Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland)

Almeida-García, Fernando; Cortés-Macías, Rafael; Parzych, Krzysztof

doi:10.3390/su13010408

Open AccessArticle

Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland)

by

Fernando Almeida-García

^1,*

,

Rafael Cortés-Macías

¹

and

Krzysztof Parzych

²

¹

Tourism Intelligence and Innovation Research Institute (i3t), Faculty of Tourism, Campus of Teatinos, Department of Geography, University of Malaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain

²

Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Tourism, Pomeranian University in Słupsk, ul. Arciszewskiego 22, 76-200 Słupsk, Poland

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 408; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010408

Submission received: 7 December 2020 / Revised: 18 December 2020 / Accepted: 21 December 2020 / Published: 5 January 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Overtourism in Historic Cities)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

:

This study analyzes the role of residents in urban tourist destinations affected by the increase in tourist flows, which have generated various problems such as tourism, gentrification and the emergence of tourism as a threat to residents. The role of residents in tourist destinations has not been analyzed regularly during the development process of destinations. We study two cases of historic centers in European cities, with the aim of comparing tourism problems, which are common to most European urban destinations. This study was conducted by administering surveys amongst residents of these historic centers (378 in Málaga, Spain, and 380 in Gdansk, Poland). These cities show a similar demographic size and urban characteristics. This is the first comparative research on tourism-phobia and gentrification in destinations, a field of analysis that is still not studied much. We develop specific scales to measure gentrification and tourism-phobia; moreover, we study the impact of some tourist problems that affect residents (noise, dirt, occupation of public spaces, etc.), and we show the spatial distribution of tourism-phobia. The same analysis instruments are used for both cities. The results of this study show that the tourism-phobia situation is different in the analyzed destinations. It is more intense in the case of Málaga than in Gdansk. The two historic centers are especially affected by the processes of increased tourist flows and the growth of new forms of tourist accommodation. The research results show that the residents’ annoyance caused by tourism gentrification is more intense than tourism-phobia. Both case studies highlight the residents’ complaints regarding the inadequate management of problems by public stakeholders and control measures.

Keywords:

residents; tourism-phobia; tourism-philia; gentrification; historic centers; Málaga; Gdansk; tourism impacts

1. Introduction

Urban tourism is one of the segments that has increased most since the onset of mass tourism [1]. This tourist segment has grown exponentially over the last two decades owing to two main factors: lower travel costs, especially air travel [2,3], and the dissemination of new communication technologies which have intensely impacted new tourist accommodation and marketing formulas [4]. Furthermore, the transformation of historic centers through their conversion into attractive settings has greatly driven urban tourism [5].

In light of the various issues attributed to the majority of historic cities (loss of population, economic activity, political representation functions, inter alia), tourism has become the main economic activity [6]. Tourism generates jobs, improves the historic landscape and develops the quality of life of residents [3].

In addition to the undoubted benefits associated with the development of tourism, especially in large historic centers, this phenomenon also generates various problems. Changes caused by excessive tourism pressure lead to changes in the original functions of historic city centers and the loss of their original character, transforming them into enclaves filled with various tourist services [7,8].

Problems appear especially in cities where the flow of tourists exceeds the limits set by the carrying capacity of the destination [9,10]. Excessive tourist flows have become the main target of social frustration manifested by inhabitants who are starting to protest more openly against an uncontrolled tourist flow. Tourist saturation has given rise to the discussion about various concepts related to overcoming the carrying capacity, as are the cases of over-tourism and tourism-phobia. These two topics are just some of those which most concern the residents of the best-known European destinations such as Barcelona, Salzburg or Venice [11,12].

The phenomenon of dissatisfaction brought by excessive tourist pressure differs according to the size of the destination. In larger destinations, tourist impacts are diluted, although, on the other hand, these impacts are combined with other, already existing issues in historic spaces which exacerbates the negative effects of tourism. The main issues detected which are intensified by tourism are gentrification [13], the reduction in the non-tourist accommodation supply [14] and the reduction in the quality of life of the local residents [15]. On many occasions, smaller urban destinations suffer greater tourist pressure than the large destinations [16], particularly if we take into account the number of visitors amongst residents or visitors per square meter [17].

Besides the size, the tourist development stage of the destination is an element that influences the opinions and attitudes of residents in historic cities, in accordance with the studies of Doxey [18] and Butler [19], confirmed by more recent studies [20].

The growing number of visitors is related to the increase in real estate prices and the disappearance of traditional commerce and services, fostering the phenomenon of the tourism gentrification of the historic centers of cities. This phenomenon has been described in detail in many examples of European tourist cities [21,22,23,24].

Another cause of conflict between residents and tourists is brought about by the different needs in shared spaces. Tourist intensification has generated a situation in which residents reject the tourist development model and the impacts generated by tourism, and this phenomenon has been called tourism-phobia by various authors [12,25]. Other studies have also mentioned a lack of respect for the cultural norms of residents by visiting tourists as a cause of conflicts [26].

This study presents an innovative comparative analysis that demonstrates that the impacts of tourism are related to the degree of development of the destinations and their specific characteristics. Furthermore, this study presents a comparative analysis of tourism-phobia and the tourism gentrification of two European destinations (Málaga and Gdansk), using primary data. The aim was to carry out a comparative study between two cities of a similar size intended to evaluate the impacts of tourism, particularly the perception of residents with regard to problems related to gentrification, tourism-phobia and tourist management.

2. Theoretical Context

The discussion regarding the diverse concepts related to annoyance or irritation showed by residents in destinations is varied [27,28,29,30]. The annoyance or irritation revealed by residents in tourist destinations is not a new circumstance, even though it may seem to be so, in line with what the media reports [31,32]. The baseline study in this field is the tourist irritation index conceived by Doxey [18]. This indicator was later complemented by other noteworthy theories such as Butler’s destination life cycle model [19], which draws attention to the problems that a destination, and hence its residents, suffers in its final phases. Moreover, in the 1970s, Turner and Ash [33] highlighted the cultural impact induced by tourism on host communities. In the 1990s, mass tourism practices were already criticized in some southern European countries, which resulted in protests and complaints [34,35].

One of the most frequently mentioned related terms regarding the irritation of residents is tourism-phobia. This concept was mentioned for the first time in Spain by Delgado [36], who defined this concept as a mixture of rejection, mistrust and contempt for the figure that everyone designates in Spanish as “guiri”. This author added that this term seems to be “a kind of substitution xenophobia that is directed at people who are not from here”. The author drew attention to what he regards as the main problem occurring in some Spanish destinations, “not that there are tourists, but that there are only tourists”, and that the local government management of the historic centers is causing the draining of their people to turn them into exclusive spaces for the tourist business [36]. In 2008, Donaire [37] summarized the studies by Doxey [18] and made a specific mention of the term tourism-phobia, which places it in the later stages of Doxey’s model. Donaire proposed management solutions to overcome negative attitudes of tourism-phobia. These measures are related to overcoming the destination’s carrying capacity and over-tourism. For this reason, tourism-phobia and over-tourism are often used to describe similar problems, as pointed out by Veríssimo et al. [38].

More recently, Huete [25]; Milano [39,40]; and Almeida, Cortés and Balbuena [12] linked tourism-phobia with a certain social and critical response to the tourism management model, an aspect that would differentiate it from over-tourism. Milano [39] located this social criticism in a context of nonconformity shown by social organizations and residents towards certain tourist activities. Without this context of nonconformist associations, it is not possible to understand that the rejection of tourism has permeated the population. Huete [25] agrees with Milano when pointing out that what the Spanish media understand by tourism-phobia is mainly a social criticism or towards certain effects of tourism. Tourism is a very relevant part of the capitalist system, and the problems generated by tourism must be understood as externalities generated by capitalism [40]. The globalization of economic activity means that problems exported by tourism can be located in any destination on the globe, especially in global cities and in the most attractive destinations. Milano [40] criticizes the fact that the media have given the term tourism-phobia a nuance of media sensationalism and political instrumentalization that hides the changes and requests requested by associations in tourist destinations.

Tourism in the historic centers of large Polish cities is one of the most frequently raised issues in the field of scientific research on tourism. Although studies on the growth and management of tourist activity in the historic centers of Poland have predominated, some studies have emerged in the last decade that highlight the problem of excess tourism in the main destinations [41]. One of the most studied topics in Krakow is over-tourism [21]. The studies highlight the strong concentration of tourist activities in the famous historic center of Krakow, declared a World Heritage Site in 1978 [42], and the notable process of gentrification and population loss in the historic center [7,21]. Between 2004 and 2016, the historic center of Krakow lost one-third of its population (15,660 residents), whilst the number of visitors increased by 53%, reaching 12.15 million in 2016. In 2017 Airbnb offered more than 11,000 apartments, representing a growth of 63% per year compared to 2016 [21].

The strong concentration of tourists also affects other Polish tourist destinations and attractions such as the historic center of Warsaw, Zakopane and Morskie Oko lake (Tatra Mountains), Kazimierz Dolny (Vistula river), Sopot Pier (Baltic sea), the salt mines of Wieliczka and the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum (Krakow), the castles of Wawel and Malbork [21] and the city of Wroclaw [43]. Tourist activity in the city of Gdansk [44] has also been studied. The analyses highlight that 92% of tourists consider Gdansk to be an attractive European city with relevant monumental heritage and its residents are proud of their historic center [45]. However, the residents also complain about the problems generated by tourism, such as the difficulties parking and the entry of numerous vehicles into the center during the summer [46] (Radio Gdánsk, 30. 7. 2020), the issues generated by online accommodation companies (Airbnb, Booking) in the historic center and the problems generally suffered by residents in the center of Gdansk [47].

The problems that affect the residents of any tourist destination with a high tourist intensity are similar: a reduction in residents in historic centers, the disappearance of traditional commerce, the reduction in the purchasing power of residents, an increase in housing prices, the strong growth in cruises, an increase in the supply of accommodation on collaborative platforms, commodification of the public spaces, unstable employment in the tourist sector and environmental impacts mainly owing to rubbish and noise, amongst other issues [48]. These issues that affect destinations may be explained as a consequence of tourist massification and saturation which exceeds the carrying capacity of the destination. The criticisms levelled at these problems deriving from tourist massification and its inappropriate management are classified under the term tourism-phobia [40]. The criticisms known as tourism-phobia are what have most drawn the attention of the media, as tourism has been a sector which has barely suffered any social or political criticism, as usually its positive side is always highlighted.

Tourism-phobia of differing degrees of intensity is a phenomenon that has been extending beyond the best-known cases of Barcelona or Venice. Hence, the studies indicate that in many cities and destinations of the world there have been problems related to tourism. This is the case in Berlin, where issues have been identified related to gentrification and touristification [49]; in Palma de Mallorca (Spain), with the touristification and urban transformation of the historic center [50,51]; in the center of Amsterdam, where overcrowding problems and the irritation of visitors have been observed [52]; in Reykjavik [53] and Paris [15], where protests against the proliferation of tourist housing have taken place; and in other locations where street protests expressing social irritation, which have been covered by media [54].

In opposition to the concept of tourism-phobia, the term tourism-philia arises, which refers to the perception of the positive effects of tourism on the local economy and society [55]. This concept can be framed within the euphoria phase defined by the Doxey model [18]; on the other hand, at later stages, it can be associated with discourse and actions carried out by actors in the tourism sector that highlight the positive aspects of tourism [55]. On the other hand, it is possible to point out the positive perception and support for tourism activity by a group of the residents who show an attitude opposed to tourism-phobia. These residents are aware of the negative aspects of tourism and mainly value the positive contribution in economic and social terms [56].

Venice is the most frequently considered example used regarding the problems suffered by a local community due to over-tourism [57]. The various problems that affect the historic center (island of Venice) have made the island lose population in favor of the mainland since 1950. The loss of employment in non-tourist sectors, the increase in the housing price, the disappearance of traditional shops and the spread of corruption, amongst other problems, have caused all economic activity to be focused on tourism [58]. One of the major problems regarding local tourism management is the arrival of large cruise ships that bring to shore thousands of passengers. The cruise has exacerbated the problems already suffered by Venetian residents: increased prices, pressure on cultural and natural resources, etc. [59]. A sign of strong tourist pressure is the fact that only 25% of visitors stay in the city [59]. Venice has become a good example of a city transformed into a theme park for tourism. The loss of population and the increasing dependence on tourism cause the intensification of tourism activity.

Alcalde, Guitart, Pitarch and Vallvé [60] indicated that the tourism-phobia concept has been used erroneously, as social discontent owing to excess tourists is confused with the rejection of tourists and tourism. To be precise, these authors rejected the idea that there is any phobia of tourism in one of the most tourist-driven European destinations, Barcelona. They put down the discontent to coexistence issues and tourist activity management. Others insist that we need to know the factors that foster resilience amongst residents and allow adaptation to the impacts of tourism, even in historic centers, as in the study by Janusz, Six and Vanneste [61] for the city of Bruges. It is proposed to turn around the analysis of the social exchange theory, a theory that has been widely studied in research related to tourism [62]. In light of the above, the following hypotheses are put forward:

Hypothesis 1.

Tourism-phobia is related to the impacts generated by tourism.

Hypothesis 2.

Tourism-phobia is perceived by residents with a different intensity.

Another of the aspects that significantly impacts the residents of tourist historic centers is gentrification. This concept is also known as “elitization”. The term gentrification was used for the first time by Ruth Glass [63] in 1964 to describe the moving of residence of the middle-class population to working-class districts of London, bringing about the transformation of humble houses into elegant dwellings. Someone who gentrifies is defined by David Ley [64] as coming from a middle-class background, usually without any children and frequently single, young, with a moderate or high salary, who has moved to a gentrified space (a fashionable place), owing to the services that the area offers (culture, employment) and which are attractive to this group. This process leads to the total transformation of the life components of the previous district.

It has been asserted that gentrification is a powerful force that frequently rapidly transforms the physical, economic and social appearance of a city, particularly in its central area [5]. Many aspects of gentrification are based on national urban policies and regeneration and revitalization strategies [65], policies that are adapted to globalization and neoliberal urbanism [66,67]. A relevant characteristic is the aging of the population in these areas [68] and the expulsion of the population with low incomes. The historic and business centers of many cities have become a powerful attraction for social groups with high purchasing power, emphasizing that it is a global phenomenon [69].

In Spain and Poland, gentrification is a process that is occurring in most large tourist cities, including the urban places studied. The causes of this problem cannot be wholly attributed to tourism, but in recent years this sector has been making a decisive contribution, in particular in historic centers and in heavily touristified areas. The consequences of this process are similar in urban tourist spaces: the proliferation of tourist apartments, an increase in the housing purchase and rental prices; the displacement and/or expulsion of residents; and the disappearance of traditional commerce, replaced by gourmet businesses, boutiques and restaurant franchises [70]. The increase in housing prices is the thing that has sparked the most criticism amongst residents and public administrations [71]. This social, economic and urbanistic transformation process of a global nature is what some authors have defined as the McDonaldization of society [72], which means homogenizing cities in such a way that the tourist can consume the same if he is in Berlin or Peking. As regards the process of expulsion of the traditional population, the works of Hidalgo and Hernández [73] and Hernández et al. [74] observe the resistance of the population to leave, describing the feeling of pride and attachment to the location of the residents as an element which explains the permanence and resilience or adaptation to the economic and urban impacts on historic centers.

The gentrification process intensely influenced by tourism is what is known as tourist gentrification, a phenomenon that is mainly concentrated in cities, although this process is also located in rural and natural areas. Historic urban spaces or urban areas with cultural value are the most affected by tourist gentrification, due to the high business expectations linked to urban tourism. The removal of traditional residents and the processes related to urban renewal, real estate investments and the disappearance of traditional stores are the aspects most commented upon [51,75,76,77,78]. The expansion of accommodation through collaborative platforms has intensified tourist gentrification in recent years [79]. In line with that set out above, the following hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis 3.

There is a relationship between tourism-phobia and tourism gentrification.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Areas

Gdansk is a city located in Poland, in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, on the Baltic Sea at the mouth of Motlawa to Wisla on the Gulf of Gdansk (Figure 1). The city is an important economic, cultural and scientific center for the northern part of Poland, being the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodeship. Due to its location, Gdansk has been strongly associated with the maritime system since the beginnings of the history of the city, for centuries playing the role of the main commercial port in this part of Poland. In 2019, Gdansk was inhabited by 468,158 residents and covered an area of 261.96 km². The city suffered a deep decline in population after the Second World War, and it experienced strong population growth between 1950 and 1980. Between 2005 and 2018, Gdansk’s population increased slightly by about 2%, reaching 466,631 inhabitants in 2018.

The establishment and development of hotel facilities in Gdansk have rich historic traditions. The first historically tourist accommodation in Gdansk was established in 1570, and in 1722, the Englische Haus (English House) was built at 16 Chlebnicka Street. The period of the Second World War is associated with enormous damage to heritage and urban development. Most of the hotels were destroyed during this war, including the Continental, Danzigerhof, Deutsches Haus, Grand Hotel Reichshof and Monopol. Since 2000, the hotel accommodation offered in Gdansk has grown widely, and more than half of the hotels have been built after this period. Between 1995 and 2018, the number of beds in Gdansk rose from 11,567 to 21,645, with about 38% of the accommodation in hotels (8214 beds) and 21% in student houses (4665). In addition, about 33% of the beds in Gdansk’s accommodation base were concentrated in other unclassified facilities (7135 beds). This group was dominated by beds in private accommodation, guest rooms and collaborative platform offers [80].

In the period of 2015–2018, the number of visitors to Gdansk rose from 1,966,395 to 3,110,755 visitors. The number of foreign tourists who visited Gdansk doubled in the years 2008–2018 (Figure 2). In 2018, the average length of a tourist’s stay in Gdansk was four nights. In the analysis of the origin of foreign tourists visiting Gdansk, the dominance of tourists originating from Germany (31% of visitors), Scandinavian countries (30%) and Great Britain (18%) is visible. The largest increase in the number of foreign tourists was recorded in the group of tourists from Scandinavian countries. In 2018, about 50,000 tourists came from Scandinavian countries and about 30,000 came from Great Britain. The very high dynamics of the number of arrivals to Gdansk in recent years is characteristic. A notable seasonality is observed: during 2019, 34.1% of nights take place between June and August, and seasonality is higher among foreign visitors than domestic visitors. [80].

