Next Article in Journal
Branding Seoul: Multi-Celebrity Participation in Destination Branding
Next Article in Special Issue
Tourist Attitudes to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Their Influence on Sustainable Tourism Behaviour: Evidence from Cáceres, a UNESCO World Heritage City
Previous Article in Journal
How Community-Based Tourism Supports Sustainable Livelihoods: The Mediating Roles of Community Participation and Tourism-Related Employment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Tourism and Hospitality
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/tourhosp7020038
tourismhosp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Scaffolding the Tourist City. Informal Practices and the Making of Tourism in Porto

by
Gabriel López-Martínez
1,* and
Javier Ortega Fernández
2
1
Department of Contemporary Humanities, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
2
Department of Sociology I, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2026, 7(2), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7020038
Submission received: 10 January 2026 / Revised: 30 January 2026 / Accepted: 3 February 2026 / Published: 5 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue "Feature Papers in Overtourism Revisited: Managing Tourism Pressure in Urban, Natural, and Cultural Destinations")
Versions Notes

Abstract

This article examines the everyday dynamics of informal activities in touristified urban environments through a qualitative case study of Porto, Portugal. Drawing on an urban ethnography combining observation and semi-structured interviews, we analyse how individuals providing tourism-related services perceive their role within informality, how they articulate their agency, and how their practices contribute to the everyday production of the tourist experience. The study shows that engagement in informal tourism work is structured by intersecting legal, economic and institutional constraints that channel professional trajectories into unregulated or semi-recognised forms of labor. Individuals display significant agency through adaptive strategies, craft-based skills and relational networks that enable them to navigate surveillance, seasonality and spatial exclusion. We argue that these practices operate as a form of urban tourism scaffolding, to conceptualise informal tourism practices as a contingent support structure that sustains tourist experiences beyond formal planning and infrastructure. Although situated in precarity and vulnerability, these practices produce structural effects on the urban tourism offer by filling gaps, organizing encounters and animating public space. By conceptualising informal tourism work as a processual and relational support structure rather than as marginal spontaneity or residual activity, the article highlights the need to reconsider informal labour as a constitutive dimension of tourist cities.

1. Introduction

Urban tourism has become a defining feature of contemporary cities, reshaping urban economies as well as the socio-spatial and cultural dynamics of host communities (Cheng et al., 2025; Gómez-Bruna et al., 2025; Grah et al., 2020; Mansilla & Milano, 2022; C. M. Rogerson, 2023). Porto (Portugal) exemplifies this transformation. The city has experienced sustained growth in international arrivals, accompanied by rapid touristification of its historic centre (Barbosa et al., 2023; Fernandes et al., 2023; Gusman et al., 2019; Instituto Nacional de Estatística, 2024; Sousa & Rodríguez-Barcón, 2021; Stevic et al., 2024). Tourism development in Porto’s historic centre has been driven by increased accommodation capacity (Carvalho et al., 2019), the proliferation of tourism-oriented retail and services (Pinho & Marques, 2021) and intensified place marketing (Gusman et al., 2019; Isabel Mota et al., 2025). Yet, alongside this planned and institutionally promoted tourism system, a parallel sphere of informal economic activities operates at the margins of legality, while occupying central positions within the tourist experience.
Despite growing attention to informal tourism economies, existing research has predominantly focused either on individual livelihood strategies (Çakmak et al., 2018) or on policy debates around formalization (Floridi et al., 2020; Gallien & van den Boogaard, 2023a, 2023b). Less attention has been paid to how informal practices collectively function as structural supports within tourist destinations, particularly in cities undergoing rapid tourism expansion (J. M. Rogerson & Rogerson, 2025; Wang et al., 2023). Emerging studies on informal tourism entrepreneurship and the informal tourism economy thus represent a still limited but growing body of work that begins to foreground informality within wider entrepreneurial and destination ecosystems (Çakmak et al., 2019; Damayanti et al., 2018; Fourie et al., 2025).
From this perspective, urban tourist destinations can be understood as complex assemblages (Briassoulis, 2017; DeLanda, 2006), in which heterogeneous actors and networks co-produce the urban tourism economy. Informal workers and activities are not merely residual or peripheral, but rather integral to the socio-spatial production of tourism, shaping both its material and affective dimensions. In the case of Porto, street vending, live music, artistic production, and unlicensed guiding exemplify how informal practices become embedded in the city’s touristic fabric. Far from being marginal embellishments, they contribute to the city’s atmosphere and experiential appeal (Barbosa et al., 2023; Klein & Bueno Carvajal, 2025), constituting an unplanned yet highly effective infrastructure that sustains and enriches Porto’s urban tourism landscape.
Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines how individuals are channeled into informal tourism work, how they perceive and legitimise their role in touristified urban contexts, and how they exercise agency under conditions of precarity through everyday practices and forms of collective organisation. By analysing the interplay between structural constraints and everyday strategies, the study seeks to explore how informal tourism work is enacted and situated practices. Building on these analytical approach, the article introduces the notion of urban tourism scaffolding. That is, a set of informal, contingent and relational supports that sustain and give substance to the everyday functioning and experiential appeal of the tourist city. Rather than framing informal tourism work as a pathological residue of failed development, the article approaches it as a constitutive element of contemporary urban tourism economies.
The article addresses these questions by bridging two theoretical traditions. From urban informality studies, we adopt an understanding of informal practices as dialectical relations between spaces conceived by policy and spaces lived through everyday practice (Lefebvre, 1991; Massey, 1995; Roy, 2005). This perspective informs our analysis of how informal tourism practices emerge, are negotiated, and are enacted within regulated urban environments. From tourism studies, we draw on critical heritage scholarship (Canclini, 2019; Novoa, 2023; Smith, 2006) to capture how tourism-related meanings, experiences and values are actively produced by non-institutional actors. This allows us to distinguish between authorised tourism shaped by official planning and regulation, and a form of tourism from below generated through bottom-up, self-organised practices (Koens et al., 2018; Marschall, 2015). Bringing these studies together permits a relational framing that moves beyond a simple formal/informal binary. This approach interprets informal activities in Porto as a contingent form of urban tourism scaffolding, through which everyday informal activities actively sustain and shape the tourist experience. Informal tourism activities not only coexist with but also reconfigure formalised tourism economies through tactics of survival, creativity and spatial appropriation.

