Culture and Tourism in Porto City Centre: Conflicts and (Im)Possible Solutions

Abstract

City centres are spaces where different economic and cultural values converge as a consequence of their current uses and functions. In the case of Porto (Portugal), more than 20 years after being declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO (in 1996), tourism has had remarkable effects on its physical, social and economic features. Therefore, Porto—and in particular its city centre—is taken in this article as the object of study. The interest of this space lies in the fact that it has been rapidly transformed from a devalued old area into the centre of an important urban tourism destination on a European level. Based on the spatial and temporal analysis of a set of indicators related to tourism, housing and economic activity, we identify the main threats that this “culture-led regeneration”—much supported by tourism—could have on the cultural values of Porto. Our results show that this process is promoting an excessive use of space by tourism and an overexploitation of cultural values. We conclude with some policy recommendations to support strategies capable of keeping cultural values alive, which we consider sustainable compromises between heritage and modernization.

1. Introduction

In a context marked by neoliberalism and globalization, characterized—among other things—by the ease of capital circulation and relocation of parts of a productive process, the competition between cities has intensified [1,2]. In this context, urban policies began to prioritize the attraction of people and investments, especially those considered most capable of producing wealth, because they are more “talented” or “creative” [3]. These dynamics, together with other factors, have placed culture and tourism at the service of the city. As a result, the use of culture in the socio-economic regeneration processes of territories, particularly in city centres, has become a common practice. In Western Europe, this is seen as an engine of renewal, regeneration and development [4,5]. These processes are carried out mainly through the construction of new cultural facilities, such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao [6]; the celebration of major events, such as the European Capital of Culture [7]; or the creation of a territorial brand, based on cultural icons, such as Gaudi in Barcelona [8], among many other examples. In many cases, the close relationship between culture and the revaluation of the historic city is based on the high economic value assigned to culture. On the one hand, this is because the so-called cultural and creative industries have increasingly gained prominence within regional economies [9], and on the other hand, it is because the cultural and symbolic dimension of the goods and services has significant relevance in consumers’ decision-making process [5,10]. Additionally, culture is continuously used as a form of territorial differentiation and promotion of an image, thus being seen as a fundamental resource for marketing and branding strategies [11]. Efforts are made to establish policy in which promotion and marketing seem to overlap the urbanism based on management and cohesion. At the same time, “places of tourism” and cosmopolitan consumption, in which material and immaterial cultural resources are integrated, are prioritized. However, concerns with the maintenance of the original cultural values are rarely considered.

The role of culture in urban regeneration processes (culture-led regeneration) has gained particular relevance, especially since the 1980s, and has become focal in the revitalization of local economies, especially in urban spaces that are negatively marked by de-industrialization [8,12]. In these cases, it is common to integrate physical urban elements and intangible ones (e.g., symbols and values) as a way of attracting people and international capital [13]. The historical parts of urban spaces have become privileged locations for this kind of process due to their high concentration of heritage locations and their importance as elements of a city’s landscape [14]. Several economic activities that are directly or indirectly associated with culture settle and attract new residents and visitors, leading to the constitution of city centres as privileged spaces of the production and consumption of culture [15]. The implementation of these strategies often marks a turning point in the process of decline and abandonment of these spaces due to the entry of new users, resident or floating, and new economic activities [13,16]. Therefore, culture and tourism have contributed to a revalorization of resources in the ancient fabric of many cities that were in many cases underused and in the process of deterioration. However, this “success” might imply a loss of the multi-functionality of these spaces, if not of entire cities, endangering their residential, economic and administrative functions, and even the character of the places and/or cities [17].

Similar to what has been seen in other urban spaces, in the past several decades, the city of Porto—especially its most central section—has been the target of strong efforts toward physical and symbolic regeneration. With the classification of Porto as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site in 1996, as well as international promotion campaigns, the regeneration process has contributed to the transformation of Porto into a relevant European urban tourist destination [18]. As a result, the social and economic dynamics of the city in general and of its centre in particular have been transformed to meet the consumption needs of its temporary users, focusing mainly on tourists (during the daytime) and students (with more intensity in the evening). In this article, we identify what could be considered the main risks associated with a growing mono-functionality of Porto’s city centre, which is potentially hazardous for the sustainability of its current cultural capital. This kind of capital is essential for the local community and for tourist activity, as well as for the resilience of the city and the entire metropolitan area. We pinpoint the case of Porto in major debates on the processes of “culture-led regeneration”, which is supported by tourism, to understand how these processes affect the cultural values of city centres. We present policy recommendations that consider the advantage of reconciling the cultural concerns with the economic gains, with strategies that take into consideration sustainability and the multiple interests present in an area of great symbolic significance.