As regards the arrangement of tourism accommodation in Gdansk, there are significant spatial disparities (Figure 6). There is a clear offer concentration in the center of the city: Of the total amount of hotels in Gdansk (56), 36 are located in the study area. From a total of 8214 beds in Gdansk hotels, about 38% (4798 beds) are in hotels in the study area. In addition, out of the remaining 349 accommodation establishments, 138 are in the study area. Beds located in other accommodation facilities number 1566, constituting 21.9% of the total number of beds [80].

The Śródmieście district, the area of study, covers an area of 5.65 Km² and is inhabited by 25,326 residents (2018), 4.9% of the whole municipality. It consists of thirteen neighbors: Stare Miasto (Old Town), Grodzisko, Sienna Grobla, Knipawa, Długie Ogrody, Śródmieście, Dolne Miasto, Stare Przedmieście, Zaroślak, Wyspa Spichrzów, Biskupia Górka and Nowe Ogrody (Figure 6). The Śródmieście district is an area with aging demographic potential. (Figure 3) This is confirmed by the demographic structure of the population living in this district. From a total of 25,332 residents of the district in 2018, 33.6% (8453 inhabitants) were residents aged over 60, and this was the highest rate amongst other districts of Gdansk. In total, the average share of the population over 60 for Gdansk was 29.2% [80]. The historic Centre has suffered a sharp population decline in recent years. It has decreased by almost 10,000 inhabitants, a little more than a quarter of its population (26.2%) (Figure 2).

Málaga is a Spanish city that is located in the south of Spain (574,654 inhabitants in 2019), next to the Mediterranean Sea, and is included in the tourist area named Costa del Sol. It is a city with a consolidated tourist tradition. The study area in Málaga is mainly occupied by the old walled city from the Arab era which was delimited to the east by the River Guadalmedina and to the south by the Mediterranean Sea. Besides the walled city, other historic districts (Goleta, Ollerías, Plaza de la Merced Victoria and Lagunillas) and districts to the south (Soho and the Contemporary Art Centre, CAC) have also been affected by intense tourist activity (Figure 4). In total, thirteen census sections have been selected, which make up a population that is not very large. In 2018, there were 13,874 inhabitants according to figures from the Register of Inhabitants, accounting for 2.4% of the total residents in the municipality of Málaga [81]. The extent of the study area is 2.03 km², including the port (0.93 km²); without including the latter, the urban space of the study is 1.1 km² (Figure 5). The most significant demographic event has been the continuous fall in residents in the historic center, particularly as from 2013, coinciding with the irruption of tourist housing in the city, meaning that since 2005 the study area has lost 1559 inhabitants, accounting for 10.1% (Figure 2).

A significant part of the city‘s tourist offer is concentrated in the study area, including 46 hotels and around 500 catering establishments (restaurants, bars and cafés), in addition to 1085 apartments, which accounts for 39.6% of the total offer in the city of Málaga in April 2019 [82]. The hotel supply was 11,843 beds and the main tourist nationalities are British (9.5%), German (4.9%), French (4.9%) and Italian (4.9%). The number of tourists staying in hotels was 1.4 million in 2019 [83], and there were 44,429,170 visitors [84]. Low seasonality is observed: during 2019, 29.4% of overnight stays are between June and August, and seasonality is lower among foreign visitors than domestic visitors. The overnight stays of foreigners almost double those of the Spanish.

Figure 5 shows the strong concentration of tourism accommodation offer found in the study area. The supply of tourist accommodation has continued to grow at a fast pace subsequent to the reference given. The city of Málaga, especially its historic center, presents numerous problems related to over-tourism (tourist overcrowding, strong concentration of the tourist offer in the area, etc.), [12,85] in addition to processes related to gentrification (disappearance of traditional shops, increase in house prices, loss of cultural heritage, transformation into an almost exclusively tourist district) [86].

The two cities have undergone major growth in the number of tourists as well as in the accommodation offered, particularly tourist apartments (Table 1). In the case of Gdansk, the accommodation offered is more highly concentrated than that of Málaga, which extends throughout the historic center, whilst in the case of Gdansk it is concentrated in the districts of Śródmieście, Stare Miasto and Długie Ogrody (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The area of the historic center of Málaga is less than that of Gdansk, and the number of apartments is higher, which is why the impacts of tourism may be greater. The historic center of Gdansk has an older population structure with a lower level of education than that of Málaga. On the other hand, the two historic centers analyzed have lost population (Figure 2). Although the historic center of Málaga has lost slightly less population, its situation may be more critical owing to the lower population residing there. In both cities, the historic center has become a space that is slightly hostile for the traditional population when compared with the possibilities offered by peripheral districts and the metropolitan area (cheaper housing, equipment, public services, etc.). What is more, in recent years, this has been added to by the appearance of tourist housing and its impact on the traditional rental market, which has sped up the gentrification process.

Table 1. Main data.

	Gdansk	Málaga
City inhabitants	466,631 (2018)	574,654 (2019)
Study area inhabitants	23,326 (2018)	13,874 (2018)
Study area (Km²)	5.65	1.1
Visitors	3,110,755 (2018)	44,429,170 (2018)
Hotels	36 (2020)	46 (2020)
Apartments	664 (2019)	1085 (2019)
Average stay (nights)	4.0 (2018)	1.9 (2018)

Figure 5. Distribution of tourism accommodation and tourism-phobia in Málaga. Source: Drafted by the author.

Figure 6. Distribution of tourism accommodation and tourism-phobia in Gdansk. Source: Drafted by the author.

3.2. Analysis Tools

The questionnaire was the main tool for collecting information for its statistical processing. Following on from the final wording of the survey, a pilot test was carried out which was applied to 35 residents in Gdansk and Málaga. The questionnaire was then administered to 378 respondents in Málaga and 380 in Gdansk. The resulting sample was based on the population in the study area of Málaga (13,874 inhabitants) and Gdansk (25,326) in 2018. The participants were selected at random with a 5% margin of error and a confidence level of 95%. A questionnaire was used which was administered directly in the street to the residents during the period between March and June 2018.

The questionnaire consisted of four parts:

(i): Sociodemographic aspects: gender, age, marital status, place of birth, level of education and job relating to tourism or not (Table 2).
(ii): Tourism gentrification and tourism impacts scale. The proposed items are intended to measure the discomfort perceived by residents in the study area, in relation to aspects or processes connected with gentrification. The tourism gentrification scale is composed of items 7–12, and we use twelve items for the analysis, numbers 1–12 (Table 3) [87].
(iii): Tourism-phobia scale. A specific tourism-phobia scale was created in order to analyze the annoyance of the population in the study area. The scale comprises nine items (numbers 13–21) (Table 3) [12].
(iv): Assessment by residents of aspects of local tourism management. The scale comprises three items (numbers 22–24) (Table 3).

Most of the studies on gentrification and phobia-tourism are based on interviews, and secondary data and spatial distribution using maps and analyses based on surveys designed specifically for research are quite scarce. The tourism-phobia scale is based on studies that this research team recently carried out in Málaga by Almeida, Cortés and Balbuena (2019) [12] and the gentrification scale in tourist spaces, taking some references from Cocola [87], applied to Barcelona. The level of annoyance or irritation of the population was measured using a 5-point Likert scale for each item, where 1 equated to “not at all”, 2 “a little”, 3 “somewhat”, 4 “yes a lot” and 5 indicated “yes, an awful lot”.

The data were processed using the statistical software SPSS version 23. Different analyses were carried out: (i) A descriptive study of the sociodemographic data of the population (Table 2) was conducted. (ii) A factorial exploratory analysis was carried out to determine the distribution of the items designed for the questionnaire and the possible factors that can be extracted (Table 3). The factor analysis was performed with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization to the items from the joint database of Gdansk and Málaga. (iii) The scores of the items were analyzed on the Likert scale and by distribution groups in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7. (iv) An ANOVA test and a post hoc (Scheffé) test were carried out in order to determine the groups of residents with different attitudes relating to tourism-phobia (Table 8). (v) The Chi-squared test was applied for the analysis of the tourism-phobia and tourism gentrification scale in relation to sociodemographic variables and urban space management (Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11).

Thematic maps of those aspects related to the annoyance of residents affected by tourism-phobia were drawn up. The districts of the historic centers of the cities of Málaga and Gdansk were analyzed. The maps were created using the QGIS program. For each district, the mean value of tourism-phobia was represented, along with the location of the tourist accommodation supply (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Resident Profiles in the Study Areas

In this study, the sample is formed by residents in the centers of Málaga and Gdansk. With regard to the gender of the resident population, the female population predominates in Málaga and Gdansk. The age group with the largest number of residents was 46 to 65 years old in Málaga and over 66 years old in Gdansk. With regard to marital status, in Málaga and Gdansk, the group of married residents stands out. Most of the residents were born in the cities of Málaga and Gdansk. On the other hand, the residents who have been living in the centers of Málaga and Gdansk for more than 11 years stand out (61.1% and 76.1%) and were the majority of the sample.

One of the most significant aspects of the population surveyed is the predominance of the level of university studies in Málaga (52.6%), which is related to the work profile of the population residing in the area, mainly liberal professionals. In Gdansk, secondary education is predominant (50.1%). In both cities, most of the respondents have not had or do not have a tourism-related job.

In the descriptive profile of the sample, a higher level of participation of women than men was obtained. The average age is around the age group of 46–65 years old in Málaga, whilst the group of over 66 years prevails in Gdansk. The majority of these residents live with somebody (married or with their partner), were born in the city and have lived in the study area for more than 11 years. In Málaga, the majority are university-educated, whilst in Gdansk, the majority have a secondary education; in both cities, the residents’ jobs are not linked to the tourist sector (Table 2).

