See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329249315

Shaken, not stirred: New debates on touristification and the limits of

gentrification

Article  in  City · November 2018

DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2018.1548819

CITATION READS

1 640

2 authors:

Jorge Sequera Jordi Nofre

New University of Lisbon New University of Lisbon
36 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Living like a local. Tourism and urban transformations in contemporary Lisbon. The sociospatial effects of AIRBNB View project

ArtCitizenship - Young people and the arts of citizenship: activism , participatory culture and creative practices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Sequera on 30 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CITY, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1548819

Debates
Shaken, not stirred
New debates on touristification and the
limits of gentrification

Jorge Sequera and Jordi Nofre

The recent touristification of the historic downtown quarters of many European cities is not
without its social, spatial and economic impacts. In turn, many global cities show a lack of
efficient tools in tackling and addressing the negative impacts derived from touristification.
Facing this, some scholars have importantly examined the interplay between tourism, gen-
trification and urban change. However, we urban studies scholars have not yet admitted the
existence of serious limitations regarding our current theoretical, conceptual and methodo-
logical approach in exploring the Tourist City. In this paper we argue that the rapid and
intense touristification of central areas of post-industrial cities across the world requires a
new breakthrough approach in order to understand the process of urban touristication in
all its complexity. That is why we argue that what many scholars sometimes erroneously
call ‘tourism gentrification’ need to go beyond the ‘classical’ approach used to explore
how urban touristification affects the social, cultural and urban fabric of our cities.

Key words: touristification, gentrification, urban change, Tourist City, tourism gentrification

1. Introduction explained by three main factors, that is (i)

the expansion of geopolitical instability over

O
ver recent years, tourism has
emerged as central to the spatial,
economic, social and cultural trans-
formation of contemporary territories
across the globe. To give an idea of the scale
of this process, the World Tourism Organiz-
ation reported that tourism was the only
growing global economy in 2016. In southern
Europe in particular, the British newspaper
The Guardian1 remarked that tourism
should be seen as a ‘lifejacket’ for cities in
this region, which had been strongly affected
by the latest economic recession. In fact, the
recent wave of touristification in the biggest
cities of southern Europe may be largely
the past decade in tourist destination
markets such as the Maghreb, Egypt and
other Middle Eastern countries (Basu and
Marg 2010); (ii) the appearance of tourist
and hotel real estate as a safe investment
area in times of volatility in the financial
markets; and (iii) the adoption of tourism,
leisure and entertainment as central strategies
for overcoming the numerous negative
impacts of the Great Recession (2008– 2016).
Moreover, the increasing competition that
has occurred within and between global
cities in recent decades has resulted in
culture, leisure, entertainment and tourism
assuming a central role in the urban

# 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 CITY
regeneration and socioeconomic revitalisa-
tion of formerly degraded urban (and also
more recently suburban) areas of the post-
industrial city. Regarding tourism in particu-
lar, the recent expansion of both low-cost
travel companies and peer-to-peer online
property rental platforms has greatly contrib-
uted to increasing leisure mobility (Hooper
2015). During the summer of 2016, more
than 16 million people used Airbnb2 during
their holidays and/or business trips across
Europe, representing an increase of 70%
compared with 2015 (Airbnb 2016).
However, the recent touristification of the
historic downtown quarters of many Euro-
pean cities, which is largely based on the
expansion of the (in-)formal tourism accom-
modation sector (Gottlieb 2013), is not
without its social, spatial and economic
impacts. Similarly to other cities worldwide
such as San Francisco, Toronto, Los
Angeles, Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos
Aires, and Tokyo (e.g. Khrennikov 2015;
Kubes 2015; Lee 2016; Nakamura and Taka-
hashi 2016; Tomoyose 2015), the tourism
‘sharing economy’ (Frenken et al. 2015; Gut-
tentag 2015) involving Airbnb and other
peer-to-peer short-term property rental plat-
forms has been central in the range of dra-
matic spatial, social and economic changes
recently underway in the popular quarters
of several European cities such as Amster-
dam, Berlin, Paris, London, Barcelona,
Madrid, and Lisbon, among others (e.g.
Braun and Schäfer 2015; Gutierrez et al.
2016; Simcock and Smith 2016; Van der
Heide and Peters 2015).
Returning to a more general perspective,
today the ‘Tourist City’ faces numerous and
enormous challenges (Colomb and Novy
2017). This is of special relevance in the his-
toric downtown areas of many cities world-
wide, where the recent rapid expansion of
the informal urban tourism accommodation
sector is seriously challenging the governance
of touristified cities (OECD 2016). In fact,
the Tourist City as a ‘conflictive scenario’ is
fuelled by two critical facts. Firstly, many
global cities show a lack of efficient tools in
tackling and addressing the negative impacts
derived from touristification, such as promot-
ing new policies, joint actions and good prac-
tices towards a more inclusive, liveable
‘Tourist City’. Secondly, although some scho-
lars have examined the interplay between
tourism, gentrification and urban change (e.g.
Degen 2004; Füller and Michel 2014;
Gotham 2005; Levine 2001; Vives Miró
2011), we urban studies scholars have not yet
admitted the existence of serious limitations
regarding our current theoretical, conceptual
and methodological approach in exploring
the Tourist City. That is why we scholars
working on what many authors sometimes
erroneously call ‘tourism gentrification’ – as
argued below – need to go beyond the ‘classi-
cal’ approach used to explore how urban tour-
istification affects the social, cultural and
urban fabric of our cities.
Therefore, in this short paper, we will
argue that geographers, sociologists, econ-
omists, anthropologists, and architects who
have examined the ‘Tourist City’ along
past years have primarily focussed on the
reproduction of a double dichotomy, i.e.
speculation-expulsion and gentrification-dis-
placement. This double dichotomy has
been widely seen as the most accepted theor-
etical, conceptual and methodological
approach in examining how the urban
fabric has been socially, spatially, economi-
cally, politically and culturally re-shaped as
a consequence of major transnational forces
of change, such as the expansion of urban
tourism in cities worldwide. However, this
double dichotomy has revealed to be
clearly insufficient in exploring the range
of strategies, conflicts, interests and alliances
adopted by different actors and social
groups of local touristified communities. In
other words, we urban studies scholars still
lack efficient tools to examine in-depth
how ‘the Tourist City’ is imagined, nego-
tiated and developed (even simultaneously)
among different and also antagonistic social
actors.

2. On uses (and abuses) of the
gentrification concept in discussing
touristification
Over recent years, the rapid and intense
process of touristification that has occurred
in many cities across the globe has been revul-
sive for a significant section of the urban
studies community. Interestingly, recent
publications examining the touristification
of central areas of the city embrace a wide
range of gentrification-related topics, includ-
ing (a) the rise of upward tensions in local
real-estate markets, provoking an increasing
spatial displacement of lifelong lower-class
residents (e.g. Cocola-Gant 2016; Colomb
and Novy 2017; Gotham 2005; Pareja East-
away and Simó Solsona 2014; Pixová and
Sládek 2016); (b) both symbolic and material
dispossession of residents caused by the rapid
touristification of their neighbourhoods
(Janoschka and Sequera 2016); c) the increas-
ing marginalisation of ‘undesired’ presences,
practices and consumptions through zero-
tolerance policies of urban governance
(Cummings 2015; Sequera 2017); (d) the
expansion and commodification of youth-
oriented and tourist-oriented nightlife in
central areas of the city (Nofre et al. 2017,
Table 1 A summary of publications discussing gentrification and urban tourism
Most relevant processes examined
Tension in local housing market, involving spatial
displacement
Symbolic and material dispossession of residents’ habitat
Marginalisation and criminalisation of social and cultural
everyday practices of ‘The Unwanted’ (e.g. young poor
locals, including some ethnic-religious minorities
Expansion and commodification of tourist-oriented and
youth-oriented nightlife in cities
Disappearance of traditional retail trade and small artisans
replaced by new tourism enterprises
The promotion and implementation of gentrification policies
New (un)regulated p2p economic activities (e.g. Airbnb)
Source: Authors.
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 3
2018a, 2018b; Nofre and Eldridge 2018); (e)
the demise of traditional retail and small-
scale artisan manufacturing which are
replaced by tourist-led businesses (González
and Waley 2013); and finally, (f) the relation-
ship between ‘urban touristification’ (Ash-
worth and Page 2011) and the promotion
and implementation of ‘gentrification pol-
icies’ (e.g. Davidson and Lees 2005;
Janoschka, Sequera, and Salinas 2014; Lees
2012; Sequera 2013, 2015; Slater 2013). In
turn, other recent publications examine the
role of urban development policies in touris-
tifying the post-industrial city by favouring
the expansion of (de-)/(un-)regulated peer-
to-peer economic activities such as Airbnb
apartments (e.g. Frenken et al. 2015;
Cocola-Gant 2016; Gutierrez et al. 2016;
Lee 2016; Sans and Quaglieri 2016) (Table 1).
More particularly, over the past decade and
half, several authors have examined ‘tourism
gentrification’ by developing a new theoreti-
cal and conceptual corpus. One of the first
was Gotham (2005, 1099), who argued that
tourism gentrification could be seen as ‘the
transformation of a middle-class neighbour-
hood into a relatively affluent and exclusive
enclave marked by a proliferation of corpor-
ate entertainment and tourism venues’.
Authors
Gotham (2005); Pareja Eastaway and Simó Solsona
(2014); Cocola-Gant (2016); Colomb and Novy
(2017), Pixová and Sládek (2016)
Janoschka and Sequera (2016)
Sequera (2017); Cummings (2015)
Nofre et al. (2017, 2018a, 2018b); Nofre and Eldridge
(2018)
González and Waley (2013); Mendes (2017)
Janoschka, Sequera, and Salinas (2014); Sequera (2013,
2015); Sequera and Janoschka (2015)
Cocola-Gant (2016); Lee (2016); Gutierrez et al. (2016);
Sans and Quaglieri (2016); Frenken et al. (2015)
4 CITY
However, much more recently, Cummings
(2015) notes that the term touristification
now has more in common with the term ‘gen-
trification’ than with the touristifying
process. This is precisely the main conceptual
approach used by several authors over the
past three years. For instance, Cocola-Gant
(2018) points out that touristification may be
defined as gentrification caused by tourism
while tourism gentrification is thus more the
transformation of a residential area into a
tourism destination. Others soften their
approach and suggest that touristification
may be seen as a vehicle for gentrification
(e.g. Barata-Salgueiro, Mendes, and Guimar-
aes 2017) or, more specifically, that tourism
may contribute to residential gentrification
(Gravari-Barbas 2017; Gravari-Barbas and
Guinand 2017). Also following the latter con-
ceptual approach, Mendes (2018) argues that
former working-class historic neighbour-
hoods of southern European cities have been
transformed into consumption places and
tourism sites. In this transformation, the
author also points out that entertainment,
leisure and accommodation have started to
gradually replace both traditional residential
and commercial activities of central urban
areas while, at the same time, emptying the
neighbourhoods of their original population.
That is why Mendes (2016) notes that
tourism gentrification appears as the ‘new
urban frontier of gentrification’.
For some authors, tourism gentrification is
also related to transnational gentrification,
which could be defined as the process ‘that
connects leisure-driven migration to spatially
distant neighbourhood reinvestment schemes
that existing local demand may not have
allowed for’ (Sigler and Wachsmuth 2015,
707). In particular, transnational gentrifica-
tion appears to be closely related to touristifi-
cation since the former may be seen as the
mobility of high-status people to create a
new housing reinvestment, restructuring the
residential market and colonising new areas
characterised by disinvestment in other
countries. Therefore, the connection with
touristification would lie in the fact that
transnational gentrification often includes
some patterns of second-home ownership
such as retirement migration, residential
tourism, the gentrifying global class and
transnational elite (e.g. O’Reilly 2007; Rofe
2003). As a result, these new residents – or
‘lifestyle migrants’ (Cocola-Gant 2018;
Hayes 2018; Montezuma and McGarrigle
2018) – exert upward pressure on local
house prices, accelerating processes of gentri-
fication. Also closely related to lifestyle-
oriented mobilities in recent years, lifestyle
migration studies (Benson 2016) have indeed
been incorporated into gentrification studies
(Janoschka, Sequera, and Salinas 2014).
However, we consider the direct associ-
ation of touristification with transnational
gentrification to represent a lack of scientific
rigour. First, transnational gentrification is
closely related to processes of global urban
colonisation carried out by new transnational
upper-middle classes who enter the urban
landscape as homebuyers. Second, discussion
of transnational gentrification should include
the range of neoliberal urban policies that has
been created and implemented in several
cities worldwide over the last three decades
with the clear aim of attracting financial
capital and new (trans-)national real estate
investors as central factors of urban regener-
ation, socioeconomic revitalisation and,
therefore, transnational gentrification of
urban and suburban areas. Coming back to
the specific field of touristification, it is
worth remarking that different conceptual
approaches have emerged over the past few
years. In this sense, some authors argue that
touristification in central urban areas is the
result of the complete transformation of the
urban space into a tourist space (e.g. Belhas-
sen, Uriely, and Assor 2014; Fernandes
2011; Leite 2008; Stock 2007). This would
be in line with others who indicate that tour-
istification may be seen as a multifaceted
process of urban change promoted by both
local and transnational actors and closely
related to improving tourism competitiveness
and capacity for attracting visitors (e.g. Fer-
nandes 2011; Muselaers 2017). Following

this new approach to touristification in post-
industrial cities, the term ‘touristification’
would be thus defined as the transformation
of tourism from a ‘cultural practice’ into a
new urban policy strategy by aiming at
‘(re)creating [a new city] for the attraction
of tourists’ (Muselaers 2017, 12; see also:
Bhandari 2008; Suzuki 2010).
However, everything shown in the first
part of this paper leads us to reveal one of
the hottest research questions featuring the
scientific sub-field of urban tourism studies:
How does the interplay between gentrifica-
tion and urban touristification operate
today? To try to answer this question, the
next section aims to explore the critical limit-
ations of using the so-called ‘gentrification
paradigm’ in exploring the ‘Tourist City’.
3. Limitation of the gentrification
paradigm in exploring the tourist city
In the previous section, we have shown that
many scholars often make use of well-conso-
lidated theoretical frameworks of gentrifica-
tion to explain other complex, non-linear
urban processes such as urban touristification
and its hypothetical connection with residen-
tial and even transnational gentrification. In
line with this, Lees, Shin, and López-
Morales (2016) argue that gentrification has
expanded from the dynamics of housing to
other dynamics such as tourism and the new
retail landscape resulting from processes of
leisure-oriented, tourist-oriented urban
regeneration, allowing other scholars to
speak of tourism gentrification as previously
examined. Moreover, and after two decades
of gentrification processes in central urban
areas, the current ‘austerity urbanism’ (Peck
2012) that has been deployed over recent
years especially in southern European cities
such as Lisbon or Madrid (Mendes 2014,
2017; Sequera 2013, 2015) is largely based
on processes of touristification of their
central historic neighbourhoods.
Importantly, the ‘classical’ model of central
urban redevelopment in many European
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 5
cities – which has been largely based on resi-
dential and/or commercial gentrification –
today seems to be less efficient in generating
surplus values than (un-)/(de-)regulated
forms of capital accumulation such as new
forms of (illegal) tourist accommodation
and its resulting processes of tourism-
oriented urban regeneration and real estate
rehabilitation. But despite the existing exten-
sive literature on tourism gentrification and
even the direct association between anti-
tourism activism and anti-gentrification
movements across Europe (Gil and Sequera
2018; Sequera and Nofre 2018), the current
complexity of the process of urban touristifi-
cation and its kaleidoscopic, non-linear
impacts have revealed the existence of critical
limitations in using the so-called ‘gentrifica-
tion paradigm’ to explore the ‘Tourist City’.
If one takes the four conditions that David-
son and Lees (2005) use to define gentrifica-
tion (i.e. the existence of public and/or
private capital investment; changes in the
urban landscape; the arrival of new highly-
skilled and/or high-income residents; and
the displacement of population with lower
resources), touristification and gentrification
may be seen as two distinct processes. We
are not stating here that both capitalist pro-
cesses are simply antagonist with each
other. What we would like to highlight here
is that they should be examined as two dis-
tinct but complementary (or even simul-
taneous) processes. In this sense, our
explanation of how the interplay between
gentrification and touristification operates in
today’s Tourist City is based on two funda-
mental pillars which have been defined in
accordance with current post-crisis neoliber-
alisation processes (Peck, Theodore, and
Brenner 2013), especially deployed in
southern European cities over recent years
of the Great Recession (2008 – 2016).
Our first fundamental pillar in explaining
the limitations of the gentrification paradigm
in exploring ‘the Tourist City’ is the recent
reactivation of the real estate market in
several European cities. This is primarily
based on the recent expansion of urban
6 CITY
tourism (e.g. Fereidouni and Al-mulali 2014;
Pérez 2010), which has simultaneously
involved dramatic changes in the urban and
social fabric of the city. However, it would
not necessarily mean class antagonism in the
upscaling of a certain historic neighbourhood
of the city centre. Here, the use of the term
‘gentrification’ in its ‘classical’ approach –
that is to say, gentrification as a ‘class
struggle’ (e.g. Smith 1996, among many
others) – would be erroneous, since the use
of the category ‘upper-middle classes’ may
be widely discussed. Actually, the expansion
of `predatory tourisḿ (Köhler 2011) in
central urban areas of many post-industrial
cities across the globe –but particularly in
many southern European largest cities – is
constantly denounced as uncivil in several
gentrifying neighbourhoods (Colomb and
Novy 2017; Nofre et al. 2018b), as it involves
the deterioration of community liveability
and puts coexistence among tourists and resi-
dents at serious risk.
However, here arises a key question in
exploring the touristification of urban
centres and the emergence of a range of
social, spatial and economic impacts. On
one hand, some publications suggest the
depiction of ‘the tourist’ is not closely
related to class, as it is a non-totemic, non-
homogeneous figure (e.g. Quaglieri and
Russo 2010). On the other hand, ‘predatory
tourism’ often clashes not only with resi-
dents’ protests in the city’s touristified quar-
ters through the production, reproduction
and consumption of new and old ‘civilised’
practices carried out by local middle and
upper-middle classes as a response to the
banalisation of their bourgeois, capitalist
city, whose topography of power has
known some changes due to the arrival of
new dominant actors (transnational real
estate investors) and/or simultaneously the
emergence of new local elites. Interestingly,
the homogenisation and even banalisation of
the ‘tourist experience’ (Terkenli 2002) has
accelerated the quest for new forms of con-
sumption and accumulation of social distinc-
tion – in Bourdieús terminology – among
upper-middle class tourists and visitors,
while local upper-middle classes of ‘the
Tourist City’ produce, reproduce and
consume new consumption and lifestyles pat-
terns that are aimed at differentiating them
from the ‘common tourists’ flooding their
cities. Importantly, many ‘common tourists’
and visitors might be defined as individuals
belonging to middle-lower and working
classes in their own home countries. For
that very reason, their role as ‘common tour-
ists’ would not be meant to have a central
symbolic, cultural and economic ‘elitist’ role
regarding a potential process of ‘classical gen-
trification’ in the unexplored-terrain-to-be-
visited.
In addition – especially in large and
medium-sized cities of southern Europe,
like Rome and Florence in Italy, Barcelona
and San Sebastián in Spain, and Lisbon and
Porto in Portugal, among many others – ,
the transformation of the traditional retail
landscape of central urban areas into new
Disneyficated (Drummond-Cole and Bond-
Graham 2012; Eeckhout 2001; Nofre and
Martins 2017; Souther 2007) commercial
tourist areas deserves our special attention.
While the former responds to the spatialisa-
tion of consumption patterns of local upper-
middle classes – which at the same time are
closely related to mechanisms and strategies
of accumulation of cultural capital and
social distinction (Bourdieu 1979) – the
latter does not lead to gentrification
(although it can cause different forms of dis-
placement) by itself but quite the opposite.
The transformation of the traditional retail
landscape of central areas of the city into
new Disneyficated commercial tourist areas
is not related to the expansion of ‘bigger,
international and more sophisticated
markets, which will also impact on the
quality of restaurants, bars and shops’
(Gravari-Barbas and Guinand 2017, 4), but
a new Fordist standardisation of the urban
landscape through the rapid expansion of
low-cost, franchised retailing, which today
is present in most central areas of the
‘Tourist City’ across the globe.

Interestingly, and by means of an ‘interna-
tionalist approach’, some authors have started
to consider tourists not only as short-term
visitors travelling from region to region but
individuals who temporarily belong to those
local communities which at the same time
become the object of the ‘tourist experience’
(Hiernaux and González 2014). In that
sense, the ‘common tourist’ may be seen as
a temporary glocal inhabitant who has a
central role in producing, reproducing and
consuming the everyday urban space, and
does not have to belong to a certain social
class. If one takes (back) a class-based
approach, a number of difficulties arise in
assuming that touristification is (just) a gen-
trification device or that it is the next step in
contemporary gentrification. The visitor
does not have a unique, simple, linear
tourist habitus, nor do they stubbornly or
homogeneously belong to a specific social
class. For that reason, a simple class-based
reading of touristification in current post-
recession cities appears to be clearly insuffi-
cient for examining the range of social,
spatial, economic and cultural impacts result-
ing from the touristification of central urban
areas.
Our second fundamental pillar in explain-
ing the limitations of the gentrification para-
digm in exploring ‘the Tourist City’ is
related to the concept of ‘displacement’. In
several European cities, tourist-phobia has
recently spread among many residents as a
response to the strengthening of the local
community’s spatial displacement. In cities
such as Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin,
Prague, Venice, Madrid or Lisbon, among
others, the original euphoria associated with
the arrival of tourism as a catalyst of the
socio-economic revitalisation of formerly
degraded urban areas of the city centre has
now given way to protests and social conflict
(Colomb and Novy 2017). Its rapid mediati-
sation has favoured increasing academic
attention that has recently warned of rapid
and dramatic changes in the spatial, social,
economic and cultural fabric of touristified
neighbourhoods.
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 7
In several cities across the world, it is pri-
marily the result of speculative links
between actors investing in both fields of
urban tourism and the real estate economy.
Some authors take a gentrification-based
approach to examine how ‘indirect displace-
ment’ or even ‘exclusionary displacement’
resulting from processes of touristification
of central urban areas has taken place (e.g.
Cocola-Gant 2016, 2018; Mendes 2017).
However, the term ‘displacement’ is also
closely linked to multifaceted processes of
accumulation by dispossession (Harvey
2004) as extensively shown in the case of
other regions, e.g. Latin American cities
(Janoschka and Sequera 2016). In that sense,
we should consider the range of (often
complex and different) political, social and
economic contexts in which such an accumu-
lation by dispossession – or urban disposses-
sion (Sevilla-Buitrago 2015) – takes place in
the ‘Tourist City’. In fact, the different
forms of displacement (see below) are
closely related to how the political economy
of the world-system and its different forms
of expulsion (Sassen 2014), how displacement
adopts multiple forms in order to expand the
urban enclosure (Hodkinson 2012) or how
processes of deterritorialisation-territoriali-
sation (Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Guattari
and Rolnik 2006) operate in the ‘Tourist
City’. At this point, Blanco and Apaolaza’s
(2016) work brilliantly explains the different
and more aggressive meanings of displace-
ment beyond gentrification (migration,
urban mobility, military conflicts, refugees,
etc).
Returning to the Tourist City, however,
one of the most recent factors of spatial dis-
placement in this setting is the touristification
of the urban night (Nofre et al. 2017, 2018a,
2018b), which often involves the dramatic
deterioration of community liveability result-
ing from the expansion of tourist-oriented
nightlife facilities in the area (i.e. street clean-
liness, high noise levels, episodes of violence
among drunkards, alcohol-fuelled party
goers flooding the neighbourhood and chat-
ting loudly and screaming during night-time
8 CITY
hours, among others). Which raises another
key question: Why would the upper-middle
classes want to go and live in touristified
neighbourhoods? Paradoxically once more,
tourism displacement triggers a rebound
effect which favours processes of gentrifica-
tion in not-yet-gentrified areas of the city
through the new movements of local and/or
transnational upper classes, who flee the
banalised, overcrowded Tourist City.
Lastly, many scholars have argued that
anti-tourism protests have been predomi-
nantly conducted by lower-class residents
who have been subjected to spatial displace-
ment (e.g. Gurran 2017; Monterrubio 2017).
However, over the course of many discus-
sions held at conferences and seminars with
scholars who are currently conducting field-
work, many point out that an increasing
number of middle-class families residing in
touristified neighbourhoods are joining
protest actions against the negative impacts
derived from the intense process of touristifi-
cation and Airbnbisation (Richards 2014)
such as it occurs in most of the aforemen-
tioned cities. Upward tensions in real estate
prices, problems of intraurban mobility, the
disappearance of local retail establishments,
and the worsening of community liveability
during night-time hours due to the expansion
of nightlife facilities and the liminal govern-
ance of the urban night in the ‘Tourist City’
(Nofre et al. 2018a) are putting at risk not
only the peaceful, inclusive and sustainable
urban coexistence between different actors
Table 2 Gentrification vs. touristification: revealing the differences
GENTRIFICATION
Displacement Working classes
Class Upscaling class
Retail changes ‘Chic’, ‘Sophisticated’
Demographics Population replacement
Urban conflict Class war
Properties Owners
Housing Residential
Source: Authors.
of the urban fabric but also the ‘right to the
city’ which, in the ‘Tourist City’, has recently
become a common claim shared by both
lower- and middle-classes. In the current
times of rapid touristification of central
areas of the city, they feel their neighbour-
hood is trapped by tourism on a daily basis.
4. Final remarks: towards de-Linking
touristification from gentrification
As we have seen throughout this paper, there
are substantial epistemological differences
between touristification and gentrification,
since the expansion of urban tourism in a
central urban area is not always a pre-con-
dition for gentrification. Though we may
assume that both phenomena – that is to
say, gentrification and touristification – ‘can
be considered co-actors in the production of
post-industrial landscapes’ (Cocola-Gant
2018, 284), the theoretical, conceptual and
methodological tools with which gentrifica-
tion has been endowed over the last half-
century do not currently allow us to under-
stand the complex phenomenon of urban
touristification, which differs from gentrifi-
cation as we have shown throughout this
paper (see Table 2 below for a summarised
explanation).
In this paper, we have argued that the ‘clas-
sical approach’ to the study of touristification
from the theoretical, conceptual and meth-
odological arena of gentrification studies is
TOURISTIFICATION
Cross-class displacement
Class diversity
‘Disneyfication’
Depopulation
Worsening of community liveability
Transnational and local real estate market
& Risk investment funds
Owners
Temporary accommodation

clearly inadequate for an in-depth examin-
ation of how ‘the Tourist City’ is imagined,
negotiated and developed (even simul-
taneously) among different and also antagon-
istic social actors. To overcome this dead end,
we would like to point out that the study of
touristification (and not just gentrification)
as a (new) global strategy is meant to open
new, ground-breaking understanding of this
multi-faceted, non-linear, complex urban
process affecting several cities across the
globe. Indeed, this implies the launch of a
new research agenda on urban touristification
which would take as a starting point, at least,
a two-fold explanation of urban touristifica-
tion, resulting from either (i) the transform-
ation of a working-class neighbourhood
into a site for tourist consumption,
entertainment and leisure, or (ii) the trans-
formation of an already gentrified neigh-
bourhood into a place for tourist
consumption, entertainment and leisure.
Regardless of the origin of touristification
of a certain central urban area, touristifica-
tion (and not just gentrification) as a (new)
global strategy could be simultaneously
defined from the interplay of three facts
which have been widely discussed through-
out this paper, and which de-links the
simple, direct association between touristifi-
cation and gentrification, as Table 2 shows
below: (i) the recent expansion of urban
tourism involves an urban change that does
not necessarily mean class antagonism to
upscale a certain neighbourhood of the city
centre; (ii) touristification is not just con-
nected with the spatial displacement of
lower classes; and finally, (iii) the transform-
ation of the traditional retail landscape of
central areas of the city into new Disneyfi-
cated commercial tourist areas is not necess-
arily related to the expansion of a more
sophisticated consumption market.
Faced with recent protests in the ‘Tourist
City’ held by not only the popular classes
but also middle classes, local elites have
started to address the negative impact of
mass touristification of central urban areas
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 9
by deploying a range of strategies and
actions related to city-marketing, seeking at
the same time to re-define Urry’s (1990)
‘tourist gaze’ in search of an ‘authentic’
experience. Herein lies the last key question
addressed in this paper, which needs to be
examined in more depth in future theoretical
and/or case studies. This is regarding the
search for a ‘real authentic’ experience based
on eating, dining, consuming and being
accommodated-like-a-local. In this sense,
the new ‘tourist of quality’ seems to go
beyond the previously prepared artificial,
themed (and today increasingly hyper-
securitised) stage. In doing so, it would
appear to be a new mechanism of social dis-
tinction framed in the experiential arena of
the ‘Tourist City’, where a new transnational
‘tourist elite’ is produced and reproduced
through the consumption of selective, really
‘authentic’ unspoiled places of the (appar-
ently) ‘non-Tourist City’ (Coleman and
Crang 2002).
Therefore, a new economic and social
arena formed by the everyday dialectics
between different social actors (including
‘newcomers’ and residents) is emerging in
the ‘Tourist City’. By the term ‘everyday dia-
lectics’ we mean, on the one hand, the con-
tinuous and simultaneous intersection and
interplay between tourism entrepreneurship,
investment, and daily resilience and resist-
ance in the everyday life of the Tourist
City; and, on the other hand, the set of dis-
courses, practices, voices and stories pro-
duced and reproduced by ‘the
entrepreneurs’, ‘the resilients’, and ‘the resis-
tants’ of the touristified community.
In conclusion, the rapid and intense touris-
tification of central areas of post-industrial
cities across the world, which has occurred
since the emergence of tourism-related
sharing economies as well as the rise of a
number of multifaceted, complex, non-
linear social, spatial and economic impacts,
requires a new breakthrough approach in
order to understand the process of urban
touristification in all its complexity.
10 CITY
Notes
1 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/
2017/jul/01/tourism-is-our-lifejacket-debt-stricken-
greece-gets-record-number-of-visitors
2 Here we use Airbnb as the quintessential platform for
three main reasons. (1) This site is the paradigm for
other similar P2P property rental platforms; (2)
Currently, Airbnb is the most widespread platform of
this kind of P2P housing market; and (3), Airbnb is a
very important actor for different municipalities
searching for sharing-economy regulation. Other
similar platforms are: Wimdu, Homeaway, 9fltas,
and flipkey.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
ORCID
Jorge Sequera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
8836-425X
Jordi Nofre http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7367-1337
References
Ashworth, G., and S. J. Page. 2011. “Urban Tourism
Research: Recent Progress and Current Paradoxes.”
Tourism Management 32 (1): 1 –15. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2010.02.002.
Barata-Salgueiro, T., L. Mendes, and P. Guimaraes. 2017.
“Tourism and Urban Changes: Lessons from Lisbon.”
In Tourism & Gentrification in Contemporary Metro-
polises: International Perspectives, edited by M.
Gravari-Barbas, and S. Guinand, 255–275. London:
Routledge.
Basu, K., and V. S. Marg. 2010. “Impact of Political
Instability and Terrorism in the Tourism Industry of
Three Middle-East Countries: An Econometric
Exploration.” International conference on tourism,
transport & logistic, UP organizer and publication Co,
France.
Belhassen, Y., N. Uriely, and O. Assor. 2014. “The Tour-
istification of a Conflict Zone: The Case of Bil’in.”
Annals of Tourism Research 49: 174–189.
Benson, M. 2016. Lifestyle Migration: Expectations,
Aspirations and Experiences. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bhandari, K. 2008. “Touristification of Cultural Resources:
A Case Study of Robert Burns.” Tourism: An Inter-
national Interdisciplinary Journal 56 (3): 283–293.
Blanco, J., and R. Apaolaza. 2016. “Polı́ticas y geografı́as
del desplazamiento: Contextos y usos conceptuales
para el debate sobre gentrificación.” Revista INVI 31
(88): 73–98.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of
Judgement of Taste. London.
Braun, N., and P. Schäfer. 2015. Short-Term Rentals and
Housing Rents. The Case of Airbnb in Berlin. Euro-
pean Real Estate Society (ERES).
Cocola-Gant, A. 2016. “Holiday Rentals: The New Gen-
trification Battlefront.” Sociological Research Online
21 (3): 10.
Cocola-Gant, A. 2018. “Tourism Gentrification.” In
Handbook of Gentrification Studies, edited by L. Lees,
and M. Phillips, 281–293. Cheltenham and North-
ampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Coleman, S., and M. Crang. 2002. “Grounded Tourists,
Travelling Theory.” In Tourism: Between Place and
Performance, 1– 17. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Colomb, C., and J. Novy, eds. 2017. Protest and Resist-
ance in the Tourist City. New York: Routledge.
Cummings, J. 2015. “Confronting Favela Chic: The Gen-
trification of Informal Settlements in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.” In Global Gentrifications: Uneven Develop-
ment and Displacement, edited by L. Lees, H. B. Shin
and E. López-Morales, 81–99. Bristol: Policy Press.
Davidson, M., and L. Lees. 2005. “New-Build ‘Gentrifi-
cation’ and London’s Riverside Renaissance.”
Environment and Planning A 37 (7): 1165 –1190.
Degen, Monica M. 2004. “Barcelona’s Games: the Olym-
pics, Urban Design and Global Tourism.” In Tourism
Mobilities, Places to Play, Places in Play, edited by Mimi
Sheller, and John Urry, 131–142. London: Routledge.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Tousand Plateaus.
Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: Te Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Drummond-Cole, A., D. Bond-Graham, and Western
Regional Advocacy Project. 2012. “Disneyfication of
Downtown Oakland: Business Improvement Districts
and the Battle for Public Space.” Race, Poverty & the
Environment 19: 49– 52.
Eeckhout, B. 2001. “The ‘Disneyfication’ of Times Square:
Back to the Future?” In Critical Perspectives on Urban
Redevelopment, 379–428. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Fereidouni, H. G., and U. Al-mulali. 2014. “The Interaction
between Tourism and FDI in Real Estate in OECD
Countries.” Current Issues in Tourism 17 (2): 105–113.
Fernandes, J. R. 2011. “Area-Based Initiatives and Urban
Dynamics. The Case of the Porto City Centre.” Urban
Research & Practice 4 (3): 285–307.
Frenken, K., T. Meelen, M. Arets, and P. V. Glind. 2015.
“Smarter Regulation for the Sharing Economy.” The
Guardian, May 20. www.theguardian.com/science/
political-science/2015/may/20/smarter-
regulation-for-the-sharing-economy.
Füller, Henning, and Boris Michel. 2014. “‘Stop Being a
Tourist!’ New Dynamics of Urban Tourism in Berlin-

Kreuzberg.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 38 (4): 1304– 1318.
González, S., and P. Waley. 2013. “Traditional Retail
Markets: The New Gentrification Frontier?” Antipode
45 (4): 965–983.
Gotham, K. F. 2005. “Tourism Gentrification: The Case of
New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter).” Urban
Studies 42 (7): 1099– 1121.
Gottlieb, C. 2013. “Residential Short-Term Rentals: Should
Local Governments Regulate the ‘Industry’?” Planning
& Environmental Law 65 (2): 4 –9.
Gil, J., and J. Sequera. 2018. “Expansión de la ciudad
turı́stica y nuevas resistencias. El caso de Airbnb en
Madrid.” Empiria. Revista de Metodologı́a de Cien-
cias Sociales 41: 15–32.
Gravari-Barbas, M. 2017. “Super-Gentrification and
Hyper-Tourismification in Le Marais, Paris.” In Tour-
ism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropo-
lises: International Perspectives, edited by M.
Gravari-Barbas and S. Guinand, 299–328. Abing-
don: Taylor & Francis.
Gravari-Barbas, M., and S. Guinand. 2017. “Introduc-
tion: Addressing Tourism-Gentrification Processes in
Contemporary Metropolises.” In Tourism & Gentrifi-
cation in Contemporary Metropolises: International
Perspectives, edited by M. Gravari-Barbas and S.
Guinand, 1 –22. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Guattari, F., and S. Rolnik. 2006. Micropolı́tica: Carto-
grafı́as del deseo. Madrid, España: Editorial Vozes
Ltda., Petropolis.
Gurran, N. 2017. “Global Home-Sharing, Local Com-
munities and the Airbnb Debate: A Planning Research
Agenda.” Planning Theory & Practice 19 (2): 1 –7.
Gutierrez, J., J. C. Garcia-Palomares, G. Romanillos, and
M. H. Salas-Olmedo. 2016. “AIRBNB in Touristic
Cities: Comparing Spatial Patterns of Hotels and Peer-
to-Peer Accommodations.” https://arxiv.org/abs/
1606.07138.
Guttentag, D. 2015. “Airbnb: Disruptive Innovation and
the Rise of an Informal Tourism Accommodation
Sector.” Current Issues in Tourism 18 (12): 1192 –
1217.
Harvey, D. 2004. “Le ‘Nouvel Impérialisme’: Accumulation
par Expropriation.” Actuel Marx 35 (1): 71–90.
Hayes, M. 2018. “The Gringos of Cuenca: How Retirement
Migrants Perceive their Impact on Lower Income
Communities.” Area, doi:10.1111/area.12460.
Hiernaux, D., and C. I. González. 2014. “Turismo y
gentrificación: pistas teóricas sobre una articulación.”
Revista de Geografı́a Norte Grande 58: 55– 70.
Hodkinson, S. 2012. “The New Urban Enclosures.” City
16 (5): 500–518.
Hooper, J. 2015. “Tourist Hotspots Around the World are
Crowded with New Visitors – But are they All Wel-
come?” The Guardian, July 25, 2015. www.
theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/25/tourist-
hotspots-visitors-developing-countries (accessed 11
August 2015).
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 11
Janoschka, M., and J. Sequera. 2016. “Gentrification in
Latin America: Addressing the Politics and
Geographies of Displacement.” Urban Geography
37 (8): 1 – 20.
Janoschka, M., J. Sequera, and L. Salinas. 2014. “Gen-
trification in Spain and Latin America – A Critical
Dialogue.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 38 (4): 1234 –1265.
Khrennikov, I. 2015. “The Russian Recession Is Helping
Airbnb Win Moscow.” Bloomberg, November 2,
2015. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/
2015-11-02/airbnb-teaches-russians-to-share-
again-as-recession-opens-doors.
Köhler, A. F. 2011. “Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Public
Management: Predatory Tourism and Heritage
Devaluation in Igarassu, Brazil.” PASOS: Revista de
Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 9 (2): 265–278.
Kubes, D. 2015. “How Airbnb Renters are Helping
Canadians Pay Off their Mortgage in a Grey-Market
Area.” Financial Post, January 17, 2015. http://
business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/
mortgages-real-estate/how-airbnb-renters-are-
helping-canadians-pay-off-their-mortgage-in-a-
grey-market-area.
Lee, D. 2016. “How AIRBNB Short-Term Rentals Exacer-
bate Los Angeles’s Affordable Housing Crisis:
Analysis and Policy Recommendations.” Harvard Law
& Policy Review 10: 229.
Lees, L. 2012. “The Geography of Gentrification. Thinking
through Comparative Urbanism.” Progress in Human
Geography 36 (2): 155– 171.
Lees, L., H. B. Shin, and E. López-Morales. 2016. Plane-
tary Gentrification. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Leite, N. K. 2008. “Turismo e território: um estudo sobre a
turistificação de Portimão (Algarve/Portugal) a partir
da geografia do turismo. Universidade de Lisboa.”
Master’s thesis.
Levine, M. 2001. “The ‘New-Old Jaffa’: Tourism, Gentri-
fication, and the Battle for Tel Aviv’s Arab Neighbor-
hood.” In Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing
Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age
of Tourism, edited by N. AlSayyad, 240–272.
London: Routledge.
Mendes, L. 2014. “‘Gentrificação e polı́ticas de reabilitação
urbana em Portugal: uma análise crı́tica à luz da tese rent
gap de Neil Smith.” Cadernos Metrópole 16: 487–511.
Mendes, Luı́s. 2016. “Tourism Gentrification: Touristifica-
tion as Lisbons New Urban Frontier of Gentrification.”
Master Class Tourism Gentrification and City Making,
Stadslab e Academia Cidadã, Lisboa 16: 56– 86.
Mendes, L. 2017. “Tourism Gentrification in Lisbon: Neo-
liberalism, Financialization and Austerity Urbanism in
the Period of the 2008 –2009 Capitalist Post-Crisis.”
Cadernos Metrópole 19 (39): 479–512.
Mendes, L. 2018. “The Panacea of Touristification as a
Scenario of Post-Capitalist Crisis.” Crisis, Austerity,
and Transformation: How Disciplinary Neoliberalism
Is Changing Portugal 25: 25–46.
12 CITY
Monterrubio, C. 2017. “Protests and Tourism Crises: A
Social Movement Approach to Causality.” Tourism
Management Perspectives 22: 82– 89.
Montezuma, J., and J. McGarrigle. 2018. “What Motiv-
ates International Homebuyers? Investor to Lifestyle
‘Migrants’ in a Tourist City.” Tourism Geographies,
1 –21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.
1080/14616688.2018.1470196
Muselaers, M. F. J. 2017. “TOURISTIFYING MOURARIA-
The Impacts of Touristification and Responses of the
Local Community, in Mouraria (Lisbon).” Master’s
thesis.
Nakamura, Y., and M. Takahashi. 2016. “Airbnb Faces
Major Threat in Japan, Its Fastest-Growing Market.”
Bloomberg, February 18, 2016. http://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-18/fastest-
growing-airbnb-market-under-threat-as-japan-
cracks-down.
Nofre, J., and A. Eldridge. 2018. Exploring Nightlife.
Space, Society and Governance. Oporto: Rowmann
& Littlefield International Ed.
Nofre, J., E. Giordano, A. Eldridge, J. C. Martins, and J.
Sequera. 2018b. “Tourism, Nightlife and Planning:
Challenges and Opportunities for Community Live-
ability in La Barceloneta.” Tourism Geographies 20
(3): 377– 396.
Nofre, J., and J. C. Martins. 2017. “The Disneyfication of
the Neoliberal Urban Night.” Keep it Simple Make it
Fast! 1: 113–124.
Nofre, J., J. C. Martins, D. Vaz, R. Fina, J. Sequera, and P.
Vale. 2018a. “The ‘Pink Street’ in Cais do Sodré:
Urban Change and Liminal Governance in a Nightlife
District of Lisbon.” Urban Research & Practice, 1 –19.
doi:10.1080/17535069.2018.1449010.
Nofre, J., I. Sánchez-Fuarros, D. Malet-Calvo, J. C. Mar-
tins, P. Pereira, I. Soares, M. Geraldes, and A. López-
Dı́az. 2017. “Exploring Nightlife and Urban Change
in Bairro Alto, Lisbon.” City & Community 16 (3):
330– 344. doi:10.1111/cico.12248.
OECD. 2016. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2016,
OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/tour-2016-en.
O’Reilly, K. 2007. Emerging Tourism Futures: Residential
Tourism and its Implications. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pareja Eastaway, M., and M. Simó Solsona. 2014.
“Dinámicas en el entorno construido: renovación,
gentrificación y turismo. El caso de la Barceloneta.”
ACE: Architecture, City & Environment 9 (26): 201–
222.
Peck, J. 2012. “Austerity Urbanism: American Cities
Under Extreme Economy.” City 16 (6): 626– 655.
Peck, J., N. Theodore, and N. Brenner. 2013. “Neoliberal
Urbanism Redux?” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 37 (3): 1091– 1099.
Pérez, J. M. G. 2010. “The Real Estate and Economic
Crisis: An Opportunity for Urban Return and Reha-
bilitation Policies in Spain.” Sustainability 2 (6):
1571 –1601.
Pixová, M., and J. Sládek. 2016. “Touristification and
Awakening Civil Society in Post-Socialist Prague.” In
Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City, edited by C.
Colomb and J. Novy, 73– 89. London: Routledge.
Quaglieri, A., and A. P. Russo. 2010. “Paisajes urbanos
en la época post-turı́stica. Propuesta de un marco
analı́tico.” Scripta Nova.
Richards, G. 2014. “The New Geographies of Tourism:
Space, Place and Locality.” Paper presented at the
Wageningen Geography Lectures, 13th January
2014. http://www.academia.edu/10147781/The_
new_geographies_of_tourism_Space_place_and_
locality.
Rofe, M. W. 2003. “‘I Want to be Global’: Theorising the
Gentrifying Class as an Emergent Elite Global Com-
munity.” Urban Studies 40 (12): 2511– 2526.
Sans, A. A., and A. Quaglieri. 2016. “Unravelling Airbnb:
Urban perspectives from Barcelona.” In Reinventing
the Local in Tourism: Producing, Consuming and
Negotiating Place, edited by A. P. Russo and G.
Richards, 209–228. New York: Channel View
Publications.
Sassen, S. 2014. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in
the Global Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Sequera, J. 2013. “Las Polı́ticas de Gentrificación en la
ciudad neoliberal. Nuevas clases medias. Producción
cultural y Gestión del Espacio Público. El caso de
Lavapiés en el centro histórico de Madrid.” Tesis
Doctoral dirigida por Mario Domı́nguez Sánchez-
Pinilla, Departamento de Sociologı́a III, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid.
Sequera, J. 2015. “A 50 años del nacimiento del concepto
‘gentrificación’. La mirada anglosajona.” Biblio3W
20 (1): 127.
Sequera, J. 2017. “Ante una nueva civilidad urbana.
Capitalismo cognitivo, habitus y gentrificación.”
Revista Internacional de Sociologı́a 75 (1): 55.
Sequera, J., and M. Janoschka. 2015. “Gentrification
Dispositifs in the Historic Centre of Madrid: A Re-
Consideration of Urban Governmentality and State-
Led Urban Reconfiguration.” In Global Gentrifica-
tions: Uneven Development and Displacement, edited
by L. Lees, H. B. Shin, and E. López-Morales, 375–
393. Bristol: Policy Press.
Sequera, J., and J. Nofre. 2018. “Urban Activism and
Touristification in Southern Europe. Barcelona,
Madrid and Lisbon.” In Contemporary Left-Wing
Activism Vol 2 Democracy, Participation and Dissent
in a Global Context, edited by J. Roberts, and J.
Ibrahim. London: Routledge. In press.
Sevilla-Buitrago, A. 2015. “Capitalist Formations of
Enclosure: Space and the Extinction of the Com-
mons.” Antipode 47 (4): 999– 1020.
Sigler, T., and D. Wachsmuth. 2015. “Transnational
Gentrification: Globalisation and Neighbourhood
Change in Panama’s Casco Antiguo.” Urban Studies.
doi:10.1177/0042098014568070.

Simcock, T., and D. Smith. 2016. The Bedroom Boom:
Airbnb and London. London: Residential Landlors
Association. Retrieved from: https://news.rla.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Bedroom-
Boom-Airbnb-and-London.pdf.
Slater, T. 2013. “Expulsions from Public Housing: The
Hidden Context of Concentrated Affluence.” Cities
(london, England) 35: 384– 390.
Smith, N. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification
and the Revanchist City. London: Psychology Press.
Souther, J. M. 2007. “The Disneyfication of New Orleans:
the French Quarter as Facade in a Divided City.”
Journal of American History 94 (3): 804– 811.
Stock, M. 2007. “European Cities: Towards a Recreational
Turn?” Hagar. Studies in Culture, Polity and Identities
7 (1): 115–134.
Suzuki, T. 2010. “Touring Traumascapes. Touristification of
an Okinawan Battlefield Memorial.” Anthropology
News 51 (8): 15– 16.
Terkenli, T. S. 2002. “Landscapes of Tourism: Towards a
Global Cultural Economy of Space?” Tourism Geo-
graphies 4 (3): 227–254.
Tomoyose, G. 2015. “Buenos Aires, una de las ciudades
con mayor oferta de alojamiento compartido de
View publication stats
SEQUERA AND NOFRE: SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED 13
América latina.” La Nación, August 27, 2015.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1822298-buenos-
aires-una-de-las-ciudades-con-mayor-oferta-de-
alojamiento-compartido-de-america-latina.
Urry, J. 1990. “The ‘Consumption’ of Tourism.” Sociology
24 (1): 23 –35.
Van der Heide, D., and K. B. M. Peters. 2015. “Airbnb als
hulpmiddel voor spreiding van toerisme in Amster-
dam?” Vrijetijdstudies 33 (2): 9– 22.
Vives Miró, S. 2011. “Producing a “Successful City”:
Neoliberal Urbanism and Gentrification in the Tourist
City—the Case of Palma (Majorca).” Urban Studies
Research 2011: 1 – 13.
Jorge Sequera is FCT Postdoctoral Research
Fellow at the New University of Lisbon.
Email: jorgesekera@gmail.com
Jordi Nofre is FCT Postdoctoral Research
Fellow at the New University of Lisbon.
Email: jnofre@fcsh.unl.pt