2. Culture and Tourism: Dependencies and Conflicts

The recognition of the existence of a strong relationship between tourism and culture (see, for example, the OECD [19]), and the growing importance of tourism in general and of cultural tourism in particular [20], has given rise to debates on their relationship [21]. Abreu [22], for example, points out that the key factors relating to increasing the demand for cultural tourism are globalization and the standardization of places. Because places are increasingly more similar to one another and ever closer in terms of relative distance, and due to instant communication, there is a constant and further search for difference. In this context, culture is considered to be an effective way of claiming that a place is unique. Nevertheless, this may lead to the distortion of history and reinforcement of the social conflict in societies “possessed by the past” [23]. Culture can be broadly considered as heritage, arts and creative industries, as well inhabitants’ everyday lifestyle habits (e.g., leisure, shopping, eating and drinking) [24]. This same culture is often associated with something conceived over a long period of time, with origins in the distant past and in a specific territory, at a time when globalization did not yet exist. Some authors claim that this tendency of combining culture and tourism has been reinforced by an increased interest of travellers in authentic, experientially oriented and meaningful interactions with locals [25]. The fantasy of authenticity (the idea that authenticity is always in the next town, on a future adventure or just over the horizon) is considered the central driver of tourism motivation and marketing [26]. This demand for what is unique to a place seems to be a trend that will be the future of touristic behaviour. According to an Expedia study published in 2016, the millennial generation’s touristic behaviour especially values the “authentic culture of a place” and seeks to “live like a local” [27]. However, the economic use of culture, generated by this continuous search for authentic experiences by tourists, can trigger processes of commodification [28] and a consequent erosion of non-economic values.

The economic potential of the relationship between tourism and culture has influenced the urban policy choices of many cities around the world, as a strategy to fight the backdrop of declining urban industrial bases and fiscal crises [29]. However, the strategies followed seem in many cases to use culture as a way to attract tourism consumption, following international formulas and adapting the cultural resources to tourism consumption patterns. This kind of process often results from the fact that city leaders try to copy international examples in order to position themselves within a global imaginary of icon cases, and it can be considered a type of neoliberal urban policy [30,31]. Judd and Fainstein [28] analysed the relations between tourism and urban regeneration and talked about the tendency to concentrate a high number of tourist attractions in a limited urban space, which can be considered a “tourism bubble”, physically and symbolically disconnected from the rest. Others consider this a touristification of the everyday life of cities [32]. The commercial spaces, accommodations and lifestyles of these kinds of spaces contradict the appreciation of the character of places, which the International Commission on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) identifies as essential for landscapes with worldwide value [33]. Such tendencies frequently cause a contradiction, which may jeopardize the economic potential of these spaces, as there is a marked tendency for creating a “staged authenticity” [34]. This creates a paradox, since while consumers appreciate “authentic” places and experiences [35] (and the character of urban spaces is one of the factors of utmost attraction), the tourist activity often contributes to the destruction of what distinguishes it [36] in a process that destroys (or at least depreciates) what it seeks to value.

To understand how the economic dimension of culture (and its relations with tourism) relates to non-economic values, it is useful to reflect on the concept of “cultural capital”, developed by Throsby [37,38]. This author pointed out that culture can be considered a form of capital, such as physical or natural capital, which includes tangible assets, such as built heritage and art works, but also intangible elements, such as languages, rituals and traditions. According to this approach, cultural capital can be defined as an asset that embodies or gives rise to two types of value: on the one hand, economic value, which can be expressed in financial terms; on the other hand, cultural value, which embodies aesthetic, spiritual, social, historical, symbolic and authenticity values [39,40]. In the literature, cultural capital is continuously cited as a strong factor determining the attractiveness of places, especially in tourism but also in cultural and creative activities, and as a fundamental element in the identification of territorial environments [41]. It is also considered that tangible and intangible cultural assets contribute distinctively to the character and uniqueness of a place [41].

In this sense, it seems obvious that the economic value of this type of capital depends on its strict cultural value. However, the economic uses of cultural resources also have the ability to improve cultural values. In fact, it is sometimes the potential economic value of a cultural feature that motivates its recovery and conservation. For instance, the use of a given cultural resource for tourism increases the general interest of the public administration and of the population in its conservation. However, this same duality of values generates tensions and conflicts in its uses. Furthermore, it should be considered that the relation between economic and cultural values can also be reversed—that is, the existing cultural capital may decrease, which occurs with some frequency due to over-exploitation or inadequate use in terms of the form or time of use. Within the urban context, in order to avoid the endangerment of cultural values due to physical changes and economic interests, a significant share of cultural heritage—including historic centres—are now protected by legal figures. At the international level, there is UNESCO and ICOMOS, and within the national context, there is a huge range of planning instruments at the local, regional and national levels.

The tangible and intangible cultural assets that exist in a country, region or city are thus their cultural capital, to which economic and non-economic values can be assigned at a given time. Thus, as happens with natural capital, the way in which cultural capital is managed is determinant for its sustainability. While there are different approaches that integrate culture and sustainability, the notion of “culturally sustainable development” developed by Throsby stresses this interdependence of economic and cultural variables [42,43]. Throsby claims that there are five dimensions that should be encompassed by public policies in order to apply sustainability to culture (p. 137 [43]):

• Intergenerational equity: do not compromise the capacities of future generations to access cultural resources and meet their cultural needs;
• Intragenerational equity: provide equity in the access to cultural production, participation and enjoyment to all members of the community on a fair and non-discriminatory basis;
• Importance of diversity: the value of cultural diversity in the processes of economic, social and cultural development should be considered;
• Precautionary principle: a risk-averse position should be adopted to avoid decisions with irreversible consequences for cultural capital, such as the destruction of cultural heritage or the extinction of valued cultural practices; and
• Interconnectedness: a holistic approach that recognizes the interconnectedness between social, environmental, economic and cultural development should be adopted.

Such approaches have given room to the debate on the sustainable domain of culture and its relationship with tourism. In fact, the overwhelming presence of tourism is considered one of the biggest threats to cultural sustainability. This is particularly evident if we consider a report by UNESCO [44], where it is stated that the urban transformations based on tourism have generated, in many locations on the planet, an increase in the price of land and urban pressure, thus leading to the exclusion of residents and the mutation of social landscapes (and sometimes not only social landscapes). This process has been especially leveraged by the dissemination of short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb, which today are a pivotal topic in urban political agendas [45]. To this we add, for example, “hop-on–hop-off” buses and “tuk-tuks”, as well as the multiplication and homogenization of souvenir shops, among other retail, catering and hospitality establishments. These processes are affecting cities such as Berlin [29], Venice [46], San Sebastián/Donostia [14] and Barcelona [47], to which we add Lisbon [48] and Porto [18]. These socio-spatial changes appear in certain urban neighbourhoods due to the need to respond to the new demand profile of consumers, residents and visitors, who have a more significant purchasing power, as a consequence of a tourist gentrification [49].

This articulation of culture and tourism promoted by urban policies has especially affected the urban city centres, where experiences, knowledge and history are usually concentrated [50]. Many of these spaces are being transformed in what Ashworth and Tunbridge [51] defined as a “Tourist Historic City”, places where the urban structure, architecture and artefacts are used to create a place-based heritage product [50]. However, the fact that city centres play a key role in large urban spaces of national and even global relevance makes the mediation and performance of public administrations necessary in order to promote cultural values and functional diversity. The need for intervention by public administrations becomes even more evident at a time when urban conflicts are intensifying. In fact, in many tourist cities, protests are carried out by residents and local associations, which put in question the bases of these “tourist-centred” urban models [50,52]. Furthermore, in recent decades, the deficits generated in the sustainability of culture, together with the impacts on the social landscapes and environment that the growing mass tourism is generating, are acknowledged by the wider public and amplified by the media [53,54].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study

Located in the north of Portugal (Figure 1), Porto is a municipality with a population of 214,587 (estimate of 2017). Despite being a small municipality with an area of 41.42 km², it is the second largest city in Portugal and the anchor of a metropolitan area with 1,719,702 residents, and a regional space where 3.5 million people reside [55]. In recent decades, a process of suburbanization associated with a “donut effect” [56] has prevailed in Porto. Before this process began, the city’s historic district and surroundings constituted the civic centre of the entire city, with housing, administrative and services functions. However, since the 1960s, a growing number of inhabitants have moved to more peripheral areas of the city, especially to the surrounding municipalities, where the land prices were cheaper, and new centres of economic activity were being created: Matosinhos, Maia, Valongo, Gondomar and Vila Nova de Gaia. According to Balsas (p. 398 [56]) “This urban development in Porto may be parallel to the pattern of suburbanization, typical of the Western metropolitan city”. The process of functional obsolescence in this area became worse with the opening of shopping centres and retail parks in the surrounding areas of Porto [57,58]. This caused the devitalization of Porto’s city centre, where the decadent buildings, vacant houses and old shops had turned into important features of its landscape [59,60]. However, an urban renewal policy started with the creation of the Comissariado para a Renovação Urbana da Área de Ribeira-Barredo (CRUARB) in 1974. Later, the Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da Zona Histórico do Porto (FDZH), in 1990, and most recently, the Sociedade de Reabilitação Urbana (SRU-Porto Vivo), in 2004, were responsible for introducing important changes into the dynamics of the city centre. Different area-based initiatives were implemented from the 1980s and transformed Porto’s city centre from a devalued area into what is now an important urban tourism destination. While we consider the totality of the municipality of Porto as a case study, we use the official delimitation of the Priority Intervention Zone (ZIP) to define our specific study area, the “city centre”. According to the SRU-Porto Vivo’s Masterplan, this is the central area of Porto. It “…possesses a permanent and diversified commercial and service profile, which is mainly identified by the residents of Oporto as the Baixa district, and it is a consolidated area from the viewpoint of the urban fabric and architectural value” [60]. With an area of about 5 km², this area includes the Historic Centre of Porto and the traditional downtown, which correspond to the growth of the city in the 18th and 19th centuries. At present, the physical, economic and social characteristics of this area make it very close to the definition of a “Tourist Historic City” [51].

3.2. Research Methodology

The debates on the dependencies and conflicts generated between culture and tourism in urban regeneration processes are common to several European cities [14,36,53]. In this article, we analyse the case of the Portuguese city of Porto, as it is now an ideal case for understanding the interdependencies between urban tourism and the cultural values of city centres. This is because, after more than 20 years of being declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO and several urban rehabilitation efforts, the city has experienced a rapid and marked growth in tourism, which is felt in its current sociocultural dynamics. Even though previous works have focussed on the effects that tourism have on the residential and economic functions of Porto [18,61,62,63] this paper discusses the impacts that this urban strategy can have on the cultural values of the city. To achieve this, based on the data available from official secondary sources, we selected indicators related to the tourism industry, real estate, transport and economic activity. The data were collected from sources such as the Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE, Statistics Portugal), Turismo de Portugal and Eurostat, from a spatial and temporal standpoint. To complement this analysis, we used some results obtained from other studies related to the case of Porto, including semi-annual surveys in the field [61]. Moreover, we analysed a range of documents (evaluation reports, touristic and planning documents) to understand the process of the Porto’s rehabilitation and to collect the visions of the main stakeholders involved. Additionally, we reviewed some published material from the national and international press in order shed light on how Porto is considered in the current public debate on over-tourism. Apart from that, we identified the parallels between our case study and other European cities with similar tourist intensity and the particularities of our case study in order to understand what policy responses are being implemented in those cases.

4. Results

4.1. The Transformations of Porto’s City Centre

In 1996, after more than two decades of rehabilitating many buildings and public spaces, first under the central Government of Portugal and, after 1982, under the authority of the municipality, the work led by CRUARB allowed Porto to be classified as a World Heritage Site (area marked in green in Figure 1). The inscription of this place in the World Heritage List was done under the following criterion: “The Historic Centre of Oporto, Luiz I Bridge and Monastery of Serra do Pilar with its urban fabric and its many historic buildings bears remarkable testimony to the development over the past thousand years of a European city that looks outward to the sea for its cultural and commercial links” [64]. However, the protection and management requirements of UNESCO’s description stresses that sustaining the outstanding universal value of this area over time “...will require ensuring that the attributes that convey that value are protected, conserved, and managed, and continuing to address, to the degree possible, the issues associated with depopulation” [64]. To CRUARB’s work and UNESCO’s declaration, we must add other important initiatives that contributed to the renovation of this centre, and which are illustrated in the timetable of Figure 2. Among them are the Ibero-American Summit of 1998 and the European Capital of Culture initiative (2001). During the “Porto 2001 European Capital of Culture” initiative, the city underwent a large set of transformations that have lasted until the present day, with important interventions in the qualification of the public space (Batalha, Cordoaria, historic centre), increase of the parking offer (Palácio da Justiça, Cordoaria-Leões-Carlos Alberto, Praça de D. João I), reorganization of the road network (with the opening of the Ceuta Tunnel) and requalification of an important set of buildings, with the improvement or creation of new cultural equipment. Besides the urban regeneration, this event had two more intervention areas: the rehabilitation and construction of cultural facilities, such as the new music hall, the library of the Biblioteca Almeida Garrett and the celebration of cultural events. In parallel, important processes associated with the requalification of two spaces of the city of Porto have been implemented: Antas and Boavista. These processes are associated with the Portuguese organization of the Euro 2004 and the construction of two football stadiums. The effects of the creation of the light rail Metro system were equally relevant in the context of the rehabilitation and regeneration intervention of the urban spaces of Grande Porto.

Since 2004, the built heritage intervention management of Porto’s historic centre has been run by SRU-Porto Vivo, a public limited company (60% of which was initially owned by the central state and 40% by the municipality). Approved in 2005, the SRU-Porto Vivo Masterplan defined a strategy of requalification based upon the re-population and economic revitalization through the promotion of activities related to commerce, culture, and leisure, which benefit from the tourism dynamics and structuring of the public space [60]. Accordingly, during the first years of the 21st century, innumerable interventions in public spaces were conducted, especially in streets, cultural facilities, streetscaping, pedestrianization schemes, and new urban furniture, funded and directly executed by the municipality [58]. Driven by the proliferation of low-cost airlines and the instability in competitive markets, especially in the Mediterranean basin, among other factors, Porto has become a hotspot for European urban tourism. At the same time, the search for private investment has promoted the proliferation of “charming hotels”, the attraction of new “cosmopolitan” residents and the opening of new shops in the most attractive streets of Porto’s city centre [62]. The municipal measures of attracting private investment were boosted during the 2008 economic crisis, when national measures to attract foreign investment to the real estate market were implemented [48]. As a result, many of the old and vacant buildings were transformed into hotel units and catering establishments, as well as short-term rentals or residences for students, especially foreigners. In some cases, however, this intervention took place in classified buildings of undeniable historical, aesthetic or cultural importance, as occurred in the case of “Quarteirão das Cardosas” [63]. From this building, which was once a monastery, only the façades were maintained, while the property and the surrounding space were “Disneylanded” [65]. In addition to this exemplary case, many others have succeeded through a process of the “scenarisation” and commercialization of cultural heritage [58]. In some cases, residents and businesses were forced to move, either by the unbearable increase in rental value and commercial lease, or by force. These dynamics justify the severe criticism of the management of the Historic Centre of Oporto, including its (deactivated) Special Protection Zone, in the last technical report of ICOMOS Portugal of 2018. The report considers in particular that there are “several attacks on the integrity and authenticity” of Porto due to a growing loss of the “characteristics of the fabric and the urban landscape, following massive demolitions of historic buildings and new buildings, as well as a growing depopulation of the historic centre of Porto” (p. 2 [66]).

The process of urban regeneration in Porto was felt not only in the physical and social structures, but also in its symbolic dimension. If it is true that Porto has never lost its character as the central space of an enlarged city, the transformation in recent years has catapulted the city’s iconic expression to the international scale. An example of this is the creation of tourism products based on the Harry Potter saga, the main character of a great and worldwide literary and box-office success. The epicentre of this strategy is the centennial bookstore, Livraria Lello & Irmão, which may have been attended by the writer J.K. Rowling during the time she resided in Porto, a few years before the publication of the bestseller. In addition, there are allegedly elements in these books based on the characteristics of Portugal. As a result, the entrance to this bookstore is currently subject to a fee and the queues of those waiting to visit it are an image that marks the day-to-day experience of the historic centre of the city and hinders the passage of pedestrians. Another of the significant elements of the strategies to promote the international image of Porto is its cuisine and wines, especially Port wine. In 2017, the city and its gastronomic treasures were scenery of the famous gastronomy and tourism TV programme “Parts Unknown” by Anthony Bourdain of the CNN chain, and the consumers of one of the most typical dishes of the city, the “Francesinha”, keep growing. In fact, cuisine and wine are considered anchor products of the tourist promotion of Porto and the northern region [67]. Several of the infrastructures associated with wine, such as the recently relocated Port Wine Museum and the Port Wine Institute, are located in Porto’s historical centre. To these actions, we must add those promoted by several international organizations that helped to project the image of the city of Porto in the international market: in 2010, the Lonely Planet travel guide editor considered Porto among the top 10 tourist destinations in Europe, and in 2012, the city was voted the best European destination of the year by the European Best Destination (a prize that it won again in 2014 and 2017).

4.2. Tourism in Porto

The first decades of the 21st century were marked by numerous and important transformations of the city of Porto—particularly its centre—with notable effects on the social, economic and cultural dynamics of the city. Together with the previously mentioned rehabilitation actions and the classification of the historic centre as a World Heritage Site, the growth of Porto’s Airport and the increase in the frequency and routes of low-cost airlines, as well as the significant international tourist recognition that the city has gained over the past decade, had an immediate impact on tourism.

Considering the data on the passenger traffic of Porto airport, in the year 2018, 5,579,287 people landed in this city, representing an increase of 166% when compared to the statistics for 2008 [68]. Furthermore, the data on tourism in the city as a whole revealed a remarkable growth. The change in the ratio between accommodation capacity and residents raised from 35.8 per 1000 inhabitants in 2004 to 85.4 by 2017 [69]. In addition, between 2002 and 2017, the number of hotel guests (not considering the various forms of short-term rental) increased by 70%, from 560,777 to 1,876,720 annually, of which 74.4% were foreigners [70]. In recent years, this growth has featured even higher rates, since from 2015 to 2017, there was a 42% growth in the number of guests in the city (Figure 3). Porto can be considered a city-break destination, meaning that visitors usually do a short stay to visit the main attractions. In 2017, the average stay in tourist accommodations was 2.7 days in Portugal and 2 days in Porto [71].

In terms of overnight stays in tourist accommodation establishments per resident, Porto is significantly above the levels recorded in most European cities of its size. It is the city with the nineteenth highest ratio in terms of the accommodation capacity and residents [72]. As Figure 4 shows, when compared with already mentioned other cities that are being affected by touristification processes, tourism in Porto is more intense than in other cities such as Barcelona, Berlin and San Sebastián/Donostia.

This intensity is especially alarming if we consider that the most important tourism assets of Porto are located in its city centre, which is a relatively small space (around 5 km²). As we can observe in Figure 5, it is possible to find around 75% of Porto’s main tourist attractions in this area, and 37% of them are located within its historical centre. Considering the type of attraction, we can identify that the major attractions are museums, monuments and churches, but architectural sites, cultural infrastructure, shops and public infrastructure such as libraries are among the main attractions of the city. In fact, the number of museum visitors per year in Porto rose by 48% from 2011 to 2016 [72]. Nevertheless, the high concentration of tourist attractions, together with the cultural value of this city centre’s urban landscape, has raised the number of users of this area, causing evident effects on its residential functions.

Among the most significant impacts that the increased touristic demand has caused is the expressive growth of short-term rentals. This has especially affected the central parish where the historic city centre is located, as shown in Figure 6. Between 2015 and 2018, 2081 new short-term rentals were officially registered, of which 67% were located in the central parish. The dimension that short-term rentals has been gaining in this urban space is even more evident if we consider data from local digital housing platforms, which include short-term rentals that are not officially registered. Considering only the Airbnb platform, in seven years, the number of properties listed went from less than 100 in 2011 to more than 11,000 as of 31 May 2018. Of these, more than 70% are complete houses or flats, and the vast majority are concentrated in the old city, where about 4 out of 5 of the 200 most profitable properties of the entire Porto Metropolitan Area are located [74]. The direct economic impacts and benefits are clear, since only between June 2017 and May 2018, the hosts registered with Airbnb had an income of more than 67 million Euro, plus the multiplier effects on activities associated with services, catering, restoration and construction, for example [74].

At the same time, there was also an increase in the real estate value. In fact, the average value in Euro of buildings transacted in the municipality of Porto increased by 42% between 2000 and 2017 [75]. Figure 7 shows the variation, between 2016 and 2018, of the median value per square metre of dwelling sales of existing flats in the parishes of Porto. In this same image, it is possible to observe that it was in two of the three parishes, where the city centre is located (União das freguesias de Cedofeita, Santo Ildefonso, Sé, Miragaia, São Nicolau e Vitória and Bonfim), that this value registered a bigger growth. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2017, the municipality of Porto lost 18.4% of its inhabitants [56], while all municipalities in Grande Porto logged population growth, which is especially evident in Maia (14.2%) and Valongo (11.7%). This seems to indicate that the inhabitants of Porto, especially those who lived in the city centre have been displaced into the surrounding territories, and this area is losing its residential function.

Moreover, in trying to adapt to the new dynamics and requirements of the tourism demand and respond to rising real estate prices, the economic actives have changed. Figure 8 shows, between 2008 and 2017, the gross value added (GVA) and the number of enterprises dedicated to activities such as trade, construction and manufacturing decreased. In the same period, activities such as consultancy, accommodation and food, electricity, information and communication increased in terms of GVA and the number of enterprises. This same figure shows that the GVA of businesses related to education has increased, whereas the number of enterprises was lower in 2017 than in 2008. Another important point to highlight is that, although the number of enterprises dedicated to activities related to sports, arts and culture has risen, the GVA of these activities has declined by 88%. In general, these changes suggest that in recent years, the services sector has increased its importance in the economy of Porto, especially those services associated with tourism.

The changes are even more evident considering the street trade of the core of the city centre. The main growth occurred in activities aimed at temporary users (coffeehouses, restaurants, self-service laundries and souvenir shops), and the main reduction was in establishments positioned to respond to the resident population. According to the data collected in Fernandes and Chamusca [61], between 2012 and 2018 the street trade in the core of the city centre (area marked in orange in Figure 9) changed significantly. As

Table 1. Changes of the street trade of the core of the city centre between 2012 and 2018.

Type of Unit	July ‘12	July ‘14	July ‘16	July ‘18
Food products	94	100	99	98
Personal products	480	466	461	399
Home products	123	119	97	86
Beauty and personal care products	87	97	92	79
Sports and culture	201	247	218	196
Professional equipment	27	35	37	33
Non-specialized retail	102	91	93	95
Hybrids	16	19	31	36
Construction and bricolage	70	47	38	31
Fuel and transports	2	1	1	0
Retail (total)	1202	1222	1167	1053
Coffeehouses and restaurants	406	454	523	568
Accommodation/hotels	79	102	141	196
Hotel/Catering (Total)	485	556	664	764
Retail/Hotel/Catering (Total)	1687	1778	1831	1817
Shopping centres	8	8	8	8
Other services	269	272	280	277
Retail and services (Total)	1964	2058	2119	2102
Empty	829	734	657	707
Total	2793	2792	2776	2809

Source: Adapted from Fernandes and Chamusca [61].

shows, there was a clear increase of 39% in accommodation units, 8.6% in coffee shops and restaurants, 16.1% in hybrid establishments (which combine several offers) and 2.2% in non-specialized retail spaces, especially souvenir shops (18.4%); meanwhile, services relating to hygiene, health and beauty (14.1%) and personal items (13.4%) have disappeared.

Furthermore, it is possible to identify a process of homogenization that is in line with what is occurring in other urban spaces [79]. This process is caused on the one hand by the extension street trade of some brands and products from multinational companies (e.g., the large chains Amorino, Starbucks and Costa Café) and, on the other, by the reinforcement of a (presumed) specific character of “neo-traditional” units. These spaces are deliberately marketed as region-specific, with the trivialization and massification of products and environments seen as “typical”, which aim to carry the past into the future through post-modern models of spectacularisation and revivalism that target consumers with a medium or high purchasing power [61]. In addition, we have recently witnessed initiatives to exploit traditional shops as heritage places under specific legislation [80]. In Porto, this has been conducted under a program called “Porto tradição”, which has so far been unable to protect and preserve a large number of already-threatened commercial establishments.

The strong pressure of tourism in Porto and its consequences have drawn the attention of the international press. Using any Internet search engine, it is easy to find several articles in different languages with favourable information concerning Porto and the best sites to visit; in August 2018, the German newspaper Der Spiegel published an extensive article on “How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love” [81], using the waiting in lines in front of the Livraria Lello & Irmão bookstore as an example (Figure 10). Additionally, the English newspaper The Guardian recently published an article on movements critical of the conventional forms of tourism on the rise, using the case of Porto as an example [82].

In some cases, of which the Casa Oriental is a good example (Figure 11), we can speak of a “staged authenticity”, with a business aimed at a tourist demand to replace a conventional commercial place, while maintaining the main elements of the façade.

5. Discussion: The Risks of Unsustainability and the Conflicts between Culture and Tourism

The analysis of the recovery strategies of the city centre of Porto and the evolution of its socio-economic dynamics evidence some conflicts that may jeopardize the sustainability of the relation between culture and tourism. This could be especially problematic if we consider the dependency that the city has on its cultural capital. This dependency is notorious, considering the importance that culture had in the process of the physical, functional and symbolic recovery of the city. Among the most important actions are: firstly, efforts made to achieve the distinction of a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1996; secondly, the construction of new cultural equipment and the improvements of the infrastructure, carried out through the European Capital of Culture initiative in 2001 [84]; and thirdly, using tourism, culture and leisure as development vectors for the revitalization of Porto’s city centre. In fact, according to the SRU-Porto Vivo Masterplan, Porto’s culture, based on the “city’s traditions, history and festivals, represented in their traditional form or with a greater contemporary influence”, has been essential for the renovation project of the city. As a result, together with other already mentioned measures and the strong growth of low-cost travel at the global scale, Porto is now an important urban tourist destination. As a consequence, Porto in general, and its centre in particular, is now heavily influenced by tourism in all areas.

The equilibrium between tourism, culture and urbanism in the city centre of Porto may be in danger because of the overuse of its touristic function and the loss of its residential function. That is precisely what the ICOMOS report of 2018 pointed out: “Local residents and traders are expropriated, and the buildings are replaced by hotels, car parks, shops and luxury apartments, while the World Heritage Committee recommended to deal with the issue of depopulation as soon as the city integrated the World Heritage List. The population of the historic Centre of the city of Porto has decreased by more than 50% since then” (p. 22 [66]). To these warnings, we add all the collected data which show that the transformations experienced by the city of Porto are similar to those verified in many other cities that have a stake in urban recovery based on tourism and culture, and are oriented towards international markets and short-term returns. In fact, Porto’s trajectory is similar to that of Lisbon or Barcelona, for example, although the scale of what happened and the time that it took to happen are especially difficult to absorb [18]. Likewise, in Porto, this process is highly concentrated in the centre of the city, which is the place where the major part of the tourist attractions are located. As a consequence, its residential function is becoming marginal, thus constituting, in the face of processes of speculation, gentrification and touristification, a space of conflict and claim [85]. Consequently, the impacts also seem to be similar to those in these cities. Among the main the main damaging consequences of “over-tourism” (i.e., an overuse of the resources, infrastructure, or facilities of a destination or parts of it) are: the rising costs of living, real-estate speculation and the associated gentrification, congestion of transport infrastructure and a deterioration of the local identity [86]. Furthermore, the evolution of the functions of the city centre, namely, the opening of short-term rentals, the changes in street trade and the expansion of the franchised retailing, seem to indicate that this place is being transformed into a place of visitor consumption. These transformations seem to be in line with what Sequera and Nofre (p. 6 [79]) described as being the “new Disneyficated commercial tourist areas”, which today characterize the most central areas of the “tourist city”.

In response to the problems generated by the growing mass tourism, several municipal governments are pushing for specific regulations, legislation and taxes. The most notorious have been made in the regulation of the economic activity of tourist accommodation platforms, which currently in cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona have limitations on the time and space in which they operate [87]. In the case of Amsterdam, the control of tourist activity has gone further, and it has recently been announced by the municipal authorities that a campaign will be launched to dissuade people from visiting certain parts of the city, having already removed one of the tourist icons of the city, the “Iamsterdam” [88]. Another of the measures most used in several cities, recently adopted in Porto is the application of a tourist tax per person and per night, whose revenue should in principle be used to minimize the consequences of tourism growth. Additionally, in Portugal, the regulations around short-term rentals changed at the end of 2018 and regulatory powers were devolved to municipalities. Nevertheless, the municipality of Porto is being accused by some social movements and political parties of having a passive attitude regarding the problems generated by tourism—especially those which affect housing [89].

Policy approaches in Porto should contribute to keeping the city centre as a multifunctional place, capable of answering the needs of inhabitants and visitors. The maintenance of the residential function of the historical centres and of the associated social and economic environments is beyond the issues related to urban social equity, pivotal for the maintenance of their cultural values, on which their economic values are based. Therefore, the maintenance of cultural capital is strongly dependent on the existence of long-term residents. Moreover, transforming cultural capital into an item for visitor consumption can endanger its original genius [90]. This is especially relevant for the visiting experience, because what is considered “authenticity” has a strong impact on the demand, and everything points to an ongoing influence on the dynamics of the next few years [91]. Furthermore, cultural capital resources are central to the sense of identity and belongingness of the residents.

In this sense, public administrations at the local and central levels should facilitate the intermediation of interests between the different users of the cities. Following what is being done in other overvisited places in Europe, policymakers in Porto should consider which forms of tourism to encourage and set incentives and disincentives accordingly through tourism and marketing policies [52,90]. It is also important to ensure that the policies that most affect the local dynamics (among which are housing, urban, cultural and tourism dynamics) work in an integrated manner and maintain the different values of cultural capital, while prolonging them in time. Moreover, as the tourism intensity of Porto has reached high levels, it would be important to spread the touristic dynamics over a wider territory. This could be done by creating tourist products outside the city centre to give visitors an incentive to travel to the less-visited spaces of the city and the region. For this, it would be important to improve the collaboration between Porto and the surrounding municipalities in tourism matters. Porto’s touristic success could allow those depopulated and peripheric territories of the northern region of Portugal to profit from the increasing number of visitors.

6. Conclusions

The incorporation of culture and tourism into urban regeneration strategies has contributed to the increase of the dynamics in areas that were once heavily devalued, both economically and socially. Many city centres, which reached the last decades of the twentieth century with strong signs of decay and devaluation, are now essential poles of consumption and cultural animation. The centre of Porto is a good example of this transformation. After decades of decay, where depopulation, ruin and insecurity were expanding, it was the target of strong rehabilitation interventions and today is the main image of the city’s calling cards.

However, the regeneration of the ancient fabric of the city of Porto was also followed by conflicts and contradictions. First, despite the strong real estate valuation of this space, fuelled by its great tourist attraction, the number of residents remains very small. There are also problems related to the expulsion—sometimes forced—of residents and long-term business owners, who wished to preserve their place in this space. Additionally, new users have difficulty in settling in this centre. The high prices of real estate and the types of housing available make residing in this centre a privilege, only within the reach of some. Secondly, the transformation of the centre’s functions, caused by the need to respond to the requirements of the new temporary users, has led to a loss in terms of the multi-functionality of the city, with the generality of streets and squares increasingly dominated by businesses related to accommodation and catering, offering goods and services demanded by consumer-tourists. Many of these new spaces are associated with brands, services or products that are also present in many other European cities, thus contributing to a loss of the distinctive character of the urban landscape. Finally, the recent transformation of the centre of the city of Porto, as a space especially dedicated to temporary users, whose economic and cultural functions are mainly aimed at the enjoyment of visitors, makes the resident population of Porto progressively move away. Between the excess of people in several emblematic spaces of the city centre and the increase of the prices of its goods and services, there is little room for a part of the resident population. This may jeopardize the maintenance of the cultural capital of Porto and, consequently, of the main elements that attract visitors to this space.

For the reasons already stated, it is necessary for a policy to be articulated with a sustained vision, and it is therefore necessary to promote the strategic planning and strategic thinking of the city in the medium–long term. This should be done through an integrated approach between sectors and between the stakeholders of diverse domains and at several scales. In addition, we identified that the strategies implemented in the city of Porto seem to follow similar patterns to those used in other European cities, and the consequences also manifest themselves in the same manner. Consequently, it is important to encourage the sharing of experiences with other cities currently experiencing problems similar to those in Porto through participation in joint work networks. This could be an effective way to find similar answers to common issues related to the management of tourism activities and the maintenance of cultural capital. In addition, it is essential for tourism and cultural strategies to be integrated into a transparent and negotiated project for the long-term development of the city, including strong participation, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Only then, at the service of a desired future, may these measures balance the population and the material and immaterial cultural heritage, which is desirable for the maintenance and reinforcement of cultural capital. Lastly, the recent dynamics of Porto reveal that the excessive use of space and an overexploitation of culture poses serious threats to the maintenance of the values of the centre, particularly the cultural ones, calling into question the “character of the place” or genius locus. This should be considered in the context of the sustainability of all regeneration strategies. On one hand, because the dimensions that Thorsby [43] claimed to be essential to the sustainability of culture should be encompassed: the intergenerational equity; the intragenerational equity; the maintenance of diversity; the precautionary principle; the interconnectedness between cultural, social, environmental and economic systems. On the other hand, and strictly related to this last dimension, because tourism and culture are interconnected and their relationship depends on the capacity of places to maintain the distinctive character conferred on them by their cultural capital.

This research has some limitations related to the fact that the gathering of data relied on secondary sources, which are often limited in terms of time and scale. Additionally, to better understand the present state of the relationship between culture and tourism in Porto it would be important to consider the perspective of stakeholders such as residents, agents from different economic activities, cultural associations, visitors and so on. These limitations attest to the need to further develop future research related to the relationship between tourism and culture in Porto. Future research could include the implementation of qualitative methodologies such as interviews of different stakeholders, and techniques such as cultural mapping to conduct a diagnostic survey of the cultural capital of Porto. Nevertheless, by reviewing the regeneration process of Porto and analysing the data on tourism, economy and housing, this paper contributes to the understanding that culture, more than being a booster for tourism, is essential for the development of place-based strategies, and its maintenance is fundamental for the touristic attractiveness of urban spaces.