Table 2. Resident profile.

	Málaga	Gdansk
Gender	Women (57.7%)	Women (63.2%)
Age	46–65 years old (43.7%)	>66 years old (41.6%)
Marital status	Married or with a partner (49.7%)	Married (49.5%)
Place of birth	City of Málaga (57.9%)	City of Gdansk (54.5%)
Length of residence	More than 11 years (61.1%)	More than 11 years (76.1%)
Level of education	University-educated (52.6%)	Secondary (50.1%)
Work related to tourism	No (70.9%)	No (86.3%)

The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the 24 items set out in the questionnaire provide us with five main factors (Table 3):

Factor 1 for tourism gentrification and impacts that affect the quality of life of the resident (items: 1, 4, 7–12).
Factor 2 for tourism-phobia related to the presence of tourists and the loss of identity of the resident’s location (items: 15, 18–21).
Factor 3 for impacts related to the hotel business (items 3–6)
Factor 4 for tourism-phobia related to the behavior of tourists and their consequences (items: 13, 14, 16 and 17).
Factor 5 for local management (items 22–24).

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis. Rotated component matrix ^a.

	Components
	1	2	3	4	5
1. It bothers me to see dirty streets	0.684
2. It bothers me that there is noise at night caused by pubs, bars and restaurants			0.698
3. It bothers me that some people from the city come to the center of town to make it dirty, make noise or get drunk			0.515
4. It bothers me that there are few parks and gardens in the center	0.567
5. It bothers me that there are so many bars, cafes, restaurants, pubs, etc.			0.809
6. It bothers me that the terraces of bars and cafes take up so much public space			0.765
7. It bothers me that prices have risen in stores and supermarkets	0.615
8. It bothers me that there are so many tourist apartments	0.438
9. It bothers me that the housing rental prices have risen	0.726
10. It bothers me that the neighbors had to move	0.650
11. It bothers me that traditional shops are disappearing in the center	0.761
12. I am bothered by the lack of public facilities in the center: senior centers, health centers, libraries, etc.	0.641
13. I am annoyed by the dirt and bad smell in some streets due to tourism				0.648
14. I am annoyed by the noise caused by tourism				0.630
15. I am annoyed seeing tourists everywhere in the center		0.540
16. I am annoyed by the bad behavior of some tourists				0.734
17. I am annoyed by tourists’ binge drinking				0.597
18. I am annoyed by so many cruise ships coming		0.702
19. I am annoyed by tourists in general		0.785
20. I am annoyed that the city center is a place for tourists		0.731
21. I am annoyed that investments in the historic center have been allocated to urban restoration related to tourism		0.769
22. I am annoyed by the lack of Council regulation in the center					0.735
23. I am annoyed that the center is becoming a place for tourists, not for residents					0.614
24. I am annoyed the Council does not listen to the opinion of residents					0.715
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin	0.949
Bartlett’s test of sphericity	Chi-squared (12,502.875) gl (300) Sig. (0.000)
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. (a) The rotation converged in 6 iterations.

These results show that tourism-phobia is identified as differentiated factors, such as tourism gentrification and the tourist impacts perceived by residents. The processes related to gentrification and the problems that affect the quality of life of the residents are those that most concern the inhabitants of the historic centers analyzed. These impacts occur more intensely in Málaga than in Gdansk; in actual fact, the total average for Málaga is 4.03 points compared with 2.56 in Gdansk. In Málaga, it is worth noting the disappearance of traditional shops that supply the residents (4.4 points out of 5), and this matter concerns 87.1% of the residents of Málaga. These stores are being replaced by establishments focusing on tourists (bars, clothes and gifts franchise stores, souvenir shops, etc.). This process is a strongly gentrifying element as the disappearance of these services makes it difficult to maintain the resident population which does not have essential services. This aspect more intensely impacts the elderly population who find it harder to stock up on food products outside the historic center. This problem can also be detected in Gdansk (2.80), but with less intensity. In Málaga, the residents are also concerned about the issue of dirtiness in the streets (4.42) (it greatly concerns 90.5% of residents), the increase in housing and rental prices (4.08) and the scarcity of parks and gardens (4.05). The problem that most concerns the residents of Gdansk is the increase in product prices in shops and supermarkets (2.81), with a similar score to the disappearance of traditional stores (2.80). It is this block that registers the highest score with regard to the items analyzed, and so aspects related to gentrification are a cause of great concern for the local community of the historic centers analyzed (Table 4).

Table 4. Tourism gentrification and quality of life impacts (Factor 1).

	No/A Little		Somewhat		Yes, a Lot and an Awful Lot
	1–2 (%)		3 (%)		4–5 (%)		Item Average
	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk
1. It bothers me to see dirty streets	3.7	48.4	5.8	32.4	90.5	19.2	4.42	2.53
4. It bothers me that there are few parks and gardens in the center	10.8	36.6	9.8	33.2	79.4	30.3	4.05	2.77
7. It bothers me that prices have risen in stores and supermarkets	15.4	37.1	14.3	33.2	70.3	29.7	3.87	2.81
8. It bothers me that there are so many tourist apartments	24.8	61.6	11.4	16.1	63.8	22.3	3.62	2.26
9. It bothers me that the housing rental prices have risen	13.5	50.5	11.1	26.3	75.4	23.2	4.08	2.43
10. It bothers me that the neighbors had to move	16.9	45.8	8.7	28.9	74.4	25.3	3.98	2.52
11. It bothers me that traditional shops are disappearing in the center	5.3	35.8	7.6	36.1	87.1	28.1	4.40	2.80
12. I am bothered by the lack of public facilities in the center: senior centers, health centers, libraries, etc.	18.0	52.1	12.1	28.2	69.9	19.7	3.84	2.33
Tourism gentrification (Items 7–12)	15.7	47.2	10.9	28.1	73.5	24.7	3.97	2.53
Total Mean	13.6	46.0	10.1	29.3	76.4	24.7	4.03	2.56

Table 5 presents an analysis of the impacts caused by a series of activities that are carried out in public spaces and are annoying to residents in historic centers. These activities are carried out both by tourists and inhabitants of the city itself which coincide in the historic center. Both in the case of Málaga (4.10) and the case of Gdansk (2.54), what causes the most irritation is the activity carried out by the actual citizens of these two cities who go to the center to drink, eat or celebrate some event. This activity generates impacts that are combined with habitual tourist activity. The intensity of the impact is much greater in the case of Málaga than in Gdansk. Besides the noise and inappropriate behavior, the catering industry causes the occupation of the public space of the resident and expulsion of traditional resident-oriented establishments, which causes a monoculture of bars, restaurants and terraces. The percentage of people who are very irritated by these activities in Málaga (60.4%) is slightly less than that of those who are slightly irritated in Gdansk (71.1%), giving us an idea of the different perceptions of the impact related to the occupation of the space.

Table 5. Impacts related to the catering industry (Factor 3).

	No/A Little		Somewhat		Yes, a Lot and an Awful Lot		Item Average
	1–2 (%)		3 (%)		4–5 (%)		Item Average
	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk
2. It bothers me that there is noise at night caused by pubs, bars and restaurants	25.9	61.3	14.8	20.3	59.3	18.4	3.52	2.19
3. It bothers me that some people from the city come to the center of town to make it dirty, make noise or get drunk	11.4	49.5	11.1	28.4	77.5	22.1	4.10	2.54
5. It bothers me that there are so many bars, cafes, restaurants, pubs, etc.	39.1	77.6	16.4	9.7	44.5	12.7	3.04	1.76
6. It bothers me that the terraces of bars and cafes take up so much public space	27.7	71.1	11.9	13.7	60.4	15.2	3.51	1.94
Total Mean	26.0	64.9	13.6	18.0	60.4	17.1	3.54	2.11

Table 6 presents an analysis of the items related to tourism-phobia and tourism-philia. The tourism-phobia attitudes of the residents of the centers analyzed are expressed through two dimensions, one that measures the irritation of the resident towards the behavior of tourists (items 13–17) and the other related to the problem of the presence of tourists and the loss of identity (items 15–21). In both cases, the irritation of the local community is much more intense in Málaga than in Gdansk (3.75 and 1.75 in the case of Málaga and 2.54 and 1.53 in Gdansk). Tourism related to drinking causes irritation both in Málaga (4.35) and in Gdansk (2.70), as do the dirtiness and bad odors in the streets, which in many cases are related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. In Málaga, 84.9% of the local community is very irritated by drinking tourism, demonstrating the scale of this problem. The presence of tourists in the streets and the loss of identity is not a great cause for concern, in actual fact, it could be said that there is a certain tourism-philia with regard to the presence of tourists in the streets and irritation regarding their behavior. It is worth pointing out that the presence of tourists in all places of the center irritates slightly more in Gdansk (2.34) than in Málaga (2.16), and this is the only score for which Gdansk exceeds Málaga.

Table 6. Tourism-phobia (Factors 2 and 4).

	No/A Little		Somewhat		Yes, a Lot and an Awful Lot		Item Average
	1–2 (%)		3 (%)		4–5 (%)		Item Average
	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk
13. I am annoyed by the dirt and bad smell in some streets due to tourism	19.1	46.1	8.7	29.2	72.2	24.7	3.87	2.58
14. I am annoyed by the noise caused by tourism	36.0	58.4	13.5	23.9	50.5	17.4	3.15	2.27
16. I am annoyed by the bad behavior of some tourists	24.1	45.8	13.2	31.6	62.7	22.7	3.62	2.59
17. I am annoyed by tourists’ binge drinking	8.8	42.1	6.3	28.2	84.9	29.5	4.35	2.70
Tourism-phobia related to tourists’ behavior (items 13, 14, 17) F.4	22.0	48.1	10.4	28.2	67.6	23.7	3.75	2.54
15. I am annoyed seeing tourists everywhere in the center	63.0	55.5	15.6	22.9	21.4	21.6	2.16	2.34
18. I am annoyed by so many cruise ships coming	72.2	91.3	12.7	3.4	15.1	5.3	1.86	1.30
19. I am annoyed by tourists in general	85.5	88.9	9.0	5.8	5.5	5.3	1.46	1.39
20. I am annoyed that the city center is a place for tourists	73.8	88.2	14.6	6.8	11.6	5.0	1.81	1.37
21. I am annoyed that investments in the historic center have been allocated to urban restoration	85.4	92.6	6.9	4.0	7.7	3.4	1.44	1.24
Tourism-phobia related to the presence of tourists (items 15, 18–21) F.2	76.0	83.3	11.8	8.6	12.3	8.1	1.75	1.53
Tourism-phobia/philia mean (items 13-21) F.2 + F.4	52.0	67.7	11.2	17.3	36.8	15.0	2.64	1.98

It should be pointed out that the level of irritation reflected by factor 2 is very low, as the mean value is situated at 1.64, and so the main cause of irritation in both historic centers is not the presence of tourists or the conversion of the center into a tourist space. Residents do not seem to be concerned about the loss of identity. Hence, the main reasons for irritation generated by tourism in both historic centers are brought about by problems reflected in factor 4, which is related to impacts generated by tourism on the streets of the historic center such as bad odors and dirt, noise, the poor behavior of tourists and drinking tourism. There is tourism-philia towards the tourist and tourism-phobia towards the poor behavior of certain tourists and the irritating impact of some tourism-related activities.

Table 7. Local management related to tourism (Factor 5).

	No/A Little		Somewhat		Yes, a Lot and an Awful Lot		Item Average
	1–2 (%)		3 (%)		4–5 (%)		Item Average
	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk	Málaga	Gdansk
22. I am annoyed by the lack of Council regulation in the center	22.7	52.1	13.0	24.5	64.3	23.4	3.69	2.49
23. I am annoyed that the center is becoming a place for tourists	25.1	68.9	13.5	17.6	61.4	13.4	3.62	1.96
24. I am annoyed the Council does not listen to the opinions of residents	18.3	42.9	9.5	28.4	72.2	28.7	3.93	2.73
Total Mean	22.0	54.6	12.0	23.5	66.0	21.9	3.74	2.40

The residents of Málaga show greater irritation than those of Gdansk with local management by the City Council. The latter complain that their opinion does not count (3.93), and they believe that the regulations are not applied properly in the historic center (3.69), such that the expansion of tourist activities is promoted to the detriment of the residents, meaning that the center has become a space for tourists and not for residents (3.62). The same happens in Gdansk, but with a lower intensity (Table 7). These complaints about inappropriate management are related to the impacts analyzed previously in factors 1, 3 and 4.

Based on the scores that each survey respondent has in the corresponding items of the tourism-phobia scale, the arithmetic mean aimed at evaluating the overall tourism-phobia has been extracted. From the results obtained, we could point out that the residents whose average score is over 4 have a significant level of annoyance in relation to tourism, and we could classify them as tourism-phobic; the percentage of residents that could be identified as such is 36.8% in Málaga. In Málaga, the profile of this group is characterized by a predominant age of between 46 and 65 years, single, born in Málaga, university-educated and residing in the center and areas in the old town. In Gdansk, the group with a significance level of annoyance is 15.0%, a much lower score than in Málaga. This tourism-phobic group has an average age of between 18 and 45 years old (Table 6 and Table 8).

At the completely opposite end of the scale are the residents who are not very annoyed by the presence of tourists (values between 1 and 2). In Málaga, this tourism-philic group comprises 52.0% of the respondents, and the main difference in relation to the tourism-phobic residents is that it is formed by an older population with a significant presence of residents over the age of 65 and widowers. In Gdansk, the tourism-philic group represents most of the residents in the Old Town (67.7%) and is made up of people over 45 years old, showing the greatest support from the elderly population (Table 6 and Table 8).

The thematic map produced highlights that the sections or areas with the greatest problems detected are located in the central space (Calle Larios and environs), the most visited area and from where it is possible to access most of the tourism offer in the historic center. Secondly, there are the sections located further north of Calle Larios, areas that are home to a larger percentage of residents towards which a large part of the restaurants, nightlife and tourism accommodation has moved, due to the fact that property purchase and rental prices are substantially lower than those of the Calle Larios section. This zone is an area of conflict. On the other hand, the southern zone of the historic center, which includes Soho and the Barrio de las Artes (Soho), has a relatively low level of conflict, despite the fact it maintains a high percentage of the resident population. This area has been the location of an offer of accommodation and restaurants for people with greater purchasing power, which is generating little conflict. Furthermore, residents have a very clear perception that tourism and the Council have decisively contributed to improving the neighborhood (Figure 5).

In recent years, the Długie Ogrody district has become a focus for major investments with hotel buildings and apartments for rent. This area is part of Śródmieście and it is located on the eastern side of the Motława channel where the development of new hotels and apartment buildings for tourists is concentrated. The medium price per square meter for a flat in the Długie Ogrody District is the highest in the center of Gdansk and is about EUR 2700 per m² [88]. Along with the dynamic development of tourism, apartment buildings have appeared in this part of the Old Town, which quite often contrasts with the historic Gothic and Renaissance architecture of the Old Town of Gdansk. At the same time, the appearance of modern apartment buildings has caused a price bubble in terms of the cost of renting flats and apartments. Both of these factors are a direct effect of the increase in tourist traffic and undoubtedly have a significant impact on the growing reluctance of the inhabitants of this part of the Old Town to further develop tourism, causing the phenomenon of tourism-phobia amongst the inhabitants of the Długie Ogrody district. In other parts of the Old Town of Gdansk, the level of tourism is much lower. The lowest level of the phenomenon of tourism-phobia can be observed in the peripheral parts of the Old Town district (Zaroślak, Dolne Miasto, Grodzisko, Sienna Grobla), which is related to their distance from the area of the main concentration of tourist attractions, historic architecture and tourism development and consequently much less interest in these areas amongst visitors and tourists (Figure 6).

4.2. Analysis of Variance: Sociodemographic Variables and Tourism-Phobia

After the descriptive analysis of resident profiles, variance analysis was carried out in order to find out the different behavior in relation to tourism and tourism-phobia amongst the two groups that display different attitudes: those who are very annoyed by activity and the others who are not annoyed at all by tourist activity (Table 8). The main statistics provided by the analysis of variance according to sociodemographic aspects are as follows:

(a): Age: Significant differences were found between age groups in Málaga, with the F value found to be F = 6.253, corresponding to a −p value of 0.000. The post hoc test (Scheffé) determined that all the age groups (from 18–35 years, −p = 0.011; from 36–45, −p = 0.028; and from 46–65 years, −p = 0.001) feel greater annoyance in comparison to those over the age of 66.
(b): Marital status: There are significant differences between groups with regard to marital status (F = 3.908, corresponding to a −p value of 0.004). The post hoc test (Scheffé) determined that single people and those living with their partner (−p = 0.038 and −p = 0.010, respectively) feel a higher level of annoyance than widowers.
(c): Level of education: A significant link was found between the level of education and tourism-phobia (F = 9.332, corresponding to a −p value of 0.000). The post hoc test (Scheffé) determined that those who have primary studies feel much less annoyed than those who are university-educated (−p = 0.000).
(d): No significant differences were found with the other variables: gender, place of birth and length of residence.

In the case of Gdansk, the most significant variable is age. We observe a differentiated attitude towards tourism-phobia since the older population shows a very low irritation towards tourism. The rest of the socio-demographic variables are not significant.

Table 8. ANOVA results: tourism-phobia and -philia profiles.

Less Annoyed (Philia)	More Annoyed (Phobia)	Less Annoyed (Philia)	More Annoyed (Phobia)
Málaga		Gdansk
People aged over 66	Resident aged 18–35, 36–45 and 46 to 65	People aged over 46 (46–65 years old and over 66 years old)	Resident aged 18–35 and 36–45
Widowers/widows	Single people and those living with a partner
Primary studies	University studies

4.3. Results of the Analysis of Gentrification and Tourism-Phobia Scale

In order to implement the objective of analyzing the level of irritation and the possible tourism-phobia of residents, the chi-squared test was applied to the gentrification and tourism-phobia scale in relation to the sociodemographic variables and urban space management in order to determine the interdependency between them (Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11).

The tourism gentrification analyzed comprises the items from 7 to 12. We can observe that gentrification is significantly associated with certain socio-demographic variables such as age, marital status, place of birth and level of education. As far as age is concerned, it can be observed that the population who perceives gentrification with less intensity is the group aged over 65 years old (30.2% of the sample, 2.77 gentrification points), widowed, born in another municipality near the study area and with a primary or secondary education level (49.5% of the sample). Those who most strongly perceive gentrification are the group aged 36–45 who are single or couples, university-educated (49.0%) and born in the city itself (56.4%). Furthermore, there is a significant difference between the two study areas with regard to the perception of gentrification, and it is far higher in Málaga (3.97) than in Gdansk (2.53). In addition, the relationship between gentrification and tourism-phobia was analyzed. Gentrification is associated with tourism-phobia “Presence of tourists”, (Factor 2), “Behavior of tourists” (Factor 4), in addition to overall tourism-phobia (Table 9).

Table 9. Results of the chi-squared tests. Tourism gentrification, tourism-phobia and socio-demographic variables.

Málaga and Gdansk	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance
Age * Tourism gentrification	137,129	75	0.000
Marital Status * Tourism gentrification	170,756	100	0.000
Place of Birth * Tourism gentrification	152,315	100	0.001
Level of Education * Tourism gentrification	116,210	75	0.002
Study area (Málaga/Gdansk) * Tourism gentrification	307,216	25	0.000
Tourism-phobia Factor 2 * Tourism gentrification	783,711	500	0.000
Tourism-phobia Factor 4 * Tourism gentrification	1,061,024	400	0.000
Overall Tourism-phobia * Tourism gentrification	1,524,514	900	0.000

Note: (*) = relation.

The analysis results of the tourism-phobia scale in relation to the socio-demographic variables show that there are essentially four main significant factors: place of residence, age, level of education and marital status (Table 10). The most explanatory sociodemographic variable is the place of residence within the study area. The question items on the tourism-phobia scale that are most closely related to the sociodemographic variables are as follows: the presence of tourists everywhere, cruise ship tourism and tourism in general. With regard to the significance of the place of residence variable, it is due to the fact that the spatial distribution of tourists in historic centers is uneven and tourists tend to concentrate in very specific areas, and so perceptions of them as something negative can vary significantly between the different areas of the cities. In the case of the city of Málaga, as shown in the maps (Figure 5), the section that shows the highest values in these categories is the Larios section, which corresponds to the most visited area in the city. It is also necessary to highlight the presence of high levels of tourism-phobia in areas of the center that are not very close to the Larios area, notably including La Goleta, one of the areas with the largest population, where the presence of tourists has not been very common and the tourism-phobic attitude may be mainly caused by the emergence of tourism accommodation in these areas and the generation of conflicts that affect coexistence and the daily life of its residents. In the case of Gdansk, we find the highest score in the Długie Ogrody District (Figure 6).

Table 10. Significant results of the chi-squared test on the tourism-phobia scale.

	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance
Málaga
Age * Dirt due to tourism	31,711	12	0.002
Marital status * Noise due to tourism	33,852	16	0.005
Level of education * Noise due to tourism	33,570	12	0.001
Level of education * Bad behavior	38,220	12	0.000
Age * Binge drinking tourism	27,785	12	0.000
Place of residence * Tourists everywhere	729,993	628	0.003
Place of residence * Cruise ships	733,367	628	0.002
Place of residence * Tourists in general	806,717	628	0.000
Gdansk
Age * Dirt due to tourism	28,817	12	0.004
Age * Noise due to tourism	23,242	12	0.026
Age * Tourists everywhere	45,061	12	0.000
Age * Binge drinking tourism	29,167	12	0.004
Age * Binge drinking tourism	45,129	12	0.000
Age * Tourists in general	43,263	12	0.003
Place of residence * Noise due to tourism	28,680	16	0.026
Place of residence * Tourists in general	36,881	16	0.002
Length of residence * Binge drinking tourism	24,621	12	0.017
Level of education * Bad behavior	37,224	12	0.000
Level of education * Binge drinking tourism	24,253	12	0.019
Work related to tourism * Noise due tourism	27,718	12	0.006
Place of residence * Dirt due to tourism	63,579	44	0.028

Note: (*) = relation.

On the other hand, other aspects relating to the perception of the impacts caused by the behavior of tourists such as dirt and smells, noise, bad behavior and binge drinking tourism show differences relating to age, marital status and level of education. It is possible to point out that the population aged between 46 and 65 is that which has the most negative perception of the dirt and bad smells generated by tourism and binge drinking tourism, whilst in terms of the level of education, university-educated and married residents have a more negative perception of the behavior of tourists and noise.

Table 11. Results of the chi-squared tests. Overall tourism-phobia and tourist management.

	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance
Málaga
I am annoyed that the center of Málaga is becoming a space for tourists and not for residents	308,248	108	0.000
I am annoyed by the lack of Council regulation in the center	267,328	108	0.000
I am annoyed that the Council has not been listening to the resident opinion	253,034	108	0.000
Gdansk
I am annoyed that the Old Town of Gdansk is becoming a space for tourists and not for residents	340,882	100	0.000
I am annoyed by the lack of Council regulation in the Old Town	211,718	100	0.000
I am annoyed that the Council has not been listening to the resident opinion	229,954	100	0.000

Moreover, the chi-squared test was also carried out for the tourism-phobia scale in relation to the management variables included in the questionnaire (Table 11). In this case, it was about evaluating where the overall tourism of residents, quantified as the average of the different items, showed significant differences in relation to the assessment of tourism management by the Council. The result shows that the three questions show significant differences and so residents with a greater degree of tourism-phobia view tourism management of the historic center as the main cause of their discontent and acknowledge that if tourism were regulated more appropriately, their attitude towards tourists could improve.

5. Conclusions

Firstly, the historic centers of Málaga and Gdansk—mirroring what has happened in many cities—have experienced significant tourism growth encouraged by the different actions aimed at promoting the cities as destinations for cultural tourism and due to the proliferation in recent years of an increasing offer of tourist accommodation. These transformations have caused a series of tensions between tourists and residents, which have been called tourism-phobia in line with what other authors have identified [25,40]. The results of the analysis carried out allow us to assert that there is tourism-phobia and that it is related to the impacts and management of tourism (Table 6, Table 10 and Table 11), and so we can accept Hypothesis 1 (H.1).

These results show that irritation focuses on the inappropriate behavior of tourists and its consequences and not on tourists and their presence in the street. This aspect is borne out by the factor analysis itself, which has divided the tourism-phobia scale into two factors (Table 3), and the actual analysis of the scoring of the items (Table 6), in which it can be observed how the irritation caused by tourists is very low (Factor 2) compared with the behavior and impacts of the tourists (Factor 4) and the management of tourist activity (Factor 5, Table 7). In summary, the resident is irritated by the poor behavior of tourists and the management of tourist activity and not by the tourist per se.

Secondly, tourism-phobia is perceived by residents with different intensities, in line with the socio-demographic characteristics (Table 8 and Table 10), the physical characteristics of the historic center and the distribution of tourism-phobia (Table 1, Figure 3 and Figure 4) and the degree of development of the tourist destination, more intense in Málaga than in Gdansk (Table 6 and Table 10). Thus, Hypothesis 2 can be accepted (H.2).

In relation to sociodemographic aspects, the presence of two groups of residents in the study areas with clear and opposing attitudes towards tourism can be seen: tourism-phobic and tourism-philic. These two groups differ according to age, marital status and level of education and indicate one of the social transformations that the historic centers have undergone. The tourism-philic group represents the traditional population who have lived in the area for a long period of their lives. They are an aging population, with little education, consisting of a high percentage of widows and widowers and pensioners, who despite the inconvenience caused by tourism, are more concerned about other effects such as gentrification (the disappearance of traditional shops and their old neighbors and the occupancy of public spaces, amongst other aspects). On the contrary, tourism-phobia is represented by middle-aged people who live with their partners and have received higher education; they are freelancers who have chosen to live in the city because they appreciate the cultural value of the historic center and have no professional relationship with tourism. The majority made this choice before the great tourism growth of the historic center; they thus have a very negative view of this social and economic change. This is the only population that has come to cover the disappearance of residents in this area, as the increased rental and property prices have, to a large extent, resulted in the residential emptying of this area.

The intensity of the impacts and the level of tourism-phobia in Málaga is closer to what happens in destinations with tourist intensity in Europe, such as Barcelona, Amsterdam and Berlin [60] or Venice [59]. Tourism-phobia is attributed to inappropriate management of tourist activity or, in other words, management that harms residents [40,59]; however, other authors draw attention to the diversity of the origins of the problems that affect residents in tourist spaces and that converge in tourism [89]. In the case of Málaga, some authors point out that over-tourism is the main element that affects the lives of residents and that there are numerous elements that fuel tourism pressure, mainly gentrification that empties the population of the area and public and private collaboration that transforms the urban space for an exclusive tourist activity [86].

The distribution of the perception of tourism-phobia is not homogeneous amongst the different areas, and the assessment by the residents is subject to the type of activity carried out by the visitors, their degree of concentration, the characteristics of the urban morphology and the presence of activities that generate a greater level of annoyance: binge drinking tourism, bad behavior by the tourists, dirt and noise. In general, there is not a rejection of tourists, but rather a rejection of some of their impacts, and residents do not view the presence of tourists or cruise passengers as something negative.

Thirdly, the perception that the residents have of the impacts generated by tourism gentrification is corroborated (Table 4). Said impacts are scored more highly than tourism-phobia, from which we can deduce that this factor is much more annoying for the resident than tourism-phobia. Furthermore, we observed in the two cities that there is a significant relationship between gentrification and tourism-phobia, both with regard to the two dimensions of tourism-phobia (Factors 2 and 4) and in the tourism-phobia mean (Table 9), which is why we accept Hypothesis 3 (H.3). Despite the fact that tourism-phobia has drawn the attention of the media [25], the impacts related to the gentrification processes are identified by the residents as the most harmful effects of tourism on their quality of life.

In summary, the higher intensity of the impacts of tourism on the residents of Málaga can be explained by the following factors:

(i): The higher concentration of Málaga’s tourist offer in a small area than in Gdansk.
(ii): The larger intensity of the tourist flow in Málaga.
(iii): The low tourist seasonality of Málaga is explained due to climatic characteristics and strong diversification of the tourist offer, causing an intense presence of tourists throughout the year. Gdansk has a stronger seasonality, which allows having several months of the year in which the tourist does not bother the resident. Likely, the higher seasonality of Gdansk favors a better attitude of the resident towards the tourists [90].

This study should have been complemented by a qualitative analysis, through interviews with residents and tourist agents. This activity will be developed in the future and will allow new studies on the constructs analyzed. It seems necessary for the harmonious development of tourism in historic city centers to find the right balance between the interests of tourists and residents. It is thus desirable to search for such strategies for the development of tourism in historic centers of historic cities. All available tools for tourism planning and management should be deployed, in addition to involving the residents in the decision-making processes regarding the tourism development strategy, as residents call for in our research. This process should seek to find a balance between the interests of tourists and residents and to reduce the negative impact of tourism on the lives of residents. This aim requires consulting with local communities and involving them more widely than before in decision-making processes concerning activities aimed at shaping a diversified cultural offer, improving the quality of transport [91].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.A.-G., R.C.-M. and K.P.; methodology: F.A.-G., R.C.-M.; validation: F.A.-G., R.C.-M. and K.P.; resources: K.P.; data curation: F.A.-G., R.C.-M.; writing—original draft preparation: F.A.-G.; supervision: F.A.-G., R.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Transformations of the historical urban landscape induced by tourism: contradictions and controversies, Ministry of Economy, Government of Spain: CSO2016- 75470-R.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to future publications.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Postma, A.; Buda, D.; Gugerell, K. The Future of City Tourism. J. Tour. Futures 2017, 3, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Castillo, J.I.; López, L.; González, F. The effects of the LCC boom on the urban tourism fabric: The viewpoint of tourism managers. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1085–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
United Nation World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Global Report on City Tourism; UNWTO: Madrid, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Stors, N. Constructing new urban tourism space through Airbnb. Tour. Geogr. 2020, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hiernaux, D.; González, C.I. Turismo y gentrificación: Pistas teóricas sobre una articulación. Revista Geografía Norte Grande. 2014, 58, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
De la Calle, M. La Ciudad Histórica como Destino Turístico; Ariel: Barcelona, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
Kruczek, Z. Turyści vs. mieszkańcy. Wpływ nadmiernej frekwencji turystów na proces gentryfikacji miast historycznych na przykładzie Krakowa (Tourists vs. residents. Influence of excessive tourist flow in the process of historical cities gentrification: The case of Krakow). Turystyka Kulturowa 2018, 3, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
Tracz, M.; Semczuk, M. Wpływ turystyki na zmianę funkcji przestrzeni miejskiej na przykładzie Krakowa, (The impact of tourism in the function change of the urban space: The case of Krakow). Biuletyn Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju (Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Natl. Spat. Dev. Comm.) 2018, 272, 272–284. [Google Scholar]
García, M.; De la Calle, M.; Yubero, C. Cultural heritage and urban tourism: Historic city centres under Pressure. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Pinkster, F.M.; Boterman, W.R. When the spell is broken: Gentrification, urban tourism and privileged discontent in the Amsterdam canal district. Cult. Geogr. 2017, 24, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Koens, K.; Postma, A.; Papp, B. Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Almeida, F.; Cortés, R.; Balbuena, A. Tourism-phobia in historic centres: The case of Malaga. Boletín Asociación Geógrafos Españoles 2019, 83, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Opillard, F. From San Francisco’s ‘Tech Boom 2.0′ to Valparaiso’s UNESCO World Heritage Site. In Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City; Colomb, C., Novy, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 129–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gurran, N.; Phibbs, P. When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2017, 83, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Gravari-Barbas, M.; Jacquot, S. No conflict? Discourses and management of tourism-related tensions in Paris. In Protest and Resistance in a Tourist City; Colomb, J., Novy, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hidalgo, C.; Palacios, A.; Barrado, D. El comportamiento del turismo internacional con motivación cultural. El caso de las ciudades medias y pequeñas española overtourism? undertourism? (The behavior of international tourism with cultural motivation. The case of the Spanish medi-um and small cities. Overtourism? Undertourism?). In Sostenibilidad Turística: Overtourism vs Undertourism; Pons, G.X., Blanco-Romero, A., Navalón-García, R., Troitiño-Torralba, L., Blázquez-Salom, M., Eds.; Societat d’Hisòria Natural de les Balears: Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Blanco, A.; Blázquez, M.; Morell, M.; Fletcher, R. Not tourism-phobia but urban-philia: Understanding stakeholders’ perceptions of urban touristification. Boletín Asociación Geógrafos Españoles 2019, 83, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Doxey, G. A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants, methodology and research inferences. In Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association 6th Annual Conference Proceeding, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–11 September 1975. [Google Scholar]
Butler, R.W. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Can. Geograph./Géographe Canadien 1980, 24, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Almeida, F.; Cortes, R.; Balbuena, A.; Hidalgo, C. New Perspectives of Residents’ Perceptions in a Mature Seaside Destination. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Szromek, A.R.; Kruczek, Z.; Walas, B. The Attitude of Tourist Destination Residents towards the Effects of Overtourism—Kraków Case Study. Sustainability 2019, 12, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Barrera-Fernández, D.; Hernández-Escampa, M.; Vázquez, A.B. Tourism management in the historic city. The impact of urban planning policies. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Tour. 2016, 2, 349–367. [Google Scholar]
Jover, J.; Díaz-Parra, I. Gentrification, transnational gentrification and touristification in Seville, Spain. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 3044–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cocola, A. Holiday rentals: The new gentrification battlefront. Sociol. Res. Online 2016, 21, 112–120. Available online: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/21/3/10.html (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Huete, R.; Mantecón, A. El auge de la turismofobia ¿hipótesis de investigación o ruido ideológico? Pasos. Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2018, 16, 9–19. Available online: http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/16118/PS118_01.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Ye, B.H.; Zhang, H.Q.; Yuen, P.P. Cultural conflicts or cultural cushion? Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 321–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Capocchi, A.; Vallone, C.; Pierotti, M.; Amaduzzi, A. Overtourism: A literature review to assess implications and future perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Alexis, P. Over-tourism and anti-tourist sentiment: An exploratory analysis and discussion. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2017, 17, 288–293. [Google Scholar]
Perkumienė, D.; Pranskūnienė, R. Overtourism: Between the right to travel and residents’ rights. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Almeida, F.; Peláez, M.A.; Balbuena, A.; Cortés, R. Residents’ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Postma, A.; Schmuecker, D. Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations: Conceptual model and strategic framework. J. Tour. Futures 2017, 3, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Harrill, R. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. J. Plan. Lit. 2004, 18, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Turner, L.; Ash, J. The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery; Constable & Ro: London, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
Boissevain, J. Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism; Berghahn Books: Oxford, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Jacobsen, J.K.S. Anti-tourist attitudes: Mediterranean charter tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Delgado, M. Turistofobia. El País. 2007. Available online: https://elpais.com/diario/2008/07/12/catalunya/1215824840_850215.html (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Donaire, J.A. La efervescencia de la “turismofobia”. Barcelona Metrópolis. Revista de Información y Pensamiento Urbanos. 2008. Available online: http://lameva.barcelona.cat/bcnmetropolis/arxiu/es/pagea6ea.html?id=23&ui=16> (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Veríssimo, M.; Moraes, M.; Breda, Z.; Guizi, A.; Costa, C. Overtourism and tourismphobia: A systematic literature review. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2020, 68, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Milano, C. Turismofobia: Cuando el turismo entra en la agenda de los movimientos sociales. Marea urbana. Available online: http://www.levante emv.com/opinion/2017/09/06/turisme i turismofobia/1611947.html (accessed on 10 September 2017).
Milano, C. Overtourism, malestar social y turismofobia. Un debate controvertido. Pasos. Revista Turismo Patrimonio Cultural 2018, 16, 551–564. Available online: http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/16318/PS318_01.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2020). [CrossRef]
Czarnecki, A.; Frenkel, I. Counting the ‘invisible’: Second homes in Polish statistical data collections. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2015, 7, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zmyślony, P.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. Urban tourism hypertrophy: Who should deal with it? The case of Krakow (Poland). Int. J. Tour. Cities 2019, 5, 247–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fedyk, W.; Sołtysik, M.; Olearnik, J.; Barwicka, K.; Mucha, A. How Overtourism Threatens Large Urban Areas: A Case Study of the City of Wrocław, Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Łuczak, M. Branding miejsca turystycznego na przykładzie Gdańska (Branding of a tourist place on the example of Gdańsk). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego 2011, 663, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
Kęprowska, U.; Łuczak, M. Produkt turystyczny i jego ocena na przykładzie Gdańska (Tourist product and its evaluation on the example of Gdańsk). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego 2012, 86, 107–124. [Google Scholar]
Radio Gdansk. The City Lives off Tourists, but the Inhabitants Cannot Live with These Drivers. They Enter as They Want and Park Where They Want. Available online: https://m.radiogdansk.pl/wiadomosci/item/113566-miasto-zyje-z-turystow-ale-z-tymi-zmotoryzowanymi-zyc-nie-moga-mieszkancy-wjezdzaja-jak-chca-i-parkuja-gdzie-chca/113566-miasto-zyje-z-turystow-ale-z-tymi-zmotoryzowanymi-zyc-nie-moga-mieszkancy-wjezdzaja-jak-chca-i-parkuja-gdzie-chca (accessed on 30 July 2020).
Krytyka. Airbnb in the Tri-City: The Curse of Eternal Holiday. Available online: https://krytykapolityczna.pl/kraj/przeklenstwo-wiecznych-wakacji-ostrowski/ (accessed on 25 December 2019).
Żemła, M. Reasons and Consequences of Overtourism in Contemporary Cities—Knowledge Gaps and Future Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Novy, J. The selling (out) of Berlin and the de- and re-politicization of urban tourism in Europe’s ‘Capital of Cool’. In Protest and Resistance in a Tourist City; Colomb, J., Novy, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vives-Miró, S.; Rullan, O. ¿Desposesión de vivienda por turistización?: Revalorización y desplazamientos en el centro histórico de Palma (Mallorca). Revista Geografía Norte Grande 2017, 67, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
González-Pérez, J.M. The dispute over tourist cities. Tourism gentrification in the historic Centre of Palma (Majorca, Spain). Tour. Geogr. 2019, 22, 171–191. [Google Scholar]
Gerritsma, R.; Vork, J. Amsterdam Residents and Their Attitude Towards Tourists and Tourism. Coactivity Philos. Commun. Santalka Filos. Komun. 2017, 25, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Mermet, A.C. Airbnb and tourism gentrification: Critical insights from the exploratory analysis of the ‘Airbnb syndrome’ in Reykjavik. In Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises; Gravari-Barbas, M., Guinand, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 52–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kowalczyk-Anioł, J.; Zmyślony, P. Turystyka miejska jako źródło protestów społecznych: Przykłady Wenecji i Barcelony (Urban tourism as a source of social protests: Examples of Venice and Barcelona). Tur. Kult. 2017, 2, 7–36. [Google Scholar]
Zerva, K.; Palou, S.; Blasco, D.; Benito-Donaire, J.A. Tourism-philia versus tourism-phobia: Residents and destination management organization’s publicly expressed tourism perceptions in Barcelona. Tour. Geogr. 2019, 21, 306–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sharpley, R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Russo, A.P. The “Vicious Circle” of Tourism Development in Heritage Cities. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vianello, M. The No Grandi Navi campaign: Protests against cruise tourism in Venice. In Protest and Resistance in a Tourist City; Colomb, J., Novy, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 45–65. [Google Scholar]
Troncoso, A. Venice: The problema of overtourism and the impact of cruises. Investig. Reg. 2018, 42, 35–51. Available online: https://investigacionesregionales.org/article/venice-the-problem-of-overtourism-and-the-impact-of-cruises/ (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Alcalde, J.; Guitart, N.; Pitarch, A.; Vallvé, O. De la turismofobia a la convivencia turística: El caso de Barcelona. Análisis comparativo con Ámsterdam y Berlín. Ara. Revista Investigación Turismo 2018, 8, 25–34. Available online: http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ara/article/view/21980 (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Janusz, K.; Six, S.; Vanneste, D. Building tourism-resilient communities by incorporating residents’ perceptions? A photo-elicitation study of tourism development in Bruges. J. Tour. Futures 2017, 3, 127–143. Available online: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JTF-04-2017-0011 (accessed on 24 December 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Almeida, F.; Balbuena, A.; Cortes, R. Residents’ attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 13, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Glass, R. Aspects of change. In The Gentrification Debates: A Reader; Centre for Urban Studies, Ed.; McGibbon and Kee: London, UK, 1964; pp. 19–30. [Google Scholar]
Ley, D. Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Stud. 2003, 40, 2527–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abd Khalil, R.A.; Johar, F.; Sabri, S. The impact of new-build gentrification in Iskandar Malaysia: A case study of Nusajaya. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 202, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Davidson, M. Gentrification as global habitat: A process of class formation or corporate creation? Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2007, 32, 490–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smith, N. New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 2002, 34, 427–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fernández Salinas, V. La vivienda modesta y patrimonio cultural: Los corrales y patios de vecindad en el conjunto histórico de Sevilla. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica Geografía Ciencias Sociales 2003, 7, 6. [Google Scholar]
Lees, L.; Shin, H.B.; Morales, E.L. Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Díaz-Parra, I. Viaje solo de ida: Gentrificación e intervención urbanística en Sevilla. EURE 2015, 41, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Herrero Suárez, C.A. Las viviendas de uso turístico: ¿el enemigo a abatir?: Reflexiones sobre la normativa autonómica en materia de alojamientos turísticos. Revista Estudios Europeos 2017, 70, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
Munsters, W.; Freund de Klumbis, D. Culture as a Component of the Hospitality Product. In International Cultural Tourism: Management, Implications and Cases; Sigala, M., Leslie, D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 26–39. [Google Scholar]
Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernandez, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.C.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gravari-Barbas, M.; Guinand, S. (Eds.) Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises: International Perspectives; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Gotham, K.F. Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans’ vieux carre (French Quarter). Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 1099–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cocola-Gant, A. Tourism Gentrification. In Handbook of Gentrification Studies; Edward Elgar Publishing: Chetenhan, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Gladstone, D.; Préau, J. Gentrification in tourist cities: Evidence from New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. Hous. Policy Debate 2008, 19, 137–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yrigoy, I. 580. Airbnb en Menorca: ¿Una nueva forma de gentrificación turística? Localización de la vivienda turística, agentes e impactos sobre el alquiler residencial. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica Geografía Ciencias Sociales 2017, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gdansk City Council. Gdańsk w Liczbach. 2020. (Gdansk in Numbers. 2020). Available online: https://www.gdansk.pl/gdanskwliczbach/mieszkancy,a,108046 (accessed on 20 April 2020).
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). Estadísticas del Padrón continuo. (Continuous Register Statistics). 2019. Available online: http://www.ine.es/ (accessed on 24 December 2020).
RTA (Andalusian Tourism Database). Consejería de Turismo y Deportes, Junta de Andalucía. 2019. Available online: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/turismoydeporte/opencms/areas/turismo/registro-de-turismo/ (accessed on 24 December 2020).
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). Encuesta de Ocupación Hotelera 2019. (Hotel Occupancy Survey 2019). Available online: https://www.ine.es/jaxi/Tabla.htm?path=/t11/e162eoh/a2019/l0/&file=04de022.px&L=0 (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Málaga City Council (2020). Observatorio Turístico de Málaga. 2018. Available online: http://www.malagaturismo.com/es/paginas/informes/362 (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Reina Gutiérrez, E.M. Mapeado del espacio turístico de masas. Transformaciones (adaptativas-impositivas) en el escenario urbano de Málaga (Mapping of the mass tourist area. Transformations (adaptive-imposed) in the urban scene of Malaga). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
García-Bujalance, S.; Barrera-Fernández, D.; Scalici, M. Touristification in historic cities. Reflections on Malaga. Rev. Tur. Contemp. 2019, 7, 93–115. [Google Scholar]
Cocola, A. Struggling with the Leisure Class: Tourism, Gentrification and Displacement. Ph.D. Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Ceny.szybko. Pomorskie-Gdańsk-Dlugie. Ogrody-ceny-mieszkan. (Pomerania-Gdansk-Dlugie. Gardens-Apartment-Prices). 2020. Available online: www.ceny.szybko.pl/pomorskie-Gdańsk-Dlugie (accessed on 20 April 2020).
Mansilla, J.A. Vecinos en peligro de extinción. Turismo urbano, movimientos sociales y exclusión socioespacial en Barcelona. PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult. 2018, 16, 279–286. Available online: http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/16218/PS218_01.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2020).
Vargas, A.; Porras, N.; Plaza, M. Residents’ attitude to tourism and seasonality. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 581–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bock, K. The changing nature of city tourism and its possible implications for the future of cities. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2015, 3, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

Figure 1. Locations of the cities of Gdansk and Málaga. Source: Drafted by the author.

Figure 2. Demographic evolution of the study areas in Málaga and Gdansk. Source: [80,81].

Figure 3. Images of Gdansk historical center.

Figure 4. Images of Málaga historical center.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almeida-García, F.; Cortés-Macías, R.; Parzych, K. Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland). Sustainability 2021, 13, 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010408

AMA Style

Almeida-García F, Cortés-Macías R, Parzych K. Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland). Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010408

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almeida-García, Fernando, Rafael Cortés-Macías, and Krzysztof Parzych. 2021. "Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland)" Sustainability 13, no. 1: 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010408

APA Style

Almeida-García, F., Cortés-Macías, R., & Parzych, K. (2021). Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland). Sustainability, 13(1), 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010408

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Tourism Impacts, Tourism-Phobia and Gentrification in Historic Centers: The Cases of Málaga (Spain) and Gdansk (Poland)

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Context

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Areas

3.2. Analysis Tools

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Resident Profiles in the Study Areas

4.2. Analysis of Variance: Sociodemographic Variables and Tourism-Phobia

4.3. Results of the Analysis of Gentrification and Tourism-Phobia Scale

5. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI