextualise and for theory testing (Bhattacherjee, 2012). To extend and to bring a more accurate perspective, we selected a diversified and touristic destination that could implement our research at the fullest. Added to these characteristics, another one came along, which

24

facilitated the interviews: the geography proximity. Therefore, with all these characteristics in mind, Lisbon was a justified case study. However, although the study could have been base on a single-case design, we deliberately conducted a multiple-case design, which reflected on several conclusions from different cases (Yin, 1981). Thus, the case study had to be narrowed down to a more precise sample of Lisbon, which resulted in the selection of several cases studies.

Alfama Mouraria Bairro Marquês Santos Graça Alto de Pombal Historical x x x x x x Multiculturalism x x x - - x Gentrified quarters x x x x - - Touristic offer x x x x x x Touristic demand x x x x x - Tourism visible x x x - - - impacts Airbnbisation x - x x - -

Table 1. Criterions of selection, personal elaboration (2020)

The criterions were elaborated based on the research objectives, but mainly from the literatures available and observations. The narrowed down neighbourhoods were Alfama, Mouraria and Bairro Alto, which responded to certain essential criterions: historical parts of the downtown; culturally diversified; touristic hot spots; manifestations of residents’ discontentment, and eventually for their geographical location, their historical backgrounds, their heritage, their diversity, and their active participation in Lisbon’ tourism growth.

First, to support our cases studies and to answer the objectives of the research, a qualitative analysis was elaborated, permitting an understanding of participants perspectives through a direct participation in their lives. Bhattacherjee (2012) argued that “the emphasis in qualitative analysis is sense making or understanding a phenomenon, rather than predicting or explaining” 25

(p.113). Focusing on participants observations, our pre-existing understandings can then be modified towards new theories. However, theories aren’t absolute rules or laws, they discern social behaviours and thus shape individuals’ observations (Ezzy, 2002). To support “participants’ views, feelings, intentions, and actions as well as the contexts and structures of their lives” (Charmaz, 2006:13) the collection of ‘rich data’ becomes then a necessity. Which eventually allows the researchers to enter into participants lives from the inside towards other perspectives and to follow leads during the course of the interviews.

Secondly, to support a certain liberty in the participants responses, the interviews were conducted as ‘open-ended’ interviews, which were elaborated through open-ended questions that enlarged preconceived codes or received ideas that the interviewer may have (Charmaz, 2006). Implementing the notion of respect towards our participants allowed to focus more on their perspectives, leaving our own assumptions out. To be noted that respecting and understanding doesn’t mean that the interviewer agreed with an individual’s perspectives, but that he was able to consider another point of view. The interviewer is non the less an observer that can eventually encourage a person’ response through the requirement of more details, focusing on significant statements and observations (Charmaz, 2006).

Finally, although the use of IT-supported strategies is enthusiast by researchers, the qualitative data analysis conducted used manual methods, based on the same research goals of software programs; “analysing the differences, similarities and relationships between passages of text and the development of typologies and theories” (Flick et al., 2004:278). It incorporated the construction of indexes and the use of cross-references. Although is it highlighted as a more time-consuming exercise, the choice was based on the shortness of the interviews conducted and the similar patterns used by the participants to answer the survey’ questions.

26

3.1 Qualitative analysis

To finalize our research on whether tourism development impacts the cultural identity of the selected neighbourhoods, we defined two open-ended questions:

▪ What are the elements of your neighbourhood cultural identity? (Quais sao os elementos da identidade cultural do seu bairro?) ▪ What are the impacts related to tourism growth within your neighbourhood? (Quais sao os impactos relacionados com o crescimento do turismo no seu bairro?)

The questions would enlarge our pre-existing understandings and knowledge, procuring the research an insight on participants lives and observations. The choice of these questions was motivated by our objectives; to understand the dimensions of tourism development; understand the repercussions of tourism development upon communities; distinguish the actors within touristic destinations; understand how tourism growth is a direct actor upon cultural identity loss.

3.2 Instruments and participants’ sample

The open-ended questions were determinant to integrate and consider the three different neighbourhoods selected. Despite the attempt to reach a certain balance between the participants, several factors modified our first approach; language differences and potential annoyance from certain participants, that directed our interviews towards other notions; time and interest. Furthermore, the interviews weren’t randomly established in the streets, but were conducted in familiar places such as local restaurants, cafés, bars and local shops. This process was elaborated during the first attempts to interview individuals in the streets and was felt as a genuine non-interest that could be justified with the common “street interviews”, and can be perceived as ‘annoying’ and ‘repetitious’.

The selection of interviewees was based on one principal criterion: to be a resident of the interviewed neighbourhood. The participants nationality, gender, age or profession weren’t perceived as essential qualifications for participation, and weren’t identified as an outweigh for the research. However, for contextualisation and interpretation purposes, we elaborated a sample of the characteristics of the participants. To be noted that the implication of residents, immigrants and new gentrifiers was highlighted as essential to obtain different point of views

27

and observations, therefore, the selection of interviewees was unconsciously guided by a diversification of respondents.

Finally, during the realisation of the interviews, conducted first in Bairro Alto for proximity reasons, we reached the data saturation point while conduction the thirteenth interview; responses were becoming redundant. Therefore, to establish a balance between the data collection, we followed the same amount in each interviewed neighbourhood: 90 interviews were conducted, divided equitably within the interested neighbourhoods.

Alfama Mouraria Bairro Alto Total

Participants 30 30 30 90/% Gender Feminine 20 16 23 59 (66%) Masculine 10 14 7 31 (34%) Age 20-40 11 20 14 45 (50%) 40-60+ 19 10 16 45 (50%) Nationality Portuguese 21 13 17 51 (57%) International 9 17 13 39 (43%) Professions Related to 22 18 21 61 (68%) tourism Not related to - 7 3 10 (11%) tourism Retired 8 5 6 19 (21%)

Table 2: Sample of the participants, personal elaboration (2020).

28

The table 1 represents the analysis of the participants characteristics. Despite the attempt to have an equitable balance between the respondents, the majority of the participants were feminine, 66% of them in contrast to 34% of masculine participants. A genuine participation of feminine participants was observed in all three interested neighbourhoods and is interpreted as a ‘gender facility’ regarding the gender of the interviewer. However, to have a certain variety between the interviewees, 50% of them were under the age of 40 and 50% were above the age of 40. Out of the participants interviewed, 39% were over 55 years and 22% of them were born and raised in their neighbourhood, opposed to 55% were living in their neighbourhood from an inferior period of 15 years. Furthermore, 57% of the respondents were Portuguese and 43% were immigrants living in Lisbon since the last 15 years (Asian, Brazilian, Mexican, Chilean and French). Added to these characteristics, we asked the respondents if their professions were related to tourism, which gave prominence to the fact that these neighbourhoods are not only touristic spots but their local economy is supported by tourism: 68% of the participants were active participants in tourism through hospitality, catering and accommodation.

Moreover, the interviews highlighted other notions, that aren’t quantified but discerned as essential notions for further understandings: time and language. On one hand, the notion of time was a determinant factor for the selection of participants; which defined the participants willingness and interest. At the first stage of interviews, we were faced to constate that residents weren’t only reluctant to physical interviews or to been asked randomly, they were also afraid of the interviews been ‘time consuming’. Therefore, despite our method used based on Charmaz (2006) concept; “intensive interviews can allow an interviewer to: go beneath the surface of the described experience(s); stop to explore a statement or topic; request more detail or explanation; ask about the participant’s thoughts, feelings, and actions; keep the participant on the subject; (…) slow or quicken the pace; shift the immediate topic; (…) use observational and social skills to further the discussion; respect the participant and express appreciation for participating” (p.24) we were ‘forced’ to conduct directed conversations as minimalistic possible. However, when the interviewer responded to the subject, we were then able to implement fully our interviews and more. The interviews lasted between 5 to 25 minutes, with a noticeable time difference between the participants that lived the growth of tourism (namely the ones living in a given neighbourhood before the crisis of 2008) and the ones that arrived with and because of tourism development.

29

On a second hand, the notion of language was also determinant during several interviews. Despite the fact that the immigrants interviewed were mostly living in Lisbon for the last 3 to 15 years, we noticed a certain difficulty to understand fully the observations made by some. Especially in the neighbourhood of Mouraria, were multiculturalism is predominant, some of the interviews had to be conducted in English and sometimes by translation from an external participant. Therefore, the participation of residents (all confused) into the discussion as a source of data and as co-researchers can be discussed as valuable or endangering the data analysis process (Ezzy, 2013).

3.3 Case study

To contextualise the cases studies, we introduced Lisbon and the selected neighbourhoods, from their historical backgrounds to their current spatial and cultural situations.

3.3.1 Introduction

Lisbon outlive major financial and social lost over the past decades. The creation of the subway in 1959, the 25th of April Bridge in 1966, metropolitan highways, the modernisation of resident’s lifestyles, the liberalisation of the Portuguese banking system in 1984, were deceives dates towards a modern Lisbon (Sequera & Nofre, 2019). By the end of the Great Recession, Portugal (among other countries) embraced new politics heading towards tourism as a beneficial solution to restart the local economy. Policies and legislatives have been triggered as a strategy to attract investments and new possible residents (Sequera & Nofre, 2019).

In 1976 was created the first program towards rehabilitation buildings; the Program for Recovering Deteriorated Real Estate (Programa de Recuperaçao de Imoveis Degradados). Followed by the creation of The Urban Rehabilitation Program (Programa de Reabilitaçao Urbana) which created Local Technical Offices (Gabinete Tecnico Local) managed by the municipal council (Mendes, 2013). These programs were developed to revamp the public spaces and to enhance residents living and housing conditions, encouraging residents to stay in the inner city (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017). Following, Lisbon created the Cabinet for the Recovery of Bairro Alto in 1988 and the Municipal Directorate for Urban Rehabilitation in 1990 including the Local Cabinets of Alfama, Mouraria, Bairro Alto and Bica.

30

Later on, Lisbon was elected European Capital of Culture in 1994, and Lisbon Tourism Association (Associacao de Turismo de Lisboa) was created in 1997 to promote and develop tourism in Lisbon (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017). In the attempt to reinforce capital gain, Lisbon widened the local housing rental market in 2012, and promoted the city’s urban attractiveness towards touristification, provoking transnational real-estate investments resulting in a growing airbnbisation of the inner city (Sequera & Nofre, 2019; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). While tourism affected the real-estate market with new opportunities for accommodations and influenced the urban regeneration process, it supported a certain tourism consumption which eventually led to displacement and dispossession. Which in a sense, emphasises the similarities between touristification and gentrification (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017).

By augmenting tourist-oriented facilities, tourism was a direct actor in the urban revitalisation process (Mendes, 2000). Which leaded to capital gain and employment; a necessity to overcome the major crisis of 2008. A driven tourism politic intervention took place during 2011 and 2014, promoting Portugal as a touristic destination, and rising its competitiveness. However, the depopulation and the ageing of Lisbon’ historic neighbourhoods during the past decades provoked a process of ‘recentralization’ (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015). The City Council of Lisbon intervened through urban rehabilitation programs to increase the involvement of younger generations and local actors; younger generations that have long been attracted to the diversification offered in the historical neighbourhoods. Which allowed the ignition of socio- cultural transitions within the urban space. This ‘renovation’ is spatial, physical and cultural. Moreover, conservation through rehabilitation/revitalisation suggest the respect of identity values and cultural heritage, respecting the historical morphologies and original attributes (Mendes, 2013).

During the past decades, the local actions and strategies promoting tourism payed off. Therefore, to respond to this rapid tourist arrival growth, Lisbon created and increased the amount of local lodging establishments, which met the needs of tourists; an immersion into locals’ lives (Cruz Lopes et al., 2019). However, the authors suggested that this rapid growth may lead in time to the loss of authenticity and traditional characteristics, and over exceeding the carrying capacity could cause the displacement of individuals. In this case, tourism gentrification altered some historical neighbourhoods by damaging the resident’s quality of life, disturbing their cultural habits and endangering their identity’s (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017).

31

Cruz Lopes et al. (2019) argued that “a significant loss of population in favour of tourists’ occupation implies a loss of the neighbourhood’s identity leading to the loss of their main characteristics, also devaluing them at a cultural level” (p.3). To maintain Lisbon cultural assets, they suggested the necessity to maintain locals in historic neighbourhoods to remain authentic and traditional and that “tourism gentrification needs to be refrained, ensuring that the relationship between tourists and locals is well balanced and not conflicted” (p.5).

Figure 1: Lisbon Centre, source: Grondeau and Pondaven (2018)

3.3.2 Alfama

The neighbourhood of Alfama, first called ‘Al-Hamma’, which translate to ‘fountain’ in Arabic, is situated alongside the Tagus river and below the castle of São Jorge. Alfama’ geographical situation made it the heart of Lisbon downtown from the Roman’ arrival through the Moorish’ empowerment (Bernardo et al., 2016). Although it was altered by the earthquake of 1755, Alfama’ typology was saved during the reconstruction, keeping all its heritage characteristics.

At the image of a village, Alfama has a medieval look, with narrow streets. Occupied mainly by poorer communities, the neighbourhood overflow with cultural traditional customs (Castela, 2018).

32

Lisbon City Council created Alfama’ Urban Intervention Office (Gabinete Tecnico Local de Alfama) in 1986, which marked the rehabilitation of the neighbourhood. Driven to address and respond to negative degradations affecting the living environment. Among other similar initiatives, a long quest was pursued to rejuvenate Alfama and to conserve its cultural symbols/heritage. During the early twenty-first century Alfama regained younger generations by being an attractive possibility for young professionals and students, however, the local administrations strategies towards an urban regeneration and a revitalisation of its social dynamic were disrupted by the development of tourist-oriented facilities (Sequera & Nofre, 2019).

Through a diversification process to welcome new residents, short-term rentals and other accommodations facilities damaged the authenticity, which then leaded to resident’s displacement (Castela, 2018). However, through the author’ qualitative analysis, he highlighted that the tourists weren’t to blame, the government was the one responsible. Laws and policies were conducted towards the benefits of tourism, neglecting the resident’s well-being. Commercial gentrification is also visible in the neighbourhood; local traditional shops were replaced by tourist-oriented ones.

The expansion of these new facilities, Fado Music restaurants or fancier entertainment amenities, enclave a certain predominance of new consumers, leading to spatial repercussions. Tourist routes or other tourist-oriented mapping conducts the environment rehabilitation. Sequera and Nofre (2019) defined it as the creation of neighbourhoods into ‘outdoor hotels’.

Although Alfama is composed of deteriorating buildings, low living conditions, social exclusion and poverty, scholars have highlighted a strong sense of place attachment and community identity. Alfama being a unique neighbourhood, is also an elderly neighbourhood, losing its population. Therefore, to approach the conflictual relation between residents and tourists, Bernardo et al. (2016) distinguished as a fact that tourism “trades on the physical, social, economic, environmental and cultural character of special places” (p.9) which consequently arises existing damages to a place identity and conflictual relations between residents and tourists.

The main concern for Castela (2018) is whether tourist affluence in the neighbourhood will allow the maintenance of Alfama’s identity in time; experienced by residents as their feeling of

33

losing their sense of community and their social cohesion; finding a balance between tourists and residents. In the case of Alfama, Sequera and Nofre (2018) pointed out the need to asses that the term “touristification must be delinked theoretically and epistemologically from the process of gentrification” (p.14). In the aim to create a ‘tourist monoculture neighbourhood’, gentrification and touristification are discerned as direct actors both enduring displacement and dispossession.

Therefore, scholars argued that Alfama is in-between the euphoria and the irritation phase; they acknowledge the beneficial impacts that tourism bring to their neighbourhood, while been concerned of the growth of short-term rentals. However, the antagonism phase can be the next step, and can already be seen in some parts where graffiti reveal a certain annoyance/discomfort; “Alfama is mine” or “Tourists source of money and source of garbage” (Castela, 2018:145). And Sequera and Nofre (2018) suggested that the manifestation of residents’ discontentment towards their well-being in their own (touristified) neighbourhoods is purely motivated by a loss of sense of place and identity.

3.3.3 Mouraria

Mouraria signifies the ‘quarter of the Moors’, which was during the 12th century, under the first king of Portugal, that this territory was built to receive the conquered population (Corte- Real, 2016). Dating its origins to 1170, it was first built to receive the defeated Moors, forced to live a gated commune around the castle of Sao Jorge. The neighbourhood fostered Galicians during the 19th century, and more recently, during the 90’s, Mouraria became a multicultural neighbourhood.

Associated to exoticism and multiculturalism, the neighbourhood fosters immigrants, residents and gentrifiers (Fuarros, 2016). By welcoming more than 30 nationalities, Mouraria diversity is interpreted as a strength and a threat to the social cohesion and to the current urban rehabilitation processes.

Urban regeneration and touristification are both modifying processes, re-modelling the physical and social environment of the historical neighbourhoods; such as the Mouraria (Fuarros, 2016). The revitalisation process of the neighbourhood is non the less a socio-economic strategy to

34

attract new observers. A process that provoked cultural, socio-economic and spatial changes (Corte-Real, 2016). In 2010, the social problems were addressed through the urban rehabilitation program, which aimed to address employment issues, insecurity, social exclusion of minority groups towards renewing the attractiveness of the neighbourhood (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015). Lisbon City Council plan through revitalisation was the restitution of the Arabic roots and the restitution of the Place of Fado; Severa’ house. Considered as a world heritage, Fado represented the rootedness of Portuguese musical culture (Corte-Real, 2016). Eventually, the municipality’ input through revitalisation meliorate the neighbourhood’s image, which became an attractive asset to lure new observers.

Furthermore, the neighbourhood experienced gentrification through traditional residents’ displacements and the accentuation of the Asian immigrant population as the main active group. However, although the neighbourhood was affluent and gaining popularity, the living costs remained at a certain level where traditional residents and new gentrifiers could cohabit. Which was seen through minimum physical changes (Bettencourt & Castro, 2015).

Moreover, memories, an important feature of identity, is replaced by social practices which can allow immigrants to develop what Bettencourt and Castro (2015) called the ‘new place-based identity’. Spatial and social changes are threats to the community’s cultural heritage, which suggest that the authenticity is on the line and “endangering the memory of the neighbourhood’s culture” (p.31). Furthermore, the commercial gentrification within the neighbourhood, towards immigrants’ stores, reinforced the traditional and local loss. Motivated by cultural habits, immigrants such as the Chinese groups, developed commercial landscapes to reinforce a lost feeling when living their home country; in the search for rootedness. Therefore, local residents main fear is the modification of their traditional neighbourhood. This fear is explained by the authors as a non-interaction between the different groups.

Whereas, Fuarros (2016) focused on the musical impact of urban regeneration and as a cultural marketing strategy. He argued that music is often used as “a catalyst for urban redevelopment and as a marketing tool in city branding strategies” (p.67). Fado was long considered as a symbol of Portuguese national identity, which was long attached to the Mouraria. Giving prominence to a cultural approach, fado became the neighbourhood’s pride and honour. The restitution of their most valuable tradition restored their oldest forgotten identity, their

35

rootedness, that finally strengthened the place’s distinctive identity. And became a strength to attract the curiosity of others.

Through mapping the neighbourhood, Bettencourt and Castro (2015) approach aimed at distinguishing the relation between the state and the community. Cultural mapping, one of many, processes the community’s cultural information which facilitate’ the identification of the community’s identity. For instance, cultural mapping can help local authorities towards urban cultural planning, through an identity mapping to overcome the social impacts. Mapping the neighbourhood features residents place within the community and features their memories as cultural heritage which reverberates on a place identity. However, points of view differ amongst social groups, provoking numerous identities found in a locality, and highlighting individuals’ relations with a certain place. “As places becomes meaningful through memories and connections to the past, place attachment and place identity provide a sense of continuity over time” (p.27). While Mouraria experienced social changes with the arrival of new cultural communities, the author underlined the importance to maintain the place identity.

3.3.4 Bairro Alto

While different classes coexisted amongst others for many decades, the catastrophic earthquake of 1755 dismantled its social mix environment; a depopulation occurred while the living situation deteriorated. Only during the 19th century the neighbourhood regained its appealing potential, luring new residents from different backgrounds to seize the opportunity to live in what would be an artistic neighbourhood (Pavel, 2016). Through the 20th century, Bairro Alto went through different phases; from being a poor neighbourhood to an unsafe one, it regained attractiveness at the end of the century through affordable accommodations and through its bohemian image.

The rehabilitation process was used as a marketing instrument and a strategy opportunity devaluating the risks suffered by many neighbourhoods. The Urban Rehabilitation Program (1985) was behind many rehabilitation projects within the Bairro Alto. The 1990 declaration pushed the Lisbon Municipal Council to address the Critical Urban Recovery and Re- conversion Area of the Bairro Alto/Bica (Área Crítica de Recuperação e Reconversão Urbanística do Bairro Alto/Bica); with the extension of the district to Santa Catarina and Sao 36

Paulo (Mendes, 2013). Furthermore, the Cabinet for the Recovery of Bairro Alto was created in 1988 to respond to degradation, poor living conditions and real-estate speculation emergency. A certain ‘cry for help’ for residents right to stay put and to avoid the desertification of their neighbourhood by younger generations. And in 1990, the Municipal Directorate for Urban Rehabilitation, included the Local Cabinets of Bairro Alto and Bica (Pavel, 2016).

Projects that required the interventions of different social groups, with different backgrounds and professions. A participation that would conduct residents to stay in their neighbourhood, maintain the social cohesion and reinforce their sense of community. Furthermore, tax incentives were implemented to support urban rehabilitation projects, allowing public or private stakeholders to “finance projects destined to up-grade the urban fabric that supposedly leads to ‘re-peopling’ the inner cities” (Mendes, 2013:209).

Lisbon Public Urbanisation Company program called ‘Repovoar Lisboa’ (re-people Lisbon): focused on the district of Sao Paulo. Conducted to restore the neighbourhood’ historical symbols/features and eventually create a desirable one. The social re-composition is triggered by social changes brought by the quarter’s aim to promote a more bohemian/cosmopolitan style which metamorphosed the neighbourhood’s space. Bairro Alto became an opportunity and an attraction through touristification endangering the residents right to stay put. Lisbon City Council adopted tourism as an economic strategy, which leaded to the transformation of Lisbon into a tourist city; rehabilitating neighbourhoods into touristified areas.

Pavel (2016) argued that “the overcrowding of the night trade led to the Disneyfication of the area, causing serious disturbances in terms of noise, safety and hygiene, as well as the progressive disappearance of local commerce” (p.5). Consequences of commercial and housing gentrification, which were conducted to respond to this particular lifestyle appealing to tourism development; the creation and conversion of accommodations into tourist-oriented ones. By becoming the centre of Lisbon nightlife attraction through a certain bohemian lifestyle, the neighbourhood eventually, challenged residents right to stay put and was been neglected for economic benefits.

37

4 Results and discussions

The data collection and analysis were leaded manually with a process of registers and cross- references (Flick et al., 2004). Both methods were used to extract similarities between the observations of the participants; words used and personal histories. Qualifying the words facilitated the time-consuming exercise that involved manual method; organizing textual passages and their significances. Added to this approach, we used Bhattacherjee (2012) figure mentioned below to visually contextualize the data collected towards analysis.

Figure 2: The existential phenomenological research method. Source: Bhattacherjee (2012)

The results of the qualitative analysis were identified into two main topics: the cultural identity of the selected neighbourhoods and the main impacts of tourism growth within these neighbourhoods. Table 3 and 4 provide information on the frequencies and percentages identified by the residents during the data analysis of the interviews.

38

Table 3. Cultural identity contents identified in the interviews (frequencies and percentages). Source: personal elaboration (2020)

Alfama Mouraria Bairro Alto Total Urban structure Architecture 18 (60%) - 22 (73%) 40 Authenticity 23 (77%) 12 (40%) 28 (93%) 63 Public spaces - 13 (43%) 12 (40%) 25 Miradors 24 (80%) 19 (63%) 20 (67%) 63 Castle Sao Jorge - 20 (67%) - 20 Traditional 21 (70%) 11 (37%) 22 (73%) 54 Local retailers/facilities 4 (13%) 9 (30%) 7 (23%) 20

Social Life in the neighbourhood 24 (80%) 24 (80%) 26 (87%) 74 Social networks 11 (37%) 17 (57%) 13 (43%) 41 Local residents 14 (47%) 9 (30%) 11 (37%) 34 Local housings 8 (26%) - 10 (33%) 18 Socio-cultural attributes 12 (40%) 11 (37%) 15 (50%) 38 Social authenticity 15 (50%) 7 (23%) 18 (60%) 40 Perception of security 13 (43%) - 3 (10%) 16 Perception of insecurity 6 (20%) 19 (63%) 23 (77%) 48 Perception of drogues/alcohol - 25 (83%) 21 (70%) 46

Authentic characters Artistic 9 (30%) 14 (47%) 17 (57%) 40 Festivities 27 (90%) 25 (83%) 29 (97%) 81 ‘Santos Populares’ 30 (100%) 23 (77%) 30 (100%) 83 Fado 30 (100%) 22 (73%) 18 (60%) 70 Tascas/gastronomic 30 (100%) 25 (83%) 25 (83%) 80 Multicultural 5 (17%) 30 (100%) 11 (37%) 46

Tourism attributes Touristic place 30 (100%) 17 (57%) 30 (100%) 77 Cohabitation(residents/tourists) 8 (27%) 15 (50%) 7 (23%) 30

Total of answers 362 367 418 1147 Number of subjects 30 30 30 90 Mean (answers/subject) 12.1 12.2 13.9 -

39

Table 4. Impacts of tourism on historical neighbourhoods in Lisbon, perceived by residents. Source: personal elaboration (2020)

Tourism Motivations Alfama Mouraria Bairro Total impacts Alto No impact Tourism growth is not 3 (10%) - - 3 perceived as a problem

Environmental Pollution 9 (30%) 19 (63%) 15 (50%) 43 Noise 17 (57%) 9 (30%) 23 (77%) 49 Transits 19 (63%) 10 (33%) 15 (50%) 44 Carrying capacity 25 (83%) 10 (33%) 23 (77%) 58 (overcrowded)

Economic Rehabilitation of buildings 29 (97%) 15 (50%) 29 (97%) 73 for touristic use (accommodations) Rehabilitation of public 14 (47%) 17 (57%) 19 (63%) 50 spaces Privatisation of public spaces 7 (23%) 10 (33%) 16 (53%) 33 Disappearance of traditional 28 (93%) - 27 (90%) 55 local shops

Socio-cultural Higher housing/retail rents 30 (100%) 15 (50%) 28 (93%) 73 Airbnb and Hotels 29 (97%) 16 (53%) 30 (100%) 75 Degradation of buildings 12 (40%) 8 (27%) 8 (27%) 28 Dislocation of inhabitants 27 (90%) 17 (57%) 29 (97%) 73 Insecurity - 15 (50%) 17 (57%) 32 Loss of neighbourhood life 17 (57%) 10 (33%) 20 (67%) 47 Loss of identity 19 (63%) 10 (33%) 18 (60%) 47 Loss of traditions 19 (63%) 10 (33%) 17 (57%) 46

Total of answers 304 191 334 829

40

4.1 Cultural identity contents

While discussing the perceived cultural identity attributes of each neighbourhoods, four categories were distinguished; urban structure, social, authentic characters and tourism attributes. Concerning the urban structure contents, the participants of Alfama and Bairro Alto valued similar cultural structures that identified their neighbourhood as authentic and traditional. The narrow streets, the miradors, the colins, the electric elevators, the stairs, and the cultural costumes such as the drying clothes hanging from balconies, were identified as main characteristics of their picturesque neighbourhood. Alfama valorised the miradors (80% of the respondents) as ‘pictures’ representing the neighbourhood, and Bairro Alto highlighted the unavoidable stair cases as a representation of the neighbourhood’ soul. Meanwhile, as the neighbourhood of Mouraria takes into account distinctive parts; the higher part which is characterised as more ‘traditional’ and the lower part interpreted as ‘multicultural’, the responses were mitigated. However, a common attribute to the three neighbourhoods was the lack of local retailers; participants discerned it as a ‘vanishing’ authentic attribute.

In terms of social contents, the living life in the neighbourhoods is perceived as a fundamental element of their culture. Participants highlighted the cultural habits of their daily lives, such as the unavoidable image of elderly people talking from their balcony to their neighbours, families in the streets, children playing, elderly people on public benches, with the sound of the television behind opened doors, fado playing at high volume, while the barbecues are been heated during summer and cold beers are been served. These postcard images are what the participants defined as their social life within their neighbourhoods. However, the participants were all concerned about the future: through gentrification and rehabilitation programs, many saw their neighbours and friends forced to move out of the neighbourhood. Participants only mentioned locals or locals’ housings to underline the threat made to their neighbourhoods; although local residents remain in the neighbourhoods, the slow expulsion that threatens them is a direct risk to the neighbourhood’ social authenticity. Meanwhile, the perception of security was low or non-existent, the perception of insecurity in Mouraria (63% of the respondents) and Bairro Alto (77% of the respondents) was directly put forward by the residents as the main negative attribute of their neighbourhood quality of life, taking into consideration drogues and alcohol use (83% of the respondents in Mouraria and 70% in Bairro Alto).

41

“The government’ programs to rehabilitate Alfama were life changers; the buildings were falling apart and the living conditions were deteriorating. However, we didn’t think about the consequences. Our neighbourhood was suddenly more attractive for higher-classes and became quite an attraction over the years, neglecting its original residents that made the neighbourhood authentic. My parents used to pay, 20 years ago, 10euros per month to rent their house, imagine what you can do with 10euros nowadays? Nothing.”

Isabel, 62 years, born and raised in Alfama.

Regarding the authentic characters, Alfama, Bairro Alto and Mouraria made unanimity concerning the festivities and the joys that it engenders. Participants qualified their neighbourhoods as happy places, where festivities, such as Santos Populares, were ‘unmissable’ events that would celebrate their values, believes and roots. The authenticity is also discerned through their immaterial heritage; Fado, which reunites neighbours together and contribute to their cultural identity. Furthermore, coined as artistic neighbourhoods, Bairro Alto (37% of the respondents) and Mouraria (100% of the respondents) are both discerned as multicultural and diversified neighbourhoods. Diversified in their own ways; Bairro Alto is identified as the ‘bohemian’ Lisbon, that welcomes all artistic souls and bohemian lifestyles seekers. And Mouraria as a celebration of multiculturalism and exoticism; the neighbourhood where minorities and ethnic communities can find a ‘home’.

Concerning tourism attributes, the participants were conscious of their neighbourhood’ touristic influence, which modified their daily lives, mainly through the ‘forced’ cohabitation with tourists and visitors. However, the participants of the lower part of Mouraria, shown no concern towards the cohabitation with tourists, their rootedness of been mainly immigrants their selves can explain the feeling of been non-threated by this cohabitation (explained one of the interviewees).

42

4.2 Impacts related to tourism growth

The identified responses concerning impacts of tourism growth were grouped into three domains; environmental, economic and socio-cultural (based on Bernardo et al. analysis model, 2017). Marked by residents’ perceptions, the neighbourhood’s concerns conducted a similar pattern. The environmental category highlighted four main impacts; pollution, noise, transits and overcrowding. Interviews shown that Alfama residents were concerned about the transits (63% of the respondents) due to touristic routes and attractions that features the popularisation of tuk-tuks tours and the overcrowded public areas (83% of the respondents) that diminished their accessibility. Whereas, Bairro Alto participants highlighted noise disturbances (83% of the respondents) as the major drawback of their neighborhood quality of life. They call it the ‘noise pollution’ motivated by rudeness and un-respectful tourists. This finding confirms Pavel’ (2016) perception of noise as a major drawback of touristified neighbourhoods. Moreover, concerning pollution, the participants were all conscious that littering was long before the arrival of tourism a common problem, however, they point out that it has been amplified with tourism, especially in Mouraria and Bairro Alto.

In terms of economic impacts, the interviewees discerned seven impacts; rehabilitation of building for touristic use, rehabilitation of public space, privatization of public spaces, disappearance of traditional local shops, higher housing/retail rents, Airbnb and hotels, and employment. Many residents’ participants were conscious about economic benefits; employment constitute the main positive impact that all three neighbourhoods discerned as important, followed by the rehabilitation of public spaces towards the bonification of outdoors. However, the rehabilitation of public spaces was also identified as the mean to privatise public spaces; for instance, the mirador of Santa Catarina was once privatised by the Verride Palácio de Santa Catarina, a five stars hotel. Although the rehabilitations of buildings were perceived as an economic contribution to the neighbourhoods, the rehabilitations of buildings into accommodations for touristic use is been revendicated as a neglection of locals. The Airbnbisation of touristified neighbourhoods, the increase of housings and retail rents, and the disappearance of traditional local shops are major impacts in Alfama (93% of the respondents) and in Bairro Alto (90% of the respondents). Once again, a certain difference was noticed between the residents of Mouraria; the lower part valued tourism as a source of employment (77% of the respondents) and the higher part were well aware of the airbnbisation of their

43

streets, pointing them out like if it was normal. Thus, the confirmation and contribution to scholars’ literatures by observing a more prominent deterioration of their living habits, conditions and accessibilities (Pizam, 1978; Cocola-Gant, 2015; Krase, 2012).

Concerning socio-cultural impacts, residents identified six main impacts; degradation of building, dislocation of inhabitant, insecurity, loss of neighbourhood life, loss of identity and loss of traditions. Although the degradation of buildings wasn’t pointed out as a direct consequence of tourism, it was highlighted as a consequence of overuse. And despite our pre- existing understandings, insecurity was long felt in certain neighbourhoods, long before the arrival of tourism, which in time amplified it. Nonetheless, this notion of insecurity is neglected by authors as not been directly linked to tourism, the assimilation of insecurity to tourism can be interpreted as future debate. Furthermore, Mouraria (50% of the respondents) and Bairro Alto (57% of the respondents) interviewees considered their proper quarter as dangerous places to adventure by night and pointed out certain streets as ‘problems’.

Finally, when asked the question “What are the impacts related to tourism growth within your neighbourhood?” a general response was the dislocation of inhabitants (90% of the respondents in Alfama, 57% in Mouraria and 97% in Bairro Alto). A dislocation that is conducted by all impacts mentioned above and driven by the loss of their neighbourhood life, traditions and finally the loss of their identity. Although this finding concords with many scholars’ literature (Sequera & Nofre, 2018; 2019; Cruz Lopes et al., 2019; Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017), it is mostly highlighted as the consequence of gentrification, that is eventually emphasised by tourism gentrification and touristification (Glass, 1964; Butler, 2007; Gotham, 2005; 2018; Cocola-Gant, 2016; 2018; Sequera & Nofre, 2018; Milano et. al, 2019).

“I don’t recognize my own neighbourhood. Everything was cloned to attract and seduce tourists. Local shops have closed to open postcards shops, bars or even fancy restaurants serving ‘Portuguese food’ which are majorly owned by foreigners. Recently I’ve discovered a ‘cereal bar’?! Have you ever seen a Portuguese go inside? Me neither. What makes me sad, is that tourism doesn’t respect the cultural characters of the neighbourhood, it only sees the potential economic benefits from its ‘authentic’ image.”

Rita, 45 years, local shop owner in Bairro Alto.

44

Furthermore, only 3 participants weren’t concerned and didn’t perceive tourism as a problem. However, all 3 participants were actively working in tourism (tuk-tuk driver and touristic guides) and confessed that if tourism wasn’t as massive in Alfama, they would be unemployed.

4.3 Illustrated results

By sampling the most valuable data identified by the participants, a certain pattern between residents’ interpretations was perceived and illustrated:

CULTURAL IDENTITY IMPACTS OF CONTENTS TOURISM GROWTH

AUTHENTICITY OVERCROWDED

Negativeimpacts

attributes

s LIFE IN THE AIRBNBISATION NEIGHBOURHOODS

DISLOCATION OF

FESTIVE

NEIGHBOURHOODS INHABITANTS Neighbourhood

TOURISTIC PLACES LOSS OF IDENTITY

Figure 3: Illustrated results. Personal elaboration (2020).

45

5 Conclusions

5.1 Theoretical considerations

Gentrification was long considered as the ‘embourgeoisement’ of a city through the social geography (Mendes, 2013), however, gentrification also takes into account the physical transformations through urban rehabilitation (Cruz Lopes et al., 2019). In other words, rehabilitation generated gentrification; with the same characteristics, rehabilitation improved the spatial environment allowing economic plus values. And eventually led to the same conclusions; the inclusion of affluent social classes and the exclusion of lower-classes; a social re-composition.

Urban rehabilitation processes supposed the restoration of the built environment, not the destruction by replacement, which led to a refinement of a city’s social image and housing quality, resulting in a certain ‘upgrade’ of the neighbourhoods (Mendes, 2013). However, urban rehabilitation provoked changes within the social geography and accentuate the gentrification process as a ‘social filter’. While social re-composition enhanced social substitution, Mendes (2013) marked the pattern between the process and the socio-spatial segregation that intensified the social division and exclusion amongst different income classes.

Scholars have highlighted that the effects of tourism resembled those caused by gentrification (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017). And Pavel (2016) argued that “the processes of gentrification and touristification are key actors in the proliferation of spaces of cultural and economic segregation” (p.1) which eventually reflects of the urban cultural and economic issues within historic cities. In addition to this challenge, the growth of touristified cities have constructed them into mass tourism phenomenon. The author argued that such transformations developed ‘stereotypical images’ of what cities should become to attract international markets. Touristification is been compared to an “aggressive form of urban accumulation by dispossession and spatial displacement against the working and middle-lower classes of the ‘tourist city’” (Sequera & Nofre, 2019:1). Assimilated to the gentrification process, touristification grow the airbnbisation process.

Moreover, considered as a precursor for tourism growth, globalisation generated exclusions through the development of space consumption; the commodification of the traditional environment into leisure and tourist-oriented markets, resulting in the ‘exodus’ of the local 46

population (Pavel, 2016). Which added to this, tourism development redefined historic cities centres as cultural objects dedicated to consumption (Cruz Lopes et al., 2019). Tourist-oriented attractions and accommodations, driven by economic gain, eventually replaced the ‘free’ public spaces into compulsory consumer spaces (Barata-Salgueiro et al., 2017).

Marketing strategies towards tourism development and the creation of tourist-oriented attractions developed ‘disneyficated’ areas; by emptying historical neighbourhoods of its local residents, touristified neighbourhoods responded to: “the tourist only meets other tourists” (Pavel, 2016:9), which unavoidably compromises the social cohesion. Culture and tourism are been used for economic reasons and strategies; touristification gained political dimensions, reinforcing a destination’ competitiveness and attractiveness (Sequera & Nofre, 2019).

Finally, the eventual conflict between residents and tourists towards a preservation of heritage opposes’ tourism development to a deterioration of place attachment and quality of life (Bernardo et al., 2016). While there is a noticeable conflict between the preservation of a place’ identity and tourism growth, scholars concluded that the social restructuration of a neighbourhood unavoidably damages the place’ identity. By dispossession and cultural transformations, a community’s socio-cultural attributes are been seriously damaged and affected by tourism development. Not only that tourism deteriorated residents’ quality of life, tourism neglected the residents’ role in tourism development; as a necessity (Castela, 2018; Sequera & Nofre, 2019).

5.2 Practical considerations

The study of Lisbon’ historical neighbourhoods, Alfama, Mouraria and Bairro Alto, confronted our pre-existing understandings on tourism growth to the impacts generated on cultural identity. Identity that can be distinguished into four different forms; urban structure, environmental, individual and social. The urban structure refers to the physical characteristics that ascertain a place identity, and the individual and social categories refers to the resident’s rootedness and emotions which allow social identity (Bernardo et al., 2016).

By modifying the urban structure through processes of revitalisation and rehabilitation, local governments improved the physical aspects of the neighbourhoods, which responded to an urgent deterioration of living conditions in Lisbon’ downtown. However, the modification and promotion of cultural assets, historical and architectural symbols commodified the social 47

aspects of the neighbourhoods. Through rehabilitation, Alfama and Bairro Alto, regained their once lost attractiveness and gained economic strength but at what cost? The embellishment and ‘embourgeoisement’ through rehabilitation and gentrification processes neglected their cultural authenticity (Bernardo et al., 2016). Gentrification that was encouraged and driven by rehabilitation eventually provoked the touristification process of Lisbon historical neighbourhoods.

Policies towards rehabilitation were physical and social. Physical towards the rehabilitation of urban structures and social towards residents’ well-being, by meliorating a neighbourhood’ image and living conditions. For instance, the earthquake of 1755 depopulated numerous neighbourhoods of Lisbon’ down town, leaving lower-income groups in ‘abandoned’ neighbourhoods. Rehabilitation and revitalisation were social manifestations to regain inhabitants and attractiveness. However, local associations and citizens, in Bairro Alto, Alfama and Mouraria, opposed their selves to these processes of rehabilitation and gentrification, which neglected their right to remain in their neighbourhood and be contributors to the cultural identity (Pavel, 2016).

Individual and social perceptions of identity are challenged by transformed/modified neighbourhoods. For instance, Mouraria is categorised as a place that ‘breaths’ what it means to be part of a multicultural historical neighbourhood, but is threated by growing gentrification that prominence exclusion rather than inclusion. The residents’ sense of place attachment and place identity is constantly been disrupted by the growth of tourism, dominated by tourism gentrification. Certain neighbourhoods are currently dominated by tourism; Alfama figures as a ‘touristscape’ suggesting that the influence of tourism gentrification and commercial gentrification outgrow the local community (Sequera & Nofre, 2019).

Eventually, although tourism development and gentrification are discerned by residents as economic benefits non-negligible for their neighbourhoods, through employment and opportunities, their main concern is to know when it will stop; before arriving to the stage of non-retour. For instance, Alfama’ residents that participated in the survey, felt that the use of cultural heritage in marketing strategies was non the less a process of ‘selling places’ rather than supporting local communities. Also perceived in Mouraria, with the touristic routes around Fado, compromising what was once a source of gathering and conviviality into a product created by tourism and consumed by tourists (Fuarros, 2016). And finally, Bairro Alto’ image 48

of the nightlife of Lisbon, created hostilities amongst residents and tourists towards a complicated cohabitation; highly supported by the airbnbisation of the neighbourhood and the non-respect of local resident’s well-being. Finally, residents’ have commonly pointed out the negligence of tourism development planners and policies, that have yet established strategies or policies to minimise the impacts on local communities.

5.3 Limitations and future investigations

Throughout this investigation, certain limits have emerged during the realisation of the qualitative analysis. First, the choice of using certain neighbourhoods instead of others were justified but questioned and doubted during the phase of interviews; especially the case of Mouraria. Mouraria’ is a rather complex neighbourhood, that regroups not only distinctives cultures and identities but also distinctives parts of the neighbourhood. Mouraria can be divided into three different parts; the lower part marked by economic activities, the centre part marked by housing and the rest marked by illegal activities and homelessness (Corte-Real, 2016). Highlighted as the most multicultural neighbourhood of Lisbon, we were faced with language differences that lead to think that using the participation of residents ‘all-confused’ into the discussion as a source of data could have falser the data analysis (Ezzy, 2002).

Secondly, but not least, conducting the interviews during the pandemic of Covid-19 made residents more resilient to participation, which limited the participation of elder individuals. To remediate to this ‘unexpected’ limit, we lowered our expectations in terms of participants, and focussed on a ‘qualitative’ number of subjects. Therefore, it should be noted that this study is limited, due to a reduced sample size and is not representative of the neighbourhoods, especially Mouraria.

Thirdly, the cases studies have distinguished major contributors to spatial and cultural transformations, that weren’t directly linked to tourism. Future investigations should open discussion on policies interventions and contributions to cultural identity loss. Ezzy (2002) approach argued that “the different ways in which qualitative research can be relevant to the policy process, and then moves to an examination of how published research has actually influenced, or failed to influence, public policy” (p.xv). Which could highlight furthermore the negligence from tourism development planners and policies to take into account the importance

49

and vital role of local actors (Bernardo et al., 2016); discerned as potential losses, authenticity and uniqueness should be further studied in terms of comprehension.

Finally, although this study focused on Lisbon’ historical neighbourhoods, we perceived similarities with other touristic destinations; tourism-oriented impacts can be encountered in any touristic destination that suffers from a loss of cultural identity. All the impacts mentioned and highlighted above are actual threats that endangered Barcelona, Venice, Amsterdam and other European touristic hot-spots (Seraphin et al., 2019). However, these issues aren’t specific to this side of the world, many cities and historical spaces are been slowly or actively destroyed by tourism. For instance, Machu Picchu (Baumhackl, 2019) and Maya Bay (Koh & Fakfare, 2019) are constantly put in jeopardy by tourism flows and had to take drastic measures; to close the sites while nature recuperates and residents of cities nearby to ‘breath’.

50

6 Bibliography

Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The Impact of Tourism Development on Residents’ Perceptions of Community Life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16–21. doi:10.1177/004728758802700104

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001

Anuar, A., Ridzuan, F., Jaini, N., Sulaiman, F. & Hashim, I. (2019). The impact of Overtourism Towards Local Community in Heritage City.

Barata-Salguiero, T., Mendes, L. & Guimaraes, P. (2017). Tourism and urban changes – Lessons from Lisbon. In Tourism and gentrification in contemporary metropolises by Gravari- Barbas, M. & Guinand, S. Chap 11. 255-270.

Baumhackl, H. (2019). Peru "Land of the Incas". A Tourism Destination on the Rise. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 7(2). doi:10.15640/jthm.v7n2a10

Belabas, W., Eshuis, J., & Scholten, P. (2020). Re-imagining the city: branding migration- related diversity. European Planning Studies, 1–18. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1701290

Bettencourt, L. Castro, P. (2015). Diversity in the maps of a Lisbon neighbourhood: community and ‘official’ discourses about the renewed Mouraria. Culture and Local Governance / Culture et gouvernance locale, vol 5 (1-2), 23-45.

Bernardo, F., Almeida, J., & Martins, C. (2016). Urban identity and tourism: different looks, one single place. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, 170(5), 205–216. doi:10.1680/jurdp.15.00036

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Chap 13 Qualitative Analysis, 113-118.

Bloemraad, I., & Schönwälder, K. (2013). Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Representation in Europe: Conceptual Challenges and Theoretical Approaches. West European Politics, 36(3), 564–579.

51

Brougham, J. E., & Butler, R. W. (1981). A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 569–590. doi:10.1016/0160- 7383(81)90042-6

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: implications for management of resources. University of Western Ontario, Canadian Geographer, XXIV, 1, 1980. p.5-12.

Butler, T. (2007). For Gentrification? Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 162–181. doi:10.1068/a38472

Castela, A. (2018). Impacts of Tourism in an Urban Community: The Case of Alfama. Athens Journal of Tourism - Volume 5, Issue 2 – Pages 133-148. doi.org/10.30958/ajt.5-2-4

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Chap1-4:1-72.

Corte-Real, M. (2016). Shaping a Territory: Case Study – The Moorish Quarter in Lisbon (Mouraria). Research in Urban Sociology, 169–189. doi:10.1108/s1047-004220160000015008

Cocola-Gant, A. (2015). Tourism and commercial gentrification. Post-Doctoral Researcher, Centre of Geographical Studies, University of Lisbon. Paper presented at the RC21 International Conference on “The Ideal City: between myth and reality. Representations, policies, contradictions and challenges for tomorrow’s urban life”. https://www.rc21.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/E4-C%C3%B3cola-Gant.pdf

Cocola-Gant, A. (2016). Holiday Rentals: The New Gentrification Battlefront. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 1–9. doi:10.5153/sro.4071

Cocola-Gant, A. (2018). Struggling with the leisure class: tourism, gentrification and displacement. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.

Cocola-Gant, A. (2018). Tourism Gentrification. In Handbook of Gentrification Studies, edited by L. Lees, and M. Phillips, chapter 17, 281–293. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cruz Lopes, A., Rodrigues, E.B. & Vera-Cruz, R. (2019). Tourism Gentrification. Volume 471, Issue 9. 52

Dobbs, R., Butler, R. (2019). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions. P6-139.

Doǧan, H. Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 216–236. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(89)90069-8

Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and research inferences in the impact of tourism. In: Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings of the Travel Research Association. San Diego, California. Elliott-Cooper, A., Hubbard, P., & Lees, L. (2019). Moving beyond Marcuse: Gentrification, displacement and the violence of un-homing. Progress in Human Geography, 030913251983051. doi:10.1177/0309132519830511

European Migration Network. EMN Glossary research: https://ec.europa.eu/home- affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search_en

Erschbamer, G., Innerhofer, E. & Pechlaner, H. (2018). Report: Overtourism: How much tourism is too much? Eurac Research – Centre for Advanced Studies.

Ezzy, D. (2013). Qualitative Analysis. Introduction. p.xii-6.

Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Cities and Diversity. Urban Affairs Review, 41(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1078087405278968

Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference? Progress in Planning, 92, 1–55. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2013.04.001

Flick, U., Kardoff, E. & Steinke, I. (2004). A Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. (pp. 276-283).

Fuarros, I.S. (2016). “Ai, Mouraria!” Music, Tourism, and Urban Renewal in a Historic Lisbon Neighbourhood. MUSICultures 43(2): 66-88.

Gheasi, M., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2011). Migration and Tourist Flows. Tourism Economics, 111–126. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2725-5_8

Glass, R. (1964). Gentrification Debates: A Reader. Chapter 1: Aspects of Change. P.19-61. By Japonica Brown-Saracino.

53

Goodwin, H. (2017). The Challenge of Overtourism. Responsible Tourism Partnership Working Paper 4.

Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter). Urban Studies, 42(7), 1099–1121. doi:10.1080/00420980500120881

Gotham, K. (2018). Assessing and Advancing Research on Tourism Gentrification. doi.org/10.4000/viatourism.2169

Gravari-Barbas, M. & Guinand, S. (2017). Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises. International Perspectives. p.1-105.

Grondeau, A. & Pondaven, F. (2018). Le street art, outil de valorisation territoriale et touristique : l’exemple de la Galeria de Arte Urbana de Lisbonne. doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.15324

Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management, 29(4), 637–647. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.006

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., & McKenzie, J. (2011). Globalization and Cultural Identity. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, 285–301. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_13

Jover, J., & Díaz-Parra, I. (2019). Gentrification, transnational gentrification and touristification in Seville, Spain. Urban Studies, 004209801985758. doi:10.1177/0042098019857585

Koens, K., Postma, A., & Papp, B. (2018). Is Overtourism Overused? Understanding the Impact of Tourism in a City Context. Sustainability, 10(12), 4384. doi:10.3390/su10124384

Koens, K., Postma, A. (2017). Understanding and managing visitor pressure in urban tourism. A study to into the nature of and methods used to manage visitor pressure in six major European cities.

Koh, E. & Fakfare, P. (2019). Overcoming “over-tourism”: the closure of Maya Bay. International Journal of Tourism Citie, 6(2).

Krase, J. (2012). Seeing Cities Change: Local Culture and Class. City University of New York, USA. P.31-247.

54

Kuščer, K., & Mihalič, T. (2019). Residents’ Attitudes towards Overtourism from the Perspective of Tourism Impacts and Cooperation–The Case of Ljubljana. Sustainability, 11(6), 1823. doi:10.3390/su11061823

Kymlicka W. (2012) Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future. Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy – Queens University. Korea Foundation Global Seminar. 1-36.

Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 121–139. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6

Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E. (2013). Gentrification. Routledge. (pp. 3-36).

Lees, L. (2000). A reappraisal of gentrification: towards a “geography of gentrification.” Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 389–408. doi:10.1191/030913200701540483

Levrau, F., & Loobuyck, P. (2018). Introduction: mapping the multiculturalism- interculturalism debates. Comparative Migration Studies. CMS 6(13). doi.org/10.1186/s40878- 018-0080-8

Maxwell, R. (2010). Evaluating Migrant Integration: Political Attitudes across Generations in Europe. International Migration Review, 44(1), 25–52.

Mendes, L. (2020). Bye Bye Lisbon: Tourism Gentrification Impacts on Lisbon´s Inner-City Housing Market. (University of Lisbon, Portugal). Chap 8.

Mendes, L. (2013). Public policies on urban rehabilitation and their effects on gentrification in Lisbon. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning of University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Milano, C. (2018). Overtourism, malestar social y turismofobia. Un debate controvertido. Vol. 16 n°3 pages 551-564.

Milano, C., Novelli, M., M. Cheer, J. (2019). Overtourism and tourismophobia: a journey through four decades of tourism development, planning and local concerns. Tourism Planning & Development, 16:4, 353-357. doi:10.1080/21568316.2019.1599604

Moore, M. A. (2015). An essay on Doxey’s (1975) Irridex; Ap’s (1992) Social Exchange Process; and Gursoy and Rurhterford’s (2004) Determinants of Community Support theories. Mphil document, University of Cape Coast, Ghana.

55

Moufakkir, O. (2014). What’s immigration got to do with it? Immigrant animosity and its effects on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 108–121. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.08.008

Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L., & Galí, N. (2018). Overtourism: residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity - case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tourism Review. doi:10.1108/tr-08-2017-0138

Pardo, F. (2017). Urban Diversity and the Scope of Multiculturalism. Migration, Minorities and Modernity, 19–23. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64082-2_3

Pavel, F. (2016). El Bairro Alto en Lisboa entre gentrificacion, turistification y derechos de la poblacion. Contested Cities, Congreso Internatcional Madrid 2016.

Perkumienė, D., & Pranskūnienė, R. (2019). Overtourism: Between the Right to Travel and Residents’ Rights. Sustainability, 11(7), 2138. doi:10.3390/su11072138

Perruchoud, R., & Redpath-Cross, J. (2011). Glossary on Migration, 2nd edition, n°25. International Migration Law. International Organization for Migration.

Philips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal Rural Sturdies. 9(2), 123-140.

Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism’s Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination Community as Perceived by Its Residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 8–12. doi:10.1177/004728757801600402

Rath, J. (2007). The transformation of ethnic neighbourhoods into places of leisure and consumption. Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES), University of Amsterdam. Working paper 144, 1-23.

Rustenbach, E. (2010). Sources of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants in Europe: A Multi- Level Analysis. International Migration Review, 44(1), 53–77. doi:10.1111/j.1747- 7379.2009.00798.x

Safi, M. (2009). Immigrants’ Life Satisfaction in Europe: Between Assimilation and Discrimination. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 159–176.

56

Sequera, J., & Nofre, J. (2018). New debates on touristification and the limits of gentrification. Shaken, not stirred. City, 1–13. doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1548819

Sequera, J., & Nofre, J. (2019). Touristification, transnational gentrification and urban change in Lisbon: The neighbourhood of Alfama. Urban Studies, 004209801988373. doi:10.1177/0042098019883734

Seraphin, H., Ivanov, S., Dosquet, F., & Bourliataux-Lajoinie, S. (2019). Archetypes of locals in destinations victim of overtourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.12.001

Ujang, N. (2012). Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 156–167. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014

Vertovec, S., Wessendorf, S. (2004). Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Diversity in Europe: an overview of issues and trends. In Penninx, R., Berger, M. & Kraal, K., The Dynamics of International Migration and Settlement in Europe (pp.171-199).

Wachsmuth, D., & Weisler, A. (2018). Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. doi:10.1177/0308518x18778038

Watters, S. M., Ward, C., & Stuart, J. (2020). Does normative multiculturalism foster or threaten social cohesion? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 75, 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.02.001

Williams, A. M., & Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2(1), 5–27. doi:10.1080/146166800363420

Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy. Knowledge, 3(1), 97– 114. doi:10.1177/107554708100300106

57