2. Literature Review

2.1. On the Concept of Informality

The informal sector encompasses unregulated economic activities pursued outside formal institutions. Pioneering work by Keith Hart introduced the concept of the informal sector in the context of his study of the economic practices of rural migrants in Accra, Ghana (Hart, 1973). His analysis demonstrated that, despite structural constraints and the overarching influence of capitalist relations, most of these migrants participated in informal economic activities that possessed an autonomous capacity to generate income. In this sense, the informal labor sector refers to economic activities not officially regulated by the state but still possessing autonomous capacity for generating incomes. Hart’s contribution also highlighted the coexistence of wage labour and self-employed informal occupations within the same urban milieu, anticipating later debates on hybrid livelihoods and multi-activity strategies in urban economies (Lindell, 2010).
Since Hart, three broad strands of interpretation have dominated literature. The dualist view treats informality as a separate, marginal sector that coexists with a formal economy; the structuralist view locates informal work in processes of capitalist restructuring and subordination; and the legalist or regulatory view locates the problem in excessive regulation and tenure regimes that push economic activity outside formal rules (Bourg, 1990; Castells & Portes, 1989; Centeno & Portes, 2006; Portes, 2003). These positions are not mutually exclusive, but they imply different policy responses. Accordingly, containment or welfare support in the dualist frame, structural reform and labour protection in the structuralist frame, and deregulation/formalisation in the legalist account. More recent scholarship, tends to move beyond these rigid typologies, emphasising the porous boundaries between formal and informal economies and the extent to which firms and workers routinely operate across regulatory grey zone (Meagher, 2010, 2013, 2018).
From the 1980s onward scholars also noted a process of informalization in advanced economies, where fragmentation of employment and precaritization made informal or non-standard work a persistent feature rather than a temporary stage (Castells & Portes, 1989; Portes, 2003). At the same time, international organisations developed operational definitions focused on coverage and legal protection. We may refer to the International Labour Organization (ILO) defining the informal economy in terms of units and employment relationships that are, in law or in practice, insufficiently covered by national labour legislation and social protection. This shift toward a protection-based definition marked a crucial move away from viewing informality as a sector and toward conceptualising it as a condition of work, applicable across both formal and informal enterprises (ILO, 2018).
Over the past two decades, scholarship on informality has expanded exponentially, cutting across a wide range of disciplines and thematic areas. This includes informal housing, informal land management, and informal planning, as well as political science, international relations, and cross-disciplinary studies that examine informal employment, politics, and governance (AlSayyad, 2025; Barsukova et al., 2018; Roy, 2005; Varriale, 2014; Zdeb, 2022). Within tourism studies specifically, informality has been examined through lenses such as everyday urbanism, street-level entrepreneurship, and socio-spatial inequalities in destinations marked by rapid visitor growth (Çakmak et al., 2018, 2019; Koens et al., 2018).

Informality in Urban Spaces

Urban informality has been approached through contrasting traditions. Early liberal approaches framed informality as entrepreneurial activity enabled by weak regulation, often portraying it as a space of opportunity and flexibility (Chen & Carré, 2020; Hart, 1973; Marx & Kelling, 2019; Roy, 2005). This perspective has been criticised for its normative assumptions and for overlooking how structural inequalities and power asymmetries are reproduced within informal settings. Critical urban scholarship has emphasised the role of the state in actively producing informality through selective regulation and enforcement (Heitzman, 2005; Yiftachel & Yakobi, 2003). From this view, informality is not a governance failure but a governing logic that generates uneven access to rights, recognition and urban space. While this approach foregrounds structural exclusion, it has been critiqued for underestimating the everyday agency of informal actors.
More recent work moves beyond this opposition by conceptualising informality as a spatial and relational process shaped through the interaction between regulation and everyday practice. Drawing on Lefebvre’s (Lefebvre, 1991) theory of the production of space, informality is understood as emerging through the dialectic between conceived and lived space, where informal practices operate as tactical negotiations rather than fixed economic categories (De Certeau, 1984; Roy, 2005). This perspective is particularly relevant in tourist cities, where informal workers operate in highly visible and contested spaces, producing livelihoods while simultaneously shaping urban experience. It is this spatially situated understanding of informality that informs the analysis developed in this article.

2.2. Informality in Tourism Studies

Academic approaches to the informal tourism sector conceptualize informality through a dichotomous lens that contrasts it with formal economic structures, emphasizing its role in shaping the socioeconomic fabric of tourist destinations (Chau, 2025; J. M. Rogerson & Rogerson, 2025; Wahnschafft, 1982). Over time, scholars refined this early definition and began to characterize informality in tourism as a constellation of actors operating outside formal organizational frameworks yet interacting with tourists in direct or indirect ways (Çakmak et al., 2018, 2019). A recurrent point across this body of work is the clear conceptual boundary between informality and illegality. In this sense, informal activities are understood primarily by their lack of regulation rather than by illicit intent, thereby excluding overtly criminal practices from the scope of ITS analyses (Wahnschafft, 1982).
Empirical research identifies several core features of tourism informality, including self-employment, the absence of legally binding contracts, and minimal regulatory oversight (Çakmak et al., 2019). These characteristics manifest in a diverse array of occupational profiles such as street vendors, hawkers, unregistered guides, souvenir producers, and informal transport operators. Actors who collectively sustain a significant proportion of tourism provision across many destinations (Satriawan, 2023). In this sense, their presence often reflects structural labor market conditions and context-specific constraints rather than deliberate attempts to evade formalization.
In recent years, scholarship has increasingly moved beyond binary conceptualizations that frame informality in opposition to formality. Instead, some studies highlight the socio-cultural embeddedness of informal practices and the dynamic role they play within livelihood strategies (Fradejas-García et al., 2022; Korsunova et al., 2022; Nchor, 2023). Informal tourism actors often deploy improvisational and creative strategies to adapt to environmental, regulatory, and socio-economic disruptions (Biggs et al., 2012; Fourie et al., 2025). These adaptive behaviours frequently produce complex relational dynamics, including forms of coopetition, a combination of cooperation and competition, both within the informal sector and between informal and formal tourism stakeholders (Damayanti et al., 2018; Jooss et al., 2023; Riquelme-Medina et al., 2022). Moreover, studies drawing on Bourdieusian concepts have illuminated the structuring effects of social capital, symbolic capital, and habitus in collaborative arrangements among informal actors (Bourdieu, 1986; Çakmak et al., 2018; Charmes, 2017). Emerging analytical frameworks such as “dream capital” have further advanced understanding of how informal tourism entrepreneurs navigate aspirations, constraints, and divergent development pathways (Çakmak et al., 2019; Hernandez & Berardi, 2025; Kim et al., 2019).

3. Method

This study is based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Porto in 2025. Fieldwork combined participant observation, informal conversations and semi-structured interviews. From this experience, ethnographic visual material was collected, consisting of the compilation and systematic analysis of a total of 40 photographs documenting these activities across the city. This visual material enables an in-depth examination of mobile and evolving practices that shape and reconfigure the urban context, and support for participant observation and complemented the interviews (Klein & Bueno Carvajal, 2025; Philipps, 2012). To ensure rigorous analysis, the selection of records was based on three criteria: (1) spatial dimension, linked to the physical location and visibility of the activity; (2) profiles of the workers present; and (3) attitudes and dispositions, evaluating strategies for occupying space and the degree of agency in interactions with tourists.
Observation took place in key tourist areas, including the historic centre, Ribeira, Rua das Flores, Jardim do Morro, and the approaches to the Luís I Bridge, sites characterised by high visitor flows and the presence of street-based economic activities. For this purpose, we engaged in repeated visits at different times of day and across seasons, noting the spatial organisation of activities, interactions between workers and tourists, and the strategies employed to navigate regulatory oversight.
Ethnographic methods are particularly suited to studying informal tourism economies due to their dynamic, mobile, and often hidden character (Seaton, 2002; Streule, 2020). Unlike formal tourism enterprises with fixed locations and documented operations, informal activities require direct observation of spatial practices, temporal rhythms, and embodied interactions that cannot be captured through surveys or secondary data. The urban tourism context further demands methodological approaches capable of attending to the contingent, relational, and situated nature of everyday economic practices (Pink, 2008; Vongvisitsin et al., 2024).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 participants representing a range of occupational profiles within the informal tourism economy. They were carried out in a concentrated period between June, July and August 2025. These included street vendors selling food, drinks, and souvenirs (4), street musicians and visual artists (7), and informal tour guides (2). The sample also included expert informants and local authorities, such as academics specializing in tourism and urban studies (3) and local police officers (2). Participants were selected using purposive and snowball sampling to ensure diversity in terms of occupation, nationality, gender, and length of time in informal work. The inclusion of interviewees in the sample was determined through preliminary conversations during the course of their respective work activities. The interviews, lasting between 30 and 40 min, were audio recorded and field notes were taken. This process was carried out with the consent of the study subjects, who were assured that the information would be treated confidentially.
Interviews explored participants’ work histories, motivations, experiences of interaction with tourists, perceptions of regulation and enforcement, and views on the role their activities play in the city’s tourism offer. Conversations were conducted primarily in Spanish and English, depending on participants’ linguistic preferences. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English where necessary. The interview material was refined, organized, and coded using ATLAS.ti 9.1.3.0, which supported the systematic management and qualitative analysis of the data. The software enabled the identification of recurring themes, relationships, and patterns relevant to the study’s analytical framework.
A coding process was carried out using an inductive approach, based on the results of the interviews, participant observation, and informal conversations. Three groups of codes were generated: (a) Self-perception of contribution to tourism; (b) Factors determining informality; (c) Characteristics and socio-labor conditions of informality. All three were related to the research questions. From these, up to 20 analysis codes were designed, in addition to 11 codes to identify the profile of the interviewees. The coding was validated through sharing and discussion among the researchers who participated directly and extensively in the fieldwork, which allowed for contrasting interpretations and agreeing on the analytical categories.

3.1. Informal Activities Related to Tourism in Porto

Ethnographic fieldwork identified a diverse range of informal economic activities embedded within Porto’s main tourist circuits. These activities were observed in areas characterised by high pedestrian traffic and intense tourist use, including the Cathedral square, Ribeira, Rua das Flores, Jardim do Morro and the access points to the Luís I Bridge. While their legal status varies, from partially licensed practices to entirely unregulated operations, all share two defining features. Their visibility within tourist spaces and their direct orientation toward visitors. The following typology outlines the main forms of informal tourism-related activity documented during fieldwork.

3.2. Street Vending

Street vending includes the sale of beverages, snacks and souvenirs in public spaces frequented by tourists. Vendors typically rely on minimal and highly adaptable items, such as coolers, portable tables or small stalls, and adjust their presence to peak tourist hours and seasonal flows. Some forms of vending take place in open public areas such as parks, viewpoints or pedestrian routes, while others occur at the thresholds between private and public space, including doorsteps or building entrances located along tourist paths.
In several locations, multiple vendors were observed operating simultaneously, offering similar products and contributing to a recognisable informal service environment. These activities are integrated into the range of amenities available to tourists, particularly in areas where visitors gather to rest, enjoy views or attend spontaneous performances. Food and beverage vending was frequently observed alongside other informal activities, such as street music, forming part of a broader leisure atmosphere in tourist hotspots.

3.3. Street Art

Street art encompasses visual practices such as painting, drawing and photography displayed and sold in public space. These activities vary in scale, material form and commercial orientation. Some artists present original works directly, while others offer reproductions or small, easily transportable items, including hand-painted magnets or prints, designed to appeal to short-term visitors.
Street artists were observed occupying walls, temporary displays or improvised exhibition surfaces, often adapting their work to spatial constraints and tourist circulation patterns. While the artistic styles and techniques differ, these practices share a reliance on public visibility and direct interaction with passers-by. In several cases, artists combined street-based selling with off-site production, such as studio work, resulting in hybrid arrangements that blur distinctions between informal and semi-formal activity.

3.4. Street Music

Street music constitutes a third category of informal tourism-related activity. Performances range from solo instrumentalists to vocal acts and typically take place in high-visibility locations such as pedestrian streets, riverfront areas or scenic viewpoints. Musical performances frequently coincide with peak tourist times, particularly in the late afternoon and evening, contributing to the atmosphere of leisure and sociability in these spaces.
A recent regulatory change has affected this category. Since late 2024, the municipality has introduced a licensing system based on a lottery for specific performance spots in designated tourist areas. While licensed musicians occupy authorised locations, unlicensed performers continue to operate in adjacent or non-designated spaces, maintaining a visible presence within the tourist landscape. As a result, both regulated and unregulated musical practices coexist spatially within the city.

3.5. Informal Tour Guiding

Informal tour guiding refers to unaccredited individuals leading walking tours or experiential routes through the historic centre. These activities are typically promoted through social media platforms, word of mouth or direct solicitation in tourist areas. During fieldwork, informal guides were most frequently observed near major transport nodes and heritage landmarks, such as São Bento Station and the Cathedral.
These tours often adopt flexible formats, including “free tours” based on tips or loosely structured walks framed around personal narratives or thematic experiences. Recent municipal efforts to regulate tour guiding through certification requirements have led some informal guides to modify how their activities are presented, shifting toward less explicitly touristic descriptions or experience-based formats.

4. Results

4.1. Conditions Shaping Engagement in Informal Tourism Work

Analysis of the interviews and ethnographic observations identifies three interrelated themes shaping engagement in informal tourism-related work in Porto: (1) labour market insufficiency and income fragmentation; (2) regulatory ambiguity and partial compliance; and (3) differentiated trajectories and positions within informal tourism work. These themes emerged consistently across occupational profiles, although their relative salience varied by activity type and personal background.

4.1.1. Labour Market Insufficiency and Income Fragmentation

Engagement in informal tourism-related work in Porto is shaped by a combination of structural labour market conditions, regulatory constraints and socio-cultural factors that channel workers into unregulated economic niches. The city’s post-industrial transformation and its increasing dependence on tourism have generated employment opportunities largely characterised by precarity, low wages and limited stability. For many cases, informal tourism work does not constitute a primary occupation but rather a complementary or adaptive strategy within broader livelihood arrangements.
In this sense, a young Brazilian man combines his main occupation as a caregiver for an autistic child with informal food vending in the city’s main tourist areas. In other situations, street vending serves as a supplementary source of income, complementing revenues derived from pensions or other fixed benefits. This would be the case of a woman (age 63) who receives a pension of 490 euros and supplements it through her home-based beverage vending.
These patterns indicate that informality is closely linked to income insufficiency and labour market fragmentation rather than to voluntary disengagement from formal employment.

4.1.2. Regulatory Ambiguity and Partial Compliance

Engagement in informal tourism work in Porto is also shaped by persistent regulatory ambiguity. Many participants describe operating under conditions of partial compliance, where certain aspects of their activity may be licensed while others—most notably the occupation of public space—remain unauthorised. This places workers in a position of continuous vulnerability to municipal enforcement.
This regulatory vacuum creates a context in which informal activity is simultaneously tolerated, monitored and sanctioned, depending on shifting enforcement priorities. The interviews reveal a consistent pattern of informality across the different activities examined, evidenced through the absence of municipal licences, reliance on tacit rules, and the use of evasive strategies to navigate police oversight.
Street artists, in particular, articulate that their work unfolds in a regulatory vacuum. As a French painter explains, “we do not have any permit from the municipality”, adding that the group of artists “self-regulate and respect unwritten rules” to manage space and avoid conflict. Brazilian street vendors similarly acknowledge this ambiguity, often possessing a licence for the activity itself but not for the occupation of public space. As one vendor notes: “What they don’t allow us is to sell in this place because we don’t have a licence for it”.
These narratives point to a fragmented regulatory regime in which activities may be formally acknowledged while their spatial enactment remains unauthorised, producing a condition of permanent negotiability rather than clear illegality.

4.1.3. Differentiated Trajectories and Positions Within Informal Tourism Work

Within this broader condition of regulatory ambiguity, participants occupy differentiated positions shaped by cultural background and by selective forms of regulation. Cultural background influences how informality is experienced and normalised. Some street vendors describe their activity as a legitimate and routine economic practice, drawing on prior experiences in contexts where informal work is socially embedded.
An artist describes his own informal street-based art studio, operating through subcontracting arrangements. A colleague assists him in the afternoons, while he occupies the same space in the mornings, surrounded by his paintings displayed on the walls. This arrangement generates hybrid forms of semi-formal employment that reproduce informality even when organisational structures appear relatively stable.
A more recent regulatory development illustrates how differentiated positions also emerge through selective formalisation mechanisms. In late 2024, Porto’s municipal government introduced a licensing lottery system for street musicians performing in designated tourist areas. Licensed musicians report mixed experiences. One performer states:
“I applied for the lottery. Got a Tuesday–Thursday slot on Rua das Flores 11 a.m., 7 p.m. I pay €2/day administrative fee. But now there’s ‘official’ designation, police know me, tourists see me as legitimate. It’s stability, but also constraint. I can’t deviate from slot, time, location.”
Unlicensed musicians continue performing in unregulated areas such as side streets and plazas outside lottery zones. Their rationale varies. As one musician explains: “I tried the lottery but was rejected. Now I play where there’s tourist flow but no official spots. Higher risk, police can move me, but also higher autonomy. I play what I want, where demand is highest.”
These accounts describe how access to partial formal recognition produces differentiated experiences of stability, autonomy and exposure to enforcement within informal tourism work.

4.2. (Auto)perceived Working Conditions and Participation in Tourism Through Their Activities

This subsection reports participants’ own accounts of their working conditions and their perceived role within Porto’s economy within tourism activities.

4.2.1. Self-Recognition, Legitimacy and Moral Distinctions in Tourism Participation

Against a backdrop of legal ambiguity and constrained labour opportunities, interviewees articulate distinct interpretations of their working conditions and their position within Porto’s tourism economy. The narratives emerging from the interviews reveal that informal tourism workers consistently express a strong sense of legitimacy and self-recognition as essential contributors to the city’s tourism experience.
Many participants draw explicit boundaries between their own practices and other forms of street commerce, emphasising identities rooted in artistry, professionalism and urban cultural contribution. Street artists, in particular, frame their work as integral to Porto’s urban landscape, describing themselves not merely as vendors but as creators who enrich the city’s aesthetic and experiential dimensions.
This discourse of legitimacy frequently intersects with an entrepreneurial ethos, especially among some migrant vendors, who perceive their activity as a form of honest and dignified labour. Their narratives contrast their work with illicit street economies, thereby reinforcing a moral distinction that grants symbolic distance from criminalised forms of informality and operates as a form of symbolic boundary work through which tolerance and access are negotiated in highly touristified public space.
These moral distinctions are articulated through concrete comparisons between activities. One street artist, for instance, rejects the idea that his labour is economically driven, stating that what motivates him is “a more human relationship,” and asserting that street art is “part of the city’s landscape.” Similarly, a Portuguese artist producing hand-painted magnets underscores her artistic identity over the commercial dimension of her activity: “I like what I do,” she explains, insisting that “selling art has nothing to do with selling drinks on the street.”
Comparable distinctions also emerge among food vendors, who frequently perceive their activity as more legitimate than alcohol sales. These hierarchies are reinforced by differentiated experiences of police intervention, with food vending described as attracting fewer reprimands than the sale of alcoholic beverages. Such distinctions underpin workers’ claims that their practices constitute “honest work,” clearly separated from both alcohol vending and illicit street economies.

4.2.2. Everyday Working Conditions. Ambivalence, Surveillance and Adaptation

Alongside these narratives of legitimacy, participants describe their everyday working conditions in more ambivalent terms. One vendor admits: “There are days when my social battery runs low,” signalling emotional fatigue associated with sustained tourist-facing interaction. This fatigue is further intensified by continuous exposure to police surveillance, which structures daily working routines.
Participants describe adopting tactical strategies to cope with this environment, such as concealing goods, modifying their appearance or relying on peer warning systems to avoid fines or confiscation. These practices form part of the ordinary management of work in public space and are described as routine rather than exceptional.
Beyond economic motivations, several participants emphasise non-material drivers, presenting their work as embedded in human relations, creativity and emotional fulfilment. This self-perception coexists with an awareness that, within an increasingly touristified and commercialised environment, artistic production is often reduced to a souvenir commodity. Some workers note that the tourist market devalues their creations, converting them into consumable objects stripped of the artistic recognition they aspire to.
Despite this perceived devaluation, artists do not generally describe themselves as competing directly with formal tourism businesses. Instead, they report adopting self-regulatory spatial practices, such as occupying residual or abandoned spaces, peripheral locations, or aligning their presence with the temporal rhythms of nearby commercial closures. These accounts describe how participants adapt their everyday practices to sustain their activity within highly touristified and monitored urban spaces.

4.3. Agency and Strategies in Informal Tourism

4.3.1. Everyday Organization, Temporal Discipline and Autonomy

Building on these perceptions of legitimacy and belonging, participants describe a wide range of everyday practices through which they organise time, space and social relations in informal tourism work. Despite structural vulnerabilities, informal tourism workers demonstrate considerable agency, expressed through self-organisation, adaptive strategies and flexible time management, often drawing on everyday tactics and existing cultural or social resources to sustain visibility in central tourist areas (Bourdieu, 1986; De Certeau, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; De Certeau, 1984). Participants describe informal systems of coordination that regulate spatial distribution, scheduling and conflict avoidance, often grounded in tacit norms and mutual recognition. As a street painter explains, “we self-organise; no one tells us where to be or how to do it,” highlighting his capacity to structure his own schedule. “I plan my working week so I can go climbing every Tuesday.”
However, this flexibility does not imply the absence of routine. Most participants describe highly regular weekly schedules, typically working on a daily basis with only one or two rest days. This self-imposed organisational discipline underscores the centrality of informal tourism work as a necessary component of monthly income, even in the absence of direct managerial supervision. Weather conditions further modulate working time, with vendors extending their working hours on days with favourable temperatures, in some cases reaching ten-hour shifts. Such autonomy also extends to spatial negotiation, since artists deliberately choose locations that “do not obstruct formal commercial activity.”

4.3.2. Collective Agency, Coopetition and Negotiated Order

Among mobile street vendors, these networks function as protective communities that share information about police presence, coordinate selling strategies and fix market prices. Such practices illustrate that informality does not equate to disorder. Rather, it produces its own institutional logic aimed at sustaining livelihoods and reducing uncertainty. A street vendor explains how they warn one another when the police are approaching. In such situations, she puts away the most valuable items, so that the police confiscate only those goods that generate less profit.
At the same time, these relations are marked by ambivalence. While participants emphasise mutual support and collective alert systems, they also note that increasing numbers of vendors intensify competition, generating tensions and occasional conflict. As one vendor observes, cooperation and rivalry coexist, reflecting a fragile balance between collective protection and individual economic survival. Workers also mobilise informal tourism work instrumentally, using it to finance formal education, improve language skills or bridge periods of unemployment, framing it as a transitional or complementary strategy within broader life trajectories.
Vendors similarly mobilise their skills and linguistic resources to maximise visibility among tourists. One Brazilian vendor explains that he strategically uses his command of Spanish “to sell my product to Spanish-speaking tourists,” and sets his own schedule, working “every day except Tuesdays and Thursdays.” However, agency is not only individual but collective. Vendors often engage in cooperative practices to stabilise competition, suggesting forms of coopetition that sustain fragile market positions despite regulatory uncertainty. “We usually reach agreements; we fix the same prices and organise ourselves,” the vendor reports. Yet these same dynamics carry limits; increased competition is perceived as a threat: “They don’t like when more people come; they see it as competition and conflicts happen.”
Street artists employed informally by artistic studios also describe flexible conditions. One Portuguese artist notes that even when working for a company, she “feels free to decide how many hours she works,” and exercises selectivity in her interactions with tourists, saying she ignores customers who attempt to undervalue her work. Local authorities in Gaia implicitly reinforce this autonomy through selective non-enforcement. As one officer explained, intervening at that moment would be unfeasible: “We would have to fine eight or nine of them, and right now we can’t do that.”
Unlicensed musicians continue performing in unregulated areas. Some emphasize seasonal flexibility: “During high season (May–September), I can play daily and make €40–60/day tips. October–April, tourist flow is too low to sustain it. So I play informal work other months. The lottery system doesn’t recognize seasonality: “[…] if I get a spot, I’d have to use it year-round, even when there’s no profit”. The introduction of formalization (licensing lottery) illuminates how state regulation reshapes informal spatial ordering. Previously, musicians self-organized through tacit norms (avoiding overcrowding, respecting established performers’ territories, managing conflict through informal negotiation). Formalization attempts to systematize this through official allocation, creating winners/licensed (increased security but decreased flexibility) and losers/unlicensed (continued precarity but preserved autonomy).

4.3.3. Structural Constraints, Precarity and Embodied Limits of Agency

However, these expressions of agency are constrained by persistent precariousness and demanding physical and emotional working conditions. Income variability is a common concern, with earnings often tied to donation-based remuneration or narrow profit margins that require continuous sales volume. Seasonal fluctuations and adverse weather conditions directly affect income, while daily exposure to noise, uncomfortable postures or long periods standing contribute to health risks. Competition over limited tourist traffic intensifies these pressures, occasionally generating interpersonal conflict and, in some cases, physical aggression. Emotional strain is also prevalent: workers report fatigue, anxiety and a sense of social exhaustion associated with constant interpersonal engagement in public space.
A final layer of complexity emerges from hybrid forms of formalisation, such as the obligation to issue digital receipts (“recibos verdes”) when using electronic payment methods, positioning workers in a paradoxical space where they are simultaneously informal in their practice yet tax-liable in their transactions. While income may be partially formalised, the activity itself remains spatially unauthorised, as workers lack a legally recognised place from which to operate. These overlapping pressures (precarity, competition, physical risk and partial formalization) shape the conditions under which labour agency is enacted, revealing an everyday struggle to balance autonomy with vulnerability in a touristified urban economy.

5. Discussion

5.1. Informality as a Structural Scaffolding in the Making of the Tourist City in Porto

The findings show that informal tourism work in Porto contributes to what might be described as a form of urban tourism scaffolding. Rather than solely coexisting with formal tourism economies, these practices actively shape the sensory, affective and relational dimensions of the tourist experience. Their activities contribute to the rhythmic organisation of public space, filling temporal and spatial gaps left by formal services, and producing relational environments in which encounters, performances and micro-transactions continuously unfold. From this perspective, informal tourism activities operate as a relational support structure that is improvised, fragile and uneven, but nonetheless temporarily indispensable to the ways in which Porto is experienced and reproduced as a tourist destination.
This informal scaffolding refers to a relational, performative and everyday arrangement through which tourism is made operational in urban space. It is constituted through repeated practices, spatial routines and embodied interactions that sustain tourist circulation, organise temporal rhythms and enable encounters across the city. This structure is distributed rather than centralised, contingent rather than permanent, and largely unrecognised by formal planning frameworks, yet it remains fundamental to the continuous production of the tourist experience. The bottom-up character of its organization expresses that it emerges from self-organised practices that respond pragmatically to regulatory gaps, tourist demand and spatial opportunity. Informality, in this sense, describes a mode of coordination and spatial production rather than a residual condition, revealing how the tourist city is actively assembled through overlapping formal and informal logics. This conceptualisation extends existing frameworks by foregrounding temporality and processual character where infrastructure studies emphasise material permanence (Bryson et al., 2023), by specifying support functions where assemblage theory describes co-production (DeLanda, 2006), and by examining mutual constitution where binary approaches distinguish authorised from unauthorised tourism (Koens et al., 2018). Table 1 clarifies these analytical distinctions:
This informal scaffolding-oriented reading also complicates binary distinctions between “authorised” and “unauthorised” tourism (Canclini, 2019; Hammond, 2018; Robertson, 2012; Smith, 2006). While institutional actors promote curated narratives of heritage and urban culture, informal workers generate alternative routes, atmospheres and forms of conviviality that reframe how visitors inhabit the city. Rather than occupying a separate sphere, informal practices intersect formal circuits through spatial proximity, shared audiences and overlapping temporalities. The ethnographic cases show that tourists often perceive informal workers as “part of the scene” or as embodiments of local authenticity, even when their legal status is ambiguous. Informality thus co-produces the affective economy of the destination, embedding tourism within everyday social relations, neighbourhood histories and transnational trajectories that rarely appear in official marketing.
The structural support role of informal tourism work is simultaneously material, relational and regulatory. Materially, informal workers contribute artefacts, performances and micro-spaces that punctuate key tourist corridors and shape how visitors move, linger and interact with the urban landscape. The preparation and sale of locally recognised food products often presented in artisanal forms and occasionally accompanied by music, reinforces sensory associations with local gastronomy and place-based authenticity. Relationally, informal workers act as intermediaries between tourists and the city, offering directions, stories and situated knowledge that extend beyond the scope of formal tourist services. In terms of regulations, the tacit norms and informal agreements described by participants, regarding pitch locations, rotational use of space or acceptable levels of noise and visibility, constitute a form of shadow governance that organises everyday interactions in crowded tourist spaces.

5.2. Informal Tourism Scaffolding as Contingent, Situated and Processual

Understanding informal tourism activities as a form of scaffolding also requires conceiving them as contingent, situated and dynamic, rather than as a stable or fully consolidated system. This bottom-up structure emerges through everyday practices that respond flexibly to changing tourist flows, regulatory conditions and urban transformations. As such, it should be understood not as a finished configuration, but as an infrastructure in the making, continuously adjusted through practice, negotiation and improvisation (Çakmak et al., 2018; Wood, 2014). This contingency is further reinforced by the disjunction between partial fiscal formalisation and the absence of legally recognised spaces of operation, rendering informal tourism work spatially unstable, mobile and repeatedly provisional.
This processual character becomes particularly visible when read in relation to the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model originally proposed by Butler (2024) and subsequently refined in more dynamic and non-linear terms (Albaladejo et al., 2020; Butler, 2024; Singh, 2021). Porto’s rapid tourism expansion over the last decade suggests that the city currently occupies an early to intermediate position between the stages of involvement and development, characterised by accelerating demand, increasing international visibility and still-evolving regulatory frameworks. In such phases, tourism provision is often only partially institutionalised, leaving room for local actors to supply services, atmospheres and experiences that precede or exceed formal planning (Gore et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2016; Marsiglio & Tolotti, 2024; Petrevska & Collins-Kreiner, 2017).
From this perspective, informal practices do not simply fill gaps left by formal tourism development, but actively shape the trajectory of the destination itself. As tourism intensifies and governance frameworks evolve, this scaffolding is likely to transform: some activities may formalise, others may be displaced or reconfigured, and new forms of informality may emerge in response to saturation, regulation or market shifts. This aligns with more recent interpretations of the TALC that emphasise multiple cycles, non-linear trajectories and the coexistence of different development logics within the same destination (Baum, 1998; Hell & Petrić, 2021; Rodrigo et al., 2023).

5.3. Informal Tourism Workers as Embedded Entrepreneurs

Conceiving informal tourism activities as contingent and processual foregrounds how informal actors participate actively in the ongoing production of the tourist city. A key finding is that interviewees do not describe themselves as external to this structure but as embedded within it, displaying a reflexive awareness of their contribution to Porto’s aesthetic and experiential economy. This self-perception resonates with research on informal tourism entrepreneurs that highlights how actors mobilise economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital to position themselves within the tourism field, rather than merely operating at its margins (Çakmak et al., 2018, 2019). Artists, in particular, emphasise that their presence helps “differentiate Porto from other tourist destinations,” framing street art as a symbolic asset that contributes to place branding and the affective distinctiveness of the city (Crespi-Vallbona & Mascarilla-Miró, 2021).
For vendors, the stall itself often operates as both a commercial and symbolic space. Much like formal retail environments, these micro-spaces structure interaction without requiring proactive selling, as tourists approach, observe and initiate engagement on their own terms. Research on cultural and tourism-oriented commercial spaces suggests that spatial design, material aesthetics and embodied presence play a key role in shaping visitors’ emotions, perceptions of authenticity and participatory engagement (Liu et al., 2016). In this sense, informal selling practices contribute to the staging of the tourist experience through everyday scenographies that blur the boundaries between commerce, performance and placemaking.
These practices also point to the existence of a shared entrepreneurial ecosystem operating within informality. Rather than isolated individualism, informal tourism work unfolds through relational arrangements characterised by both cooperation and competition. Studies on informal tourism economies describe such dynamics as forms of coopetition, where actors coordinate prices, share information and negotiate spatial arrangements while simultaneously competing for customers and visibility (C. M. Rogerson, 2018; Damayanti et al., 2018; J. M. Rogerson & Rogerson, 2025). This coexistence of collective regulation and individual strategy underscores how informal entrepreneurship functions as a situated economic system with its own rules, norms and hierarchies.
Ethnographic encounters further illustrate how informal workers may themselves become part of the consumable tourist experience. Interactions such as those involving elderly vendors selling beverages from their homes near major tourist routes demonstrate how workers are incorporated into tourists’ affective narratives of authenticity. Requests for photographs and expressions of exaggerated affection reveal dynamics in which intimacy, spectacle and commerce intertwine, often through paternalistic or exoticising gestures. As previous studies on traditional markets and street vending suggest, authenticity is not produced solely through objects or performances, but through embodied social relations that position vendors as emblematic figures within the tourist imaginary and as active agents of placemaking (Saad, 2022; Truong, 2018).

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to debates on urban tourism and informality by examining how everyday informal practices participate in the ongoing production of the tourist city. Focusing on Porto, the analysis shows that informal tourism work is not adequately understood as marginal, residual or merely compensatory. Instead, it operates as a set of situated practices that sustain, enable and give substance to the everyday functioning of tourism, particularly in contexts characterised by rapid growth and partial institutionalisation.
By foregrounding workers’ perceptions, practices and strategies, the article demonstrates that informal tourism activities are shaped by intersecting legal, economic and organisational constraints, while simultaneously expressing significant forms of agency. Informal workers actively organise time, space and interaction through adaptive routines, relational networks and tactical negotiations that allow tourism to operate beyond the limits of formal planning and regulation. These findings complicate binary distinctions between formal and informal tourism, showing how both spheres are deeply entangled in practice.
Conceptually, the article advances the notion of urban tourism scaffolding to capture the provisional, contingent and processual character of these arrangements. Unlike consolidated infrastructure, scaffolding refers to forms of support that are not designed as systems, yet produce stabilising effects by filling gaps, organising encounters and animating public space. This perspective highlights how informal practices sustain tourism precisely through their flexibility, responsiveness and embeddedness in everyday urban life, without assuming permanence or full recognition.
Situating this argument within Porto’s recent tourism trajectory further underlines the temporal dimension of informal tourism work. In destinations that are still consolidating, informal actors often play a central role in shaping atmospheres, rhythms and visitor experiences, while remaining exposed to selective regulation and displacement. Informality thus emerges as both enabling and precarious, contributing to the vitality of the tourist city while being structurally vulnerable within it.
From a policy perspective, a scaffolding-oriented perspective invites more adaptive and context-sensitive forms of governance. Rather than imposing uniform regulatory frameworks, urban tourism policies could acknowledge informal actors as situated contributors to the tourism ecosystem, engaging with their self-organised norms, temporal rhythms and spatial practices. This may include flexible zoning arrangements, negotiated use of public space, or participatory mechanisms that allow informal workers to be consulted in the design of regulatory interventions. Such approaches would not eliminate informality, but could reduce precarity and conflict while preserving the relational and experiential value that informal practices bring to the tourist city.
Finally, the findings presented in this article should be read in light of the study’s analytical scope. As an in-depth qualitative case study focused on Porto, the aim is not statistical generalisation but the development of analytically transferable insights into informal tourism practices within a specific urban and regulatory context. The empirical material reflects a particular phase in the city’s tourism trajectory, characterised by rapid expansion and evolving governance frameworks. In this sense, the forms of urban tourism scaffolding documented here capture processes in the making rather than stable or fully consolidated configurations. While the ethnographic approach allows for rich, situated analysis, access to certain practices and actors, remains necessarily partial. Future research could build on this work through longitudinal or comparative designs that further explore how informal tourism scaffolding evolves across different destinations and regulatory contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; methodology, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; software, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; validation, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; formal analysis, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; investigation, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; resources, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; data curation, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; writing—review and editing, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; visualization, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; supervision, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; project administration, G.L.-M. and J.O.F.; funding acquisition, G.L.-M. and J.O.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by INSEAI Project. International Network for Knowledge and Comparative Socioeconomic Analysis of Informality and the Policies to be Implemented for their Formalization in the European Union and Latin America. Horizon Europe Project 101182756—INSEAI 2023 REA.A Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions & Support to Experts A.3 MSCA Staff Exchanges.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to Law 14/2007 on Biomedical Research, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Spanish Organic Law on Data Protection and Digital Rights (LOPDGDD).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Albaladejo, I. P., González-Martínez, M. I., & Martínez-García, M. P. (2020). A double life cycle in tourism arrivals to Spain: Unit root tests with gradual change analysis. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 18, 100497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. AlSayyad, N. (2025). Urban informality as a “new” way of life. In A. Roy, & N. AlSayyad (Eds.), Urban informality: Transnational perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia (pp. 7–30). Lexington Books. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Barbosa, I., Lopes, J. T., & Ferro, L. (2023). Artists against tourism gentrification: Analyzing creative practices of resistance in Porto. Debats, 137(1), 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Barsukova, S., Denisova-Schmidt, E., & Ledeneva, A. V. (2018). Informality or corruption: A critique of quantitative corruption research. Osteuropa, 68(8–9), 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baum, T. (1998). Taking the exit route: Extending the tourism area life cycle model. Current Issues in Tourism, 1(2), 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourg, C. J. (1990). The informal economy: Studies in advanced and less developed countries. Edited by Alejandro Portes, Manuel Castells, and Lauren A. Benton. Johns Hopkins University Press. 327 pp. Cloth, $39.50; paper, $16.95. Social Forces, 68(3), 969–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Briassoulis, H. (2017). Tourism destinations as multiplicities: The view from Assemblage Thinking. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(3), 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Bryson, J. R., Billing, C., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2023). Urban infrastructure patching: Citizen-led solutions to infrastructure ruptures. Urban Studies, 60(10), 1932–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Butler, R. (2024). Tourism destination development: The tourism area life cycle model. Tourism Geographies, 27(3–4), 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Canclini, N. G. (2019). A culture of informality. Urban Studies, 56(3), 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Carvalho, L., Chamusca, P., Fernandes, J., & Pinto, J. (2019). Gentrification in Porto: Floating city users and internationally-driven urban change. Urban Geography, 40(4), 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Castells, M., & Portes, A. (1989). World underneath: The origins, dynamics, and effects of the informal economy. In The informal economy: Studies in advanced and less developed countries. Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Centeno, M. A., & Portes, A. (2006). The informal economy in the shadow of the state. In Out of the shadows: Political action and the informal economy in Latin America (Vol. 5, Issue 4). Penn State University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Charmes, J. (2017). Informal economy, social protection and transition to the formal economy: The terms of a debate. Revue de Droit Comparé Du Travail et de La Sécurité Sociale, 4, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Chau, P. U. (2025). Rethinking informal tourism: Sustainable transitions under climate change in the Mekong delta. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Chen, M., & Carré, F. (2020). The informal economy revisited: Examining the past, envisioning the future. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Cheng, J., Xu, Y., Jian, I. Y., Ren, M., & Park, S. (2025). Spatial concentration of intra-urban tourist activities and inter-group differences between Asian, European and North American travelers in Korean cities. Tourism Management, 107, 105064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Crespi-Vallbona, M., & Mascarilla-Miró, O. (2021). Street art as a sustainable tool in mature tourist destinations: A case study of Barcelona. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27(4), 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Çakmak, E., Lie, R., & McCabe, S. (2018). Reframing informal tourism entrepreneurial practices: Capital and field relations structuring the informal tourism economy of Chiang Mai. Annals of Tourism Research, 72, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Çakmak, E., Lie, R., & Selwyn, T. (2019). Informal tourism entrepreneurs’ capital usage and conversion. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(18), 2250–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Damayanti, M., Scott, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2018). Space for the informal tourism economy. The Service Industries Journal, 38(11–12), 772–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life dispositvo de entrada. In Practice (Vol. 4, Number 126/127). University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Fernandes, J., Chamusca, P., Pinto, J., Tenreiro, J., & Figueiredo, P. (2023). Urban rehabilitation and tourism: Lessons from Porto (2010–2020). Sustainability, 15(8), 6581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Floridi, A., Demena, B. A., & Wagner, N. (2020). Shedding light on the shadows of informality: A meta-analysis of formalization interventions targeted at informal firms. Labour Economics, 67, 101925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Fourie, A., Saayman, A., & Blaauw, D. (2025). Informal entrepreneurship in the tourism sector: How entrepreneurs’ motives and capital contribute to business success. Tourism Economics. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Fradejas-García, I., Molina, J., & Lubbers, M. (2022). (Im)Mobilities and Informality as livelihood strategies in trans-national social fields. In Informality, labour mobility and precariousness. Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Gallien, M., & van den Boogaard, V. (2023a). Formalization and its discontents: Conceptual fallacies and ways forward. Development and Change, 54(3), 490–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Gallien, M., & van den Boogaard, V. (2023b). Rethinking formalisation: A conceptual critique and research agenda. Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Gore, S., Borde, N., Hegde Desai, P., & George, B. (2021). Empirically mapping the evolutionary phases of tourism area life cycle (TALC). Tourism, 69(3), 346–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Gómez-Bruna, D., Martín-Duque, C., & Fernández-Muñoz, J. J. (2025). Determinants of residents’ support for urban tourism in times of uncertainty: Exploring the case of the city of Madrid. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 25(3), 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Grah, B., Dimovski, V., & Peterlin, J. (2020). Managing sustainable urban tourism development: The case of Ljubljana. Sustainability, 12(3), 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Gusman, I., Chamusca, P., Fernandes, J., & Pinto, J. (2019). Culture and tourism in Porto City centre: Conflicts and (Im)Possible solutions. Sustainability, 11(20), 5701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Hammond, C. I. (2018). The keystone of the neighbourhood: Gender, collective action, and working-class heritage strategy in Pointe-Saint-Charles, Montreal. Journal of Canadian Studies, 52(1), 108–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Hart, K. (1973). Informal income opportunities and urban employment in ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11(1), 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Heitzman, J. (2005). Urban informality: Transnational perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 25(3), 694–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Hell, M., & Petrić, L. (2021). System dynamics approach to TALC modeling. Sustainability, 13(9), 4803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Hernandez, T., & Berardi, M. K. (2025). Measuring the community dream: A social capital lens of capacity building initiatives. Local Development and Society, 6(2), 283–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. ILO. (2018). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture. ILO. [Google Scholar]
  42. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. (2024). Estatisticas do turismo. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. [Google Scholar]
  43. Isabel Mota, A., Manuel Oliveira Martins, H., José Pinheiro, A., & Cândido Cordeiro Gonçalves, E. (2025). Green spaces in Porto: Urban renewal and tourism potential (Portugal). PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 23(2), 589–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Jooss, S., Lenz, J., & Burbach, R. (2023). Beyond competing for talent: An integrative framework for coopetition in talent management in SMEs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(8), 2691–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Kim, S., Jung, W.-Y., Hayoung, C., Kim, J., & Whan, K. D. (2019). The quality of family relationships and its effect on Koreans’ Dream-capital by generation. Family and Culture, 31(2), 1–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Klein, R., & Bueno Carvajal, J. M. (2025). Street art as a paradox: Urban regeneration and tourist attraction in Porto. Cultural Trends, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Koens, K., Postma, A., & Papp, B. (2018). Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability, 10(12), 4384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Korsunova, A., Halme, M., Kourula, A., Levänen, J., & Lima-Toivanen, M. (2022). Necessity-driven circular economy in low-income contexts: How informal sector practices retain value for circularity. Global Environmental Change, 76, 102573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. In Revue (D. Nocholson-Smith, Trans.; Vol. 2). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lindell, I. (2010). Africa’s informal workers: Collective agency, alliances and transnational organizing in Urban Africa. Continnuum-3PL. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, W., Vogt, C. A., Lupi, F., He, G., Ouyang, Z., & Liu, J. (2016). Evolution of tourism in a flagship protected area of China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Mansilla, J. A., & Milano, C. (2022). Becoming centre: Tourism placemaking and space production in two neighborhoods in Barcelona. Tourism Geographies, 24(4–5), 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Marschall, S. (2015). ‘Travelling down memory lane’: Personal memory as a generator of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Marsiglio, S., & Tolotti, M. (2024). The tourism area life cycle hypothesis: A micro-foundation. Tourism Economics, 30(2), 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Marx, C., & Kelling, E. (2019). Knowing urban informalities. Urban Studies, 56(3), 494–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Massey, D. (1995). Thinking radical democracy spatially. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13(3), 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Meagher, K. (2010). Identity economics: Social networks & the informal economy in Nigeria. In Identity economics: Social networks and the informal economy in Nigeria. Boydell & Brewer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Meagher, K. (2013). Unlocking the informal economy: A literature review on linkages between formal and informal economies in developing countries. Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing. [Google Scholar]
  59. Meagher, K. (2018). Cannibalizing the informal economy: Frugal innovation and economic inclusion in Africa. European Journal of Development Research, 30(1), 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Nchor, J. (2023). Livelihood Strategies and Their Determinants among Informal Households in Calabar, Nigeria. Sustainability, 15(4), 2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Novoa, M. (2023). Gendered nostalgia: Grassroots heritage tourism and (de)industrialization in Lota, Chile. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 18(3), 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Petrevska, B., & Collins-Kreiner, N. (2017). A double life cycle: Determining tourism development in Macedonia. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(4), 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Philipps, A. (2012). Visual protest material as empirical data. Visual Communication, 11(1), 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Pinho, M., & Marques, J. (2021). Business tourism in Porto: An empirical investigation of its potentialities and development challenges. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 7(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Pink, S. (2008). An urban tour. Ethnography, 9(2), 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Portes, A. (2003). The informal economy and its paradoxes. Journal of Economic Sociology, 4(5), 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Riquelme-Medina, M., Stevenson, M., Barrales-Molina, V., & Llorens-Montes, F. J. (2022). Coopetition in business ecosystems: The key role of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility. Journal of Business Research, 146, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Robertson, I. J. M. (2012). Heritage from below. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Rodrigo, M., Ajala, I., & Irhanida, A. K. (2023). Qualitative analysis of a tourism area life cycle model for interacting tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 4(1), 100093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Rogerson, C. M. (2018). Informal sector city tourism: Cross-border shoppers in Johannesburg. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 22(1), 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Rogerson, C. M. (2023). Historical urban tourism: The evolution of tourism in Colonial Lourenço Marques, Mozambique c.1920–1975. Journal of Tourism and Development, 42, 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rogerson, J. M., & Rogerson, C. M. (2025). Women informal business tourists in urban Southern Africa. Tourism, 73(1), 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Saad, S. (2022). Women and places; Female street vendors, Territorial identity and placemaking. Journal of Art and Design, 2(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Satriawan, D. (2023). Overview of informal sector workers viewed from education variables. The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning, 4(3), 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Seaton, A. V. (2002). Observing conducted tours: The ethnographic context in tourist research. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Singh, S. (2021). Time, tourism area ‘life-cycle,’ evolution and heritage. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 16(2), 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sousa, S., & Rodríguez-Barcón, A. (2021). Narratives around tourism gentrification and urban shrinkage: A qualitative approach to the case of Porto. Finisterra, 56(116), 115–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stevic, I., Rodrigues, V., Breda, Z., Veríssimo, M., da Silva, A. M. F., & da Costa, C. M. M. (2024). Residents’ perceptions of negative tourism impacts and mitigation strategies: The case of Porto. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 10(4), 1488–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Streule, M. (2020). Doing mobile ethnography: Grounded, situated and comparative. Urban Studies, 57(2), 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Truong, V. D. (2018). Tourism, poverty alleviation, and the informal economy: The street vendors of Hanoi, Vietnam. Tourism Recreation Research, 43(1), 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Varriale, A. (2014). Informal practices, formal regulations—Understanding informality as spatial dialectics. Advanced Engineering Forum, 11, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Vongvisitsin, T. B., Huang, W.-J., & King, B. (2024). Urban community-based tourism development: A networked social capital model. Annals of Tourism Research, 106, 103759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Wahnschafft, R. (1982). Formal and informal tourism sectors. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3), 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Wang, J., Wang, G., Sun, J., Lei, T., Wang, X., & Morrison, A. M. (2023). Is it a persistent ailment for the city? Urban resident perceptions and attitudes toward informal employment in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(17), 2745–2761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Wood, A. (2014). Learning through policy tourism: Circulating bus rapid transit from South America to South Africa. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(11), 2654–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Yiftachel, O., & Yakobi, H. (2003). Control, resistance, and informality: Urban ethnocracy in beer-sheva, Israel. In Urban informality (pp. 209–240). The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Zdeb, A. (2022). Accommodating liberal consociations: The district Brčko case and the role of informal institutions in the consociational model. Ethnopolitics, 21(5), 517–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Scaffolding as an analytical concept.
Table 1. Scaffolding as an analytical concept.
ConceptKey ContributionWhat Scaffolding Adds
Infrastructure (Bryson et al., 2023)Material systems and citizen-led solutionsTemporality and contingency during tourism expansion phases
Assemblage (DeLanda, 2006)Heterogeneous actors co-producing tourism economiesSpecific support function and asymmetric structural dependence
Tourism from below (Koens et al., 2018)Bottom-up practices challenging institutional narrativesMutual constitution beyond formal/informal binaries
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López-Martínez, G.; Ortega Fernández, J. Scaffolding the Tourist City. Informal Practices and the Making of Tourism in Porto. Tour. Hosp. 2026, 7, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7020038

AMA Style

López-Martínez G, Ortega Fernández J. Scaffolding the Tourist City. Informal Practices and the Making of Tourism in Porto. Tourism and Hospitality. 2026; 7(2):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7020038

Chicago/Turabian Style

López-Martínez, Gabriel, and Javier Ortega Fernández. 2026. "Scaffolding the Tourist City. Informal Practices and the Making of Tourism in Porto" Tourism and Hospitality 7, no. 2: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7020038

APA Style

López-Martínez, G., & Ortega Fernández, J. (2026). Scaffolding the Tourist City. Informal Practices and the Making of Tourism in Porto. Tourism and Hospitality, 7(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp7020038

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop