Touristification and gentrification in ‘de Pijp’ : the case of the Albert Cuyp street in Amsterdam

(1)

Touristification and gentrification in ‘de Pijp’;

the case of the Albert Cuyp street in Amsterdam

Rard Claessen

12102660

Master’s Thesis Human Geography (Urban track)

University of Amsterdam – Graduate School of Social Sciences

Supervisor: Dr. Lia Karsten

Second reader: Dr. Dennis Arnold

12 August 2019

(2)

Acknowledgements

I would like to start off by thanking all my respondents, who were willing enough to share both their time, expertise and opinions with me. Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor, Lia Karsten, for her input, patience and feedback throughout the process of this research. Finally, I would like to express my greatest appreciation and gratitude towards my good friends, family and especially Maartje Boonstra. This would not have been possible without your unwavering support, patience, love, positive reinforcement and inspiration.

(3)

Abstract

The growing popularity of urban tourism towards Amsterdam, and ‘de Pijp’ in particular, has certain implications for the neighborhood and its stakeholders. Centrally located in the Pijp, a heavily gentrified neighborhood, the Albert Cuyp market is a popular tourist attraction. In order to understand the combined effects of the inflow of both gentrifiers and tourists on the Albert Cuyp, the combination and interdependencies of the processes of touristification and gentrification have been researched. A mixed methods approach was utilized in order to capture the actions and perceptions of the main stakeholders; entrepreneurs, residents and tourists. Although the literature suggested that gentrifiers and tourists have similar effects on a changing market, the findings illustrate that the way in which residents experience and use the Albert Cuyp, differs significantly from tourists. Furthermore, the findings illustrated the difficulties original entrepreneurs experience in their attempts to adjust to the ongoing processes of change, since the Albert Cuyp has become economically reliant upon the inflow of tourism, especially since residents stay away. Concluding, the results indicate that, although gentrification and touristification have similar effects, the process of gentrification and its coinciding implications for the residential changes in the neighborhood are at the cause of the developments on the Albert Cuyp.

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1 Topic introduction

With global tourism increasing, tourism in the Netherlands is projected to more than double by the year 2030. Tourism in Amsterdam has demonstrated an even more rapid growth than previously projected; where earlier predictions by the NBTC (Dutch Bureau for Tourism and Congresses) estimated 23 million yearly tourists in 2025, the new predictions estimate almost 30 million (Couzy, 2018). The municipality of Amsterdam still has policies based on the previous predictions, but with a recorded 21 million tourists in 2017, that appears to be obsolete (Couzy, 2018). Throughout an entire year, for each inhabitant of Amsterdam, there are at least ten overnight visitors staying in one of the many hotels Amsterdam has to offer. That is without counting all overnight stays booked through AirBnB (Van Heerde, 2018). With an expected tourism count of 18 million in 2019, the city of Amsterdam is facing multiple tourism related problems. Especially in the city center there have been many registered complaints by residents about the nuisance caused by tourism (Solman, 2017). A survey by the municipality of Amsterdam in 2016 illustrated that residents in the city center already experienced high levels of nuisance because of overcrowding due to mass tourism (Solman, 2017). In order to manage these growing issues, the municipality and its Amsterdam Marketing team came up with the Neighborhood Campaign (Driessen, 2017). This campaign serves to spread out the tourist crowds and redistribute them to other neighborhoods, in order to lighten the burden for the city center. However, for some surrounding neighborhoods, this campaign might have added to an already growing issue. The same 2016 survey proved that people in the ‘de Pijp’ neighborhood already experienced tourism related overcrowding and other forms of nuisance (Solman, 2017). The campaign promoted ‘de Pijp’ as a lively student neighborhood, with lots of great bars and restaurants, with cuisines from all over the world (Driessen, 2017). Furthermore, the marketing plan promotes the neighborhood for the attractive Sarphati park, located in the center of the area (Posthouwer, 2017). Moreover, the municipality of Amsterdam is not the only actor marketing the neighborhood. The famous Albert Cuyp market, located in ‘de Pijp’, has long been mentioned and promoted by the Lonely Planet as one of Amsterdam’s top attractions (Posthouwer, 2017). Therefore, it cannot be expected that these developments stagnate in the near future. When the inflow of tourism cannot be properly stopped or managed, touristification of an area can take place; the place changes to accommodate tourism, often to the detriment of residents and local entrepreneurs (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017).

However, the rising popularity of the Pijp has not only been from a purely tourism related standpoint. The Pijp has been increasingly popular among students and young urbanites for several years now and the Pijp has been linked to gentrification in academic writing (Boer, 2005; Janssens & Sezer, 2013). Already, residents are more frequently complaining about the growing crowds, AirBnB, the rising prices and the fact that the neighborhood is becoming more international. It is for this reason that, very recently, the neighborhood newspaper ‘De Pijp Krant’ dedicated their entire front page of the first edition of 2019 to address these problems, illustrating the immediate relevance for its neighborhood residents. They experience a lost sense of place and fear a loss of neighborhood cohesion and smaller, local businesses (De Pijp Krant, 2019), which relates to the literature of Novy and Colomb (2016) and Zukin (2010). The ongoing changes relate to the literature on gentrification; the middle-class settles in and redevelops

(8)

2 former working-class neighborhoods, often known for their vibe, liveliness, cultural scene and trendiness (Beauregard, 1986; Bernt et al., 2014; Glass, 1964; Goffman, 1971; Zukin, 2010). However, interestingly, these neighborhood features popular among gentrifiers, are the same features modern middle-class tourists seek on their urban adventures; authentic local experiences, preferably in a trendy former working-class neighborhood with a large variety of local businesses (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). This popularity among gentrifiers, students and tourists also forms a contrasting perspective on such urban changes, when compared to the opinion voiced by original residents, mainly in popular media or academic literature, which is predominantly negative (De Pijp Krant, 2019; Novy and Colomb, 2016; Zukin, 2010).

1.2 Relevance and research question

The apparent overlap between the needs and wishes of the middle-class tourist and the average gentrifier, makes for an interesting connection. There has been some academic research on the connection between touristification and gentrification, but the relation between the two has not been clearly defined and depends on the urban context (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). Moreover, there has not been a case study that combined the two concepts and processes to see how these coincide in a certain place and, more importantly, how the overlapping of these processes is perceived by the different stakeholders. With the ever-growing popularity of Amsterdam and ‘de Pijp’ it is easy to imagine more changes taking place. To look at the consequences of gentrification and coinciding touristification, this research will focus on the most famous tourist attraction in the Pijp; the once so authentic Albert Cuyp street. Furthermore, due to the changing nature of a market and the coinciding changing offer of market stalls and vendors, this research will focus mainly on the permanent businesses situated in the Albert Cuyp street. This brings us to the following research question:

“How have the combined processes of touristification and gentrification influenced each other and the Albert Cuyp street?”.

1.3 Outline of research

This research is structured as follows. Chapter 2 provides a literature review to establish an appropriate theoretical framework, revolving around the main underlying concepts; urban tourism, touristification and gentrification. Chapter 2 concludes with the three sub-questions, based on the different stakeholders, that were used to answer the main research question and sets out the conceptual framework used in this research. Chapter 3 presents the methodological steps taken to collect and analyze the data needed to answer the sub-questions and research question, while taking ethical concerns, the operationalization and limitations into account.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of all relevant results, divided per sub-question, after which Chapter 5 will formulate the conclusion, whilst discussing the most noticeable results and reflecting on the theoretical contributions, methodology and practical limitations.

(9)

3

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 The rise of urban tourism

Cities have always been a popular destination for people to visit; offering entertainment, culture, business activity and history. The importance of urban tourism has, however, changed over time, as it’s now one of the most important industries in many global cities; generating income and therefore given priority by many local governments (Law, 1992; Law, 1993). The cause for these developments can be dated back to the post-Fordist shift towards urban consumption; after the de-industrialization of cities, many cities reinvented themselves as service-centers (Bramwell & Rawding, 1996). As Zukin (1991) framed it; cities transformed from ‘landscapes of production’ towards ‘landscapes of consumption’.

Due to ongoing processes of globalization and a growing number of globalized cities, global urban tourism is still on the rise (Novy, 2010). Between the period of 2007-2014, the global number of city-trips increased by 82%, reaching a market share of 22% of all vacations (Postma et al., 2017). In many urban economies, the consumption, leisure and culture industries have become their number one priority (Colomb & Novy, 2012), while the inner-city neighborhoods experienced extensive upgrading and regeneration (Paland, 2005). Cities started to recognize the economic potential of urban tourism as an urban regeneration tool (Colomb & Novy, 2012). In order to maximize this potential, as the significance of tourism grew relentlessly, cities invested to optimize their appeal to potential visitors. This oftentimes involved extensive place marketing strategies, while cities attempted to attract new investments and, most importantly, more visitors (Egresi, 2018; Jonas, McCann & Thomas, 2015). These marketing strategies differ for cities across the world, with each city trying to market its ‘unique’ selling points, however, the desire to attract new visitors has been replicated globally (Judd, 1999).

2.2 Tourist enclaves and the negative effects of urban tourism

The growth of urban tourism has resulted in a variety of developments across cities, often investing in the capacity to accommodate, transport and entertain new visitors. In most cases, urban tourism focuses on the historical center and ‘downtown areas’ of cities. These are the areas that contain most of the popular attractions, hotels, restaurants and other tourist-oriented amenities (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). These developments often create an environment in which city centers are becoming more like amusement-parks, losing their residential function (Turner, 2002). Aforementioned city centers are oftentimes occupied by a variety of global chains, catered towards the ‘tourist class”. A prime example of such a chain, is the Hard Rock Café, which can be found in popular downtown areas across the world (Fainstein & Gladstone, 1999). Such cities are becoming increasingly commodified.

Such urban areas, where tourism reigns while having lost their residential functions, are exemplative for the urban shift towards ‘landscapes of consumption’, as previously described by Zukin (1991). Although these areas have been described and researched under a variety of terms, the most common term would be ‘tourist enclaves’; areas that mainly serve the purpose of catering for tourists (Edensor, 2000; Edensor, 2006). Tourist enclaves can be categorized as a product of globalization and global capitalism, resulting from the opportunities for cities and businesses to attract tourists and benefit from them (Saarinen, 2017). These popular urban tourist destinations oftentimes experience tourist related nuisance and overcrowding

(10)

4 issues (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Neuts & Vanneste, 2017; Posthouwer, 2017). The persistence of these negative consequences of urban tourism, and tourism in general, can be explained by the ‘tourist gaze’; the attention and presence of tourism often specifically focuses on certain areas, eventually forming a heavy burden on that area, if not managed properly (Urry, 1992; Urry, 2002). This relates to the fact that many urban tourist attractions function as a ‘honeypot’, attracting crowds from afar and undermining other parts of the city (Goodwin, 2018). Moreover, urban tourist destinations are, in and of themselves, especially prone to overcrowding due to the fact that tourists often use the same spaces and amenities as locals (Edwards et al., 2008).

All of these developments result in a situation in which residents become separated from their surrounding environment, experiencing a spatial and social segregation from a city that ones used to be theirs and oftentimes avoiding the ‘touristy’ areas (Judd, 1999; Schmid, 2008). In order to deal with the negative effects of urban tourism, cities will at times specifically attempt to use ‘tourist enclaves’ to their advantage. Setting up areas designed to accommodate and manage tourism, while in the process alleviating the pressures of tourism elsewhere (Edensor, 2000; Healy & Jamal, 2017). In essence, the controlled concentration of tourist activities makes it easier for municipalities to organize and manage tourist activity, while also providing a high concentration of entertainment and therefore being economically efficient (Saarinen, 2017).

2.3 New geographies of (urban) tourism

Although the tourist enclaves still attract the bulk of urban tourism, there has been an important post-modern shift in post-modern-day tourist demand. Tourists are, increasingly, attempting to avoid the previously mentioned ‘tourist enclaves’ and avoid so-called ‘staged experiences’ in tourist places (Füller & Michel, 2014). Modern, often middle-class, tourists seek more authentic and local experiences, while being interested in more local and trendy neighborhoods, heritage, businesses and accommodations. They share a growing desire to get ‘off the beaten track’ and experience cities in an authentic manner, while escaping the so-called ‘tourist bubble’ (Füller & Michel, 2014; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Judd, 1999). These developments have led to the scattering of urban tourists, venturing outside of the ‘designated tourist areas’, into neighborhoods that were traditionally mainly there for their residential function (Urry & Larsen, 2011). Middle-class tourists share a longing to experience different things than the average tourist does and wish to be seen as a ‘traveler’ rather than a ‘tourist’ (Munt, 1994). The fact that more tourists now desire to explore urban areas outside of the ‘tourist bubbles’, results in the interaction between tourists, new spaces and different people; residents. Such developments have led to the creation of ‘new tourism areas’, areas in which tourists and residents more often interact (Maitland, 2010).

2.4 Gentrification

As tourism spreads into new neighborhoods, creating new tourism areas, the neighborhood dynamics often change, while the residents undergo the consequences. However, tourists are not the only stakeholder seeking out new neighborhoods, in a search for authenticity. The demands of the modern-day tourist relate to another concept, also strongly associated with urban change; gentrification. Ruth Glass (1964) was the first to introduce the concept of gentrification. She observed a new phenomenon, where the affluent middle-class started purchasing properties in traditional working-class neighborhoods. Gentrification is a dynamic process and is therefore hard to definitively define. One of the more recent

(11)

5 definitions reads as follows: “Middle class settlement in renovated or redeveloped properties in older,

inner-city districts formerly occupied by a lower income population” (Dictionary of Human Geography,

2009, p. 273-274). Beauregard (1986) described gentrification as a result of a process in which multiple stakeholders benefit from improved economic activities in that neighborhood; possible stakeholders being developers, media, entrepreneurs and middle-class organizations. When the topic of gentrification started becoming more and more relevant, around the 1980’s, Gale (1979) described the classic gentrifier as a one- or two-person household, in which both individuals are employed, highly educated and affluent professionals without kids. This description relates to the ‘Young Urban Professionals’ (yuppie) concept by Goffman (1971), often connected to gentrification, while the latter household is often called a ‘DINKY’ household in gentrification research (Double Income No Kids (Yet)).

Up until recently, academic research on gentrification focused primarily on the housing consequences and the displacement of original residents (Luckins, 2009; Slater, 2006). However, the lifestyle factor is becoming increasingly prominent (Ernst, 2011). As stated by David Ley (2003): “Gentrification today is

more about trendy bars, café’s and street level spectacles” (p.2527). Apart from attractive neighborhood

characteristics, from a gentrifier perspective, like living close to the city center and their work, while not paying the highest price, gentrifiers often feel attracted to the vibe and the trendiness of a working-class urban neighborhood, where they then wish to live and identify themselves with (Beauregard, 1986). The gentrifier lifestyle is stereotypically expressed outside, in trendy bars, restaurants and other establishments. These establishments are oftentimes specifically aimed at this gentrifier group, with their ‘money rich, time poor’ approach (Bridge and Dowling, 2001). Furthermore, a gentrifier is recognizable by the fact that they like consuming and investing money, time and energy in their (new) neighborhood and its local businesses (Beauregard, 1986).

2.5 Commercial gentrification and the paradox of authenticity

This willingness to consume and invest in local businesses has a variety of underlying consequences, of which one is most relevant; also known as ‘retail gentrification’ and ‘boutiqueification’, ‘commercial gentrification’ is a process that refers to the gentrification of commercial buildings, streets or areas; creating ‘consumption space’ for the middle class (Ernst, 2011).

Due to the success of the existing (original) local businesses in the area, adapting and/or profiting from the changing neighborhood, small business entrepreneurs are tempted to move to gentrifying neighborhoods, in search of profit. Stereotypical examples of such businesses, popular among gentrifiers, are bicycle shops, specialized bookstores, vintage clothing, art galleries, gourmet restaurants, organic markets, espresso bars and other (mainly) leisure related businesses (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Zukin, 2009; Zukin, 2010). Overall, gentrifiers appear to have a specific interest in food, with a preferred high density of different authentic exotic cuisines, while boutiques with clothing, textile and interior design are popular as well (Luckins, 2009; Zukin, 2009). The preference of gentrifiers for these types of businesses originates from their quest to be different from the ‘regular citizen’, with its mass-consumption and societal uniformity (Ernst, 2011). However, their search for authenticity, ironically, does not appear to align with the coinciding consequences for such a gentrifying neighborhood. Authenticity is oftentimes related to pure, organic and fresh, but also to the thrill and excitement of the raw/rugged and ethnic or exotic (Zukin, 2008). Zukin (2008) found that of these specific ‘traits’, only the rugged and ethnic/exotic characteristics are connected to the original neighborhood, while the pure, organic and fresh concepts are

(12)

6 typically introduced by gentrifiers. This attempt to be different fits the ‘off the beaten track’ attitude that many modern-day tourists have (Gravari-Guinand & Barbas, 2017). It also illustrates that not just the resident gentrifiers, but both the old and specifically the new entrepreneurs are all drivers of commercial gentrification (Gravari-Guinand & Barbas, 2017).

Although many of the original businesses benefit from gentrification at first (with gentrification functioning as a ‘neighborhood upgrading tool’), they are oftentimes the first to suffer from the inflow of new affluent businesses. While the popularity of an area rises, the property prices and rents rise as well. As a consequence, the smaller original businesses struggle to pay these fixed charges and are forced out (Zukin, 2009). Furthermore, original businesses often appear unable, or able to a lesser extent, to specifically adapt to the changed (gentrified) demand and therefore end up losing out to newer, more affluent competition (Ernst, 2011). These new businesses can vary, for example being either individual entrepreneurs with superior capital, or even franchises and/or chain stores (Zukin, 2008). In the latter case, the consequences can then become very similar to the earlier described consequences of mass-tourism and its appeal to global chains, like the Hard Rock Café, in tourist enclaves.

2.6 Touristification

The concepts of gentrification and urban tourism illustrate that the distinction between middle-class tourists and residents, and their (shared) effects on urban change, is becoming increasingly hard to make (Bock, 2015; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). In many ways, the preferences of a gentrifier connect to those of a middle-class tourist. One could therefore argue that they have a similar effect on a neighborhood (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). Gotham (2005) came up with the term ‘tourist gentrification’ to describe the neighborhood altering influence the inflow of tourism can have; the arrival of tourism can cause property prices to skyrocket, displacing residents and transforming the neighborhood into an area mainly catering tourism.

Another, more recent term to describe this phenomenon, is ‘touristification’. Touristification can be defined as a process and the resulting change of a space, due to spontaneous, unplanned development of tourism, changing the place into a tourist commodity (Romero Renau, 2018). It could potentially also happen through municipal planning and city marketing (Jonas, McCann & Thomas, 2015), although that would relate more to the concept of a tourist enclave (Edensor, 2000; Healy & Jamal, 2017). It is for this reason that the tourism industry is nowadays known as one of the most powerful actors in adapting urban space and influencing the life quality of residents (Bruttomesso, 2018). Original shops, such as food stores and kiosks, are replaced by tourist shops, such as souvenir stores. Such shops serve no purpose in the daily lives of residents (Murphy, 1981). They do, however, have similar effects as commercial gentrification. Moreover, even when such original amenities are redeveloped, still serving their original purpose, but now for example being a Coffee Company instead of the local coffee shop it used to be, the introduction of these larger chains cause an area to lose its identity. Such companies appeal more to the tourist class than locals (Falk & King, 2003). Processes of touristification are often met with a negative residential response, experiencing nuisance, overcrowding, rising housing prices, a loss of authenticity and a monoculture (Gravari-Barbas, 2017; Solman, 2017). Often associated with mass-tourism and closely related to touristification, a (tourist) monoculture is a situation in which a local economy has adapted to the large inflow of tourism to the extent that the majority of the economy (and therefore its businesses) focusses on catering tourists; selling similar products and services while targeting the same segment of the market.

(13)

7 This oftentimes coincides with a loss of diversity and authenticity, as original businesses suffer from the competition. Examples of such shops are waffle stores (selling commodified culinary products), souvenir shops and/or larger company chains (Conti & Perelli, 2007; Long, 2013; Shepherd, 2002).

The original population in those areas, struck by the process of touristification, often suffers from a ‘feeling of disembeddedness’ (Mordue, 2007). Even though the starting point of the inflow of tourism and the subsequent touristification is often related to the tourist quest for an authentic experience, the authenticity in such neighborhoods, suffering from gentrification, is often staged or absent (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017).

2.7 Gentrification and touristification

Being very similar processes, the gentrification and touristification of an urban neighborhood can often go hand in hand (Novy & Colomb, 2016). Moreover, research illustrated how tourism generally even follows urban gentrifiers; gentrifiers move into cheap working-class neighborhoods, after which they invest and regenerate, become trendy and subsequently attract more new visitors (Bridge, 2007; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Schlichtmann & Patch, 2013). Although changing patterns in the influx of tourism make it difficult to discover distinctive causality, it is obvious that tourism is a shaping actor for socio-economic urban landscapes (Gotham, 2005; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). The fact that it is a two-way process can be illustrated through the following examples. The allure of tourism related profits can motivate local businesses and entrepreneurs to adapt, undermine their resident clientele, change their company activity and take advantage of the tourist economy. The tourist economy in gentrified neighborhoods, however, is the same type of economy that often caters most current residents; trendy establishments. Such adaptations could therefore both be seen as a result of, or cause for, the commercial gentrification of an area, but it also shows great similarities with touristification (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). Although these changes at first generate a substantial amount of money and employment, the downside is that these adaptations towards tourists eventually accommodate a further growth in tourism. When a place becomes too popular among tourists, local businesses are likely to be outcompeted by more affluent private enterprises and/or (eventually) bigger, international companies in the same sector. That process is very similar to a specific aspect of gentrification; the disappearance of local businesses due to commercial gentrification (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Zukin, 2008). Touristification and gentrification are oftentimes both met with a similar residential response; both create a fear of overcrowding, a lost sense of authenticity, a general sense of displacement and the fear for a monoculture. Original residents may feel alienated in their own city (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017).

Another concept strongly related to both gentrification and touristification, with sources describing it as a ‘gentrifying machine’, is ‘house-sharing’ through AirBnB (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Novy, 2017). This illustrates the importance of AirBnB, which is indicative for the developments in the field of urban tourism and urban change. Since its conceptualization in in 2008, AirBnB has developed into a company that’s active throughout the world, offering accommodations in over 81.000 cities (AirBnB, 2019). The most popular neighborhoods on AirBnB are the ‘trendy’ or gentrifying areas, where the majority of AirBnB’s is located (Wachsmuth & Weisler, 2018). While AirBnB, or tourist accommodation in general, is

(14)

8 not the focus of this research, it is a useful indicator and in this case an example of the connection between both touristification and gentrification

2.8 Gentrification in Amsterdam

For the city of Amsterdam, processes of gentrification began relatively late. This was in large part due to the heavily regulated Dutch urban housing market; the Dutch government traditionally had a strong emphasis on social housing, enabling a more diverse group of residents to remain in gentrifying areas for a longer time (Hochstenbach et al., 2015). However, around the 1980’s, deregulation of the housing market started and, before the end of the century, many state-led housing corporations were privatized. An increase of the share of owner-occupied housing was used as a ‘neighborhood improvement tool’, while gentrification was in part, consciously used to upgrade urban neighborhoods (Ernst, 2011). These changes on the housing market and its coinciding implications for Amsterdam became clear, as the Jordaan and the Canal District, two centrally located Amsterdam neighborhoods, soon became gentrified. Interestingly however, the reasons for both neighborhoods gentrifying differed, as the Jordaan gentrified because the rents, up until that point, had been extremely, untenably low. The Canal District, on the other hand, gentrified in large part due to its popularity, mixed functions and therefore value, illustrating the versatility of the concept of gentrification (Smith, 1996).

From that point on, Amsterdam has experienced citywide gentrification. Property prices in the city center and the surrounding neighborhoods are on the rise, increasing numbers of young professionals seek to live in the city of Amsterdam and all of them preferably live as close to the city center as possible (Ernst, 2011).

2.9 Gentrification in ‘De Pijp’ by the numbers

Arguably the most well-known gentrified neighborhood in Amsterdam is ‘De Pijp’. Whereas it used to be a poor, working-class neighborhood, the Pijp, in the eyes of many, is now known and promoted as a trendy, lively and young neighborhood, popular among students, tourists and residents alike (Boer, 2005; Ernst, 2011; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017; I Amsterdam, 2019; Waard, 2014). Not coincidentally, the Pijp is the second most popular neighborhood in Amsterdam on the AirBnB website, offering over 10% of all total accommodations in Amsterdam (Inside AirBnB, 2018). Although previously identified as a ‘gentrifying machine’, the arrival of AirBnB was not the instigator of gentrification in the case of the Pijp, it does however illustrate the fact that AirBnB is, to a certain extent, an indicator of gentrification in the Pijp and that the Pijp deals with both gentrification and urban tourism. Furthermore, the fact that the Pijp is promoted as a student area with a large variety of exotic cuisines (I Amsterdam, 2019), relates to both the fact that the exoticness of the gourmet food in a neighborhood is one of the main commercial gentrification themes and the fact that students are often associated with gentrified neighborhoods (Bridge and Dowling, 2001; Waard, 2014; Zukin, 2008).

The process of gentrification the Pijp underwent, is said to have started in the late 90’s and early 2000’s (Boer, 2005; Waard, 2014). To analyze the potential gentrification of the Pijp, the demographics of the neighborhood are very important, especially when compared to the rest of Amsterdam. To highlight one

(15)

9 of the few demographic gentrification indicators in the Pijp, 27% of the households are DINKY households. When including the single households, with a large share of urban professionals, that number rises to 65%. The rest of Amsterdam registers percentages of 22 and 51, respectively (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). When looking at the average age, demographics show that, of all people living in the Pijp, 56% are in between the ages of 23 and 49. In comparison, for the rest of Amsterdam this number is 44% (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). Lastly, the Pijp (and Amsterdam in general) is becoming increasingly known for the large share of expats (Couzy, 2019; De Pijp Krant, 2019). This adds to the reputation of the Pijp as a predominantly white middle-class and student neighborhood, but the demographic numbers seem to support this: 54% of the residents is from native Dutch descent, while 23% has a Western immigrant background and the other 23% are from non-Western1_{immigrant descent. For the rest of Amsterdam these numbers are, in similar}

order; 44%, 17% and 34% (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). The variety of residents of different nationalities, like expats, in the Pijp seem to correlate with another finding. A potential indicator of gentrification is the frequency of housing movement and the amount of time the people currently living in the Pijp have lived there. Since the process of gentrification forces original residents to move out, it can be expected that there is a relatively large inflow of new residents. For the Pijp, 50% of the residents has lived there for under 10 years. For the rest of Amsterdam, this number is 43%. Furthermore, while the average time of current residency in the Pijp is still 16,9 years, for the rest of Amsterdam that number is 18,2 (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). Furthermore, studies in Berlin illustrated how the arrival and presence of many ‘Western immigrants’, oftentimes expats, can be a key factor in driving gentrification (Bernt et al., 2014). These numbers, however, do not tell the full story. As can be expected of a gentrifying neighborhood, the neighborhood experiences a gradual change. Not all parts of the neighborhood are gentrified, nor are they affluent. One of the few statistics that illustrate that there are still differences within the Pijp itself, is the fact that the average person in the less affluent ‘Zuid-Pijp’ (the most southern part of the Pijp) has, on average, lived there for almost 20,8 years. Only 38% of the households in this working-class part of the Pijp are ‘younger’ than 10 years, meaning that the majority has lived there for a longer period of time. Furthermore, even though the Zuid-Pijp only accounts for 23% of the ‘de Pijp’ population, the area accounts for 36% of the welfare households in the Pijp, while the average income is almost €10.000 less and the unemployment rate almost twice as high as it is in the other parts of the Pijp; 15,4% vs. 8,8% (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). It is important to remember that these results of the ‘South-Pijp’ are at the expense of the numbers of the Pijp as a whole, which are already significant in terms of gentrification, but would have otherwise been even more defining. The neighborhood is gentrifying, but on paper there still is a way to go before being completely gentrified.

2.10 Urban tourism and touristification in ‘de Pijp’ and on the ‘Albert Cuyp’

Simultaneous with the growing popularity of the Pijp, the ongoing process of gentrification and the rise of AirBnB in the neighborhood, the municipality of Amsterdam has attempted to alleviate the city center of the tourism related pressure, by dispersing tourists towards other, more residential, neighborhoods. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). The municipality used a variety of tools in order to attract tourism towards

1_{Categorized by OIS Amsterdam (2018) as migrants originating from Africa, South and Central America and Asia}

(16)

10 the Pijp. One of the tools used by the municipality was an extensive marketing campaign, promoting not only the Pijp, but all neighborhoods of Amsterdam outside of the city center (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). Furthermore, they looked for ways to improve the transportation towards the Pijp, in part for visitors traveling from the major train stations in Amsterdam; central station and Amsterdam Zuid, since both have direct connections with, for example, Schiphol. They did this by the addition of the ‘Noord-Zuid’ metro line (M52) and its strategically located station in the Pijp, right on the corner of the Albert Cuyp. Improving the infrastructure of a city is an often-used method to disperse the tourist crowds (Neuts & Vanneste, 2017). While all of these developments factor into the growing popularity of the Pijp among tourists, residents of the Pijp also indicated to experience an above average level of nuisance, in large part related to tourism. On the yearly nuisance index, produced by the municipality of Amsterdam, the Pijp scored 117 points compared to a city average of 93 (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). Further municipal research also indicated that the pressure on the neighborhood and specifically the Albert Cuyp is rising, because of the changing neighborhood and growing number of tourism (Gebiedsplan Oud-Zuid, 2018).

Moreover, as a more tangible recent development, in September 2018, at the corner of the Albert Cuyp and Ferdinand Bolstraat, fast food chain Dunkin’ Donuts moved into a large premises, previously owned by the authentic Dutch Van Dobben company. Despite the complaints of many residents, the strict criteria of the municipality and the significant media backlash, the large fast food chain did eventually manage to obtain the prime location. Both the NRC (2018) and Het Parool (2018), two big news sources, reported on the developments; stating that many older residents experienced the disappearance a lost sense of authenticity on the Albert Cuyp, with its surplus of ‘authentic’ Dutch snacks, surplus of Nutella sales and large share of standard souvenirs. Both authors stated the fear that the arrival of Dunkin’ Donuts forms another nail in the coffin of the Albert Cuyp.

The literature, based on all of the above, seems to imply that the ongoing processes of change, being both touristification and gentrification, should affect life in the Pijp and business on the Albert Cuyp, not only for the residents and entrepreneurs, but also for tourists. It questions if the following quote, one of the marketing slogans on the official Albert Cuyp website, is still, if only partially, true:

“What is the best spot to experience the real Amsterdam sense of humor, the Amsterdam atmosphere and conviviality? Right, that would be the Albert Cuyp! A day in Amsterdam is just not complete without visiting the most popular market of the Netherlands!” (Albert Cuyp Markt, 2019)

2.11 Conclusion and further questions

When studying the processes of gentrification and touristification, it becomes clear that a variety of actors are at play. All these different stakeholders contribute to and deal with these processes in their own way. Middle-class residents are known contributors to the process of gentrification, but local entrepreneurs contribute to the commercial side of gentrification as well. The subsequent potential of being out-competed by larger, more affluent companies, due to the growing popularity of a neighborhood, is a phenomenon that relates to gentrification, but is also related to touristification and urban tourism in general (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017). Furthermore, in line with the developments of urban tourism, modern day middle-class tourists and their demand for a local experience are attracted to the same neighborhood features as most gentrifiers; young, trendy, urban, former working-class. The complexity of the variety of interdependencies, makes for an interesting base for this research.

(17)

11 Therefore, to answer the main research question “How have the combined processes of touristification

and gentrification influenced each other and the Albert Cuyp street?”, the following sub-questions have

been constructed, focusing on the perceptions of three different stakeholders:

1. To what extent do entrepreneurs experience (and if, so how do they adapt to) touristification and gentrification and how has this changed over time?

2. How do residents (gentrifiers) experience, use and value the street and its authenticity? (the gentrifier as a tourist?)

3. How do tourists experience, use and value the street and its authenticity?

2.12 Conceptual model

The conceptual model constructed for this research can be found in Figure 1. It illustrates the combination and interaction of the multiple relevant concepts. The lines illustrate the main reciprocity of the interaction, although the case could be made that all concepts interact in both ways. An example: the municipal policies adapt to gentrification and tourism, after which new policies are made. Another example is that the local use and perception of public space is, at first, one of the main concepts possibly factoring into gentrification, since not all gentrification necessarily exclusively comes from outside a neighborhood (for example; through in situ social mobility (Hochstenbach & Van Gent, 2015)). For this research, however, the reciprocity as illustrated is most relevant.

Urban change in the Albert Cuyp Touristification

Local use (and perception) of public

space

Gentrification Municipal policies

and ‘de Pijp’ Figure 1: Conceptual model

Stakeholders _{Entrepreneurs}

Residents

Tourists Neighborhood demographics

(18)

12

3. Methodology

In order to answer the main research question, three sub-questions, derived from the literature, will be answered. The methods that were used are dependent on each individual question, so the methodology will be described separately for each individual sub-question. The use of multiple research methods, also known as the mixed methods research approach, in this case aims to combine the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative results (Bryman, 2012). This benefits the reliability when doing a comparative study, researching multiple concepts and stakeholders (Bryman, 2012). The choice for the research location, however, will be similar for the entirety of the research. Therefore, the first part will expand on this decision.

3.1 Choice of research location

The Albert Cuyp street had a central and providing function for the Pijp and its surrounding areas for decades (Balat, 2013). The modern-day Albert Cuyp, as pictured in Figure 2, situated in the heavily gentrified and popular ‘de Pijp’ neighborhood, is a popular tourist attraction (based on tourist guides and the Amsterdam Marketing bureau), marketed for being an ‘authentic Amsterdam market’. Research illustrated that it has already lost some of its original function and authenticity due to gentrification and a coinciding growing number of supermarkets (Janssens & Sezer, 2013). Since gentrification and tourism are often linked to each other, especially from a ‘loss of authenticity’ standpoint, it is likely that the growing inflow of tourism towards Amsterdam, the Pijp and subsequently the Albert Cuyp affects the street. That is what makes this location interesting; it is both a gentrified neighborhood and an old ‘authentic’ tourist attraction, while originally mainly serving residents. The effect the tourism inflow, caused by the market, has on its direct surroundings is something that has not been studied. The only existing research on the changes in the Albert Cuyp discussed the changes of the market and related these to gentrification. It therefore made for an interesting location to study the effects of these processes on the variety of stakeholders and their perceptions. Since the Albert Cuyp is a long street, this research focused specifically on the market street; the part of the Albert Cuyp between the Van Woustraat and the Ferdinand Bolstraat. With a maximum capacity of around 260 market stalls, the Albert Cuyp also consists of over 120 permanent businesses. Many of these

businesses own a stall on the market, oftentimes specializing in souvenirs, clothing and textile. On most days, the majority of the non-permanent market stalls consists of food stalls selling, for example, stroopwafels, pancakes, sausages, smoothies, grilled sandwiches, churros and other products meant for direct consumption.

(19)

13

3.3 Answering the research questions

3.3.a. Question 1 – Stakeholder 1: Entrepreneurs

- To what extent do entrepreneurs experience (and if, so how do they adapt to) touristification and gentrification and how has this changed over time?

Method

Since small business owners are arguably the biggest stakeholders in such a popular shopping/market street, they form the main focus of this research. To answer this question, semi-structured interviews with a variety of small business owners were conducted. The reason for the use of semi-structured interviews is that this method allowed participants to voice their opinion on what they perceive in their own words, without having to stick to the potential ‘borders’ which occur when, for example, filling in a survey (Bryman, 2012). Through this method, respondents had the opportunity to answer questions as fully and candidly as possible. This, again, speaks to the fact that interviews were the method of choice, since the research focused on the perception of respondents. When working specifically with perceptions, preferences, feelings and opinions, conducting interviews is the most suited research method, as it allows the interviewee to talk freely (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, this research method also allowed the interviewer to respond to that what was said, creating the opportunity to go more in-depth and establishing more clarity and/or gathering more information (Bryman, 2012). The interview guide that was used can be found in the appendix.

Selection of respondents

The types of businesses approached varied from small and gentrified establishments that aim to cater the needs and wishes of the stereotypical gentrifier (e.g. being vintage, organic, gourmet and/or trendy (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Zukin, 2010)), to older shops traditionally aiming to cater the neighborhood or Amsterdam residents in general. The choice for small business entrepreneurs relates back to the fact that the literature on both touristification and gentrification states that these businesses are at the forefront of commercial gentrification, are the first stakeholders to benefit from such gentrification, but are also the most vulnerable when individual parties with more capital enter the market, after which property prices are likely to sky-rocket and the competition becomes more fierce (Ernst, 2011). For the choice of the small businesses and the owners, a selection was made based on the criteria that a business is not part of a larger corporate chain and has been situated on the Albert Cuyp for a number of years. An owner was then likely to have experienced a variety of changes and would therefore better be able to formulate an opinion and share knowledge on the situation. Also, these types of businesses could potentially provide an insight in the changing demands of a changing variety of customers and provide an insight in the different ways to adapt to and manage these changes. To create an overview of the average small-business entrepreneur, multiple types of businesses were selected, ranging from a small coffee house, a bar and a butcher, to a bicycle shop, a repair center for timepieces, a shoe store and a lighting store.

(20)

14

Finding respondents

The respondents were initially approached in person, by visiting their businesses. The fact that this approach was, in theory, different from an official approach through a phone call or e-mail, made it more casual and therefore likely less intimidating. This was initially deemed, important since the potential respondents are at work, living their everyday life, so they should feel comfortable in their setting (Bryman, 2012). As the average entrepreneur appeared to be very busy during the day, unavailable before or after business hours and elusive per e-mail, contact was in most cases eventually established through phone calls. Upon establishing contact, after ensuring if the person had the time and will for a conversation, the research was explained. Each interview took place at the business of that specific entrepreneur, during business hours but planned on relatively quiet moments of the day. Something that is important when conducting interviews is that the respondent feels comfortable at all times, while the environment is preferably not too crowded (Bryman, 2012). This was established during all interviews, since the interviewees were comfortable and in their own setting, during the less busy hours of their workday. While not all interviewees were willing or able to make the time to have a sit down for a recorded interview, those who were not, were willing to conduct an informal interview, of which some notes were made. This information could, of course, still be of value for the research.

Ethics

When conducting research, it is always important to take ethics into account. Since this research and the interviews focused on perceptions, feelings and financial changes and decisions, it was likely, or imaginable at least, that sensitive and/or personal subjects would come forward (Bryman, 2012). It was therefore extra important to respect the interviewees’ opinion, to not enter a discussion and to refrain from voicing a possibly offensive opinion. All while limiting probing and/or guiding questions (Bryman, 2012). Important to add in this case is the positionality of the interviewer. The interviewer fitted the description of the young urban professional gentrifier; not originally from Amsterdam, high level of education, aged between 20 and 40 and only recently moved there. It was essential to keep in mind that the so-called yuppies are seen as one of the driving forces behind urban change, especially in young and gentrifying neighborhoods as the Pijp. It is therefore likely that, even though all interviewees appreciated the interest in and attention for their opinion, they were aware or suspicious of this, potentially influencing their responses or creating some sort of prejudice (Limb & Dwyer, 2001). Furthermore, anonymity has always been guaranteed and interviews were only recorded after asking (and being granted) permission (Bryman, 2012). The respondents were also offered to receive the final product of the research, of course only when interested.

Analysis

All recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed, while making use of a code list, set-up according to the lines of the research and based on the extensive literature study and the research questions. The code list and a concise interview guide can both be found in the interview section of the appendix.

3.3.b. Question 2 – Stakeholder 2: Residents

(21)

15

Method

A quantitative research method was used to answer this question. A quantitative approach is best suited for the gathering and quantifying of the results among a larger research population (Bryman, 2012). A concise survey has been conducted, which gave respondents the possibility to rate the frequency of their use of the Albert Cuyp street and gave them the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the street and its changes on a scale of one to five, also known as the Likert scale. The latter is a frequently used method to illustrate and quantify perceived satisfaction (Bryman, 2012). For the validity and reliability of the results, all survey questions were formulated as specific as possible, insure correct interpretation of the questions (Bryman, 2012). The survey can be found in the appendix. All survey questions are based on, or derived from, the previous literature study.

Selection of respondents

While most complaints on a loss of authenticity, overcrowding and nuisance, related to tourism and new residents, come from the older residential group, it is obvious that the Pijp is still very popular among new residents and visitors. The latter was a good reason for this research to focus on that particular group for once; the gentrifiers, mainly because most research on gentrification tends to focus solely on the experiences of the older residential group. Since the stereotypical profile of ‘the gentrifier’ corresponds with the ‘Young Urban Professionals’ description and the neighborhood demographics, the target respondent age was set between 20 and 40. The choice for these set age limits was based on earlier research on the identification of gentrifiers and young urban professionals respectively (Blasius et al., 2016; Dekker & Esther, 1988), while taking into account the known demographic numbers and student popularity of the area. Furthermore, aconscious choice was made to focus on residents of the entire city of Amsterdam, making the selection process easier, but also providing an overview of the usage of and transportation towards the Albert Cuyp by Amsterdam residents in general. This type of selective respondent selection, purposive sampling increases the reliability and relevance of the sample, when researching a population with certain specific characteristics, like in this case the gentrifiers (Bryman, 2012).

Finding respondents

The respondents were all random passers-by, with the only bias being the age ‘restriction’, approached in person by directly addressing them on the street. Upon initial contact, depending on the willingness to participate, it was then determined if it involved either a resident or a tourist, after which the corresponding survey could be conducted. When conducting research, there is always the potential danger of not having enough respondents and subsequently data to work with. While this is a valid concern, and was still of great importance, the fact that the Albert Cuyp has hundreds of permanent and semi-structural businesses, vendors and let alone visitors (Balat, 2013), offered great potential for establishing a sufficient amount of data. Furthermore, to specifically optimize the respondent selection during the conducting of the surveys, a busy and therefore suited location appeared to be the junction between the Albert Cuyp and the Eerste van der Helststraat. To improve the reliability of the sample, the surveys were conducted on several separate weekdays, ranging from Monday to Friday, Saturdays and during national holidays,

(22)

16 due to the fact that different days attract different kinds of visitors. This all served the goal of optimizing the data sample (Bryman, 2012).

Ethics

When formulating survey questions, it is important to remain careful and stay clear of possible offensive questions. Furthermore, anonymity was guaranteed. While approaching people on the street to conduct a survey, it was important to stay respectful and to be careful on approach. Since some questions are prone to being too straight forward, or too personal to start of a survey with, the question on the respondents highest completed level of education was set as the final question. Respondents are expected to feel less uncomfortable when answering a personal question near the end of a survey (Bryman, 2012). Positionality wise, since the researcher fits the description of the young urban professional gentrifier, based on age and education, it potentially made it easier to approach and level with respondents, therefore creating a situation in which the respondents did not feel restricted to speak freely. The positionality of a researcher can greatly influence the results of a research and was in this case, most likely, a positive contribution to an open conversation (Limb & Dwyer, 2001).

Analysis

Since the sample size of the dataset, with a total population of 100 respondents of which 50 residents, is relatively small, it is difficult to perform extensive statistical testing. The data has been analyzed using the statistical analysis program Stata, producing descriptive statistics, crosstabs, comparable percentages and, when possible, a simple linear regression model for the ‘(satisfaction) grade/scaling’ variables. Although these latter variables could be interpreted as categorical variables, interpreting the five different satisfaction categories as scores makes them suitable for a linear regression analysis (Stolzenberg, 2004). The purpose of a simple linear regression is to establish the relative impact of a predictor variable on a particular outcome; in other words, the dependent variable (Zou et al., 2003). According to Tso and Yau (2005) a simple regression analysis is the most popular method to predict a continuous dependent variable, using one or multiple independent variables. Finally, the inclusion of the postcodes for gentrifiers served to make a map and illustrate the exact location and proximity of residents attracted to the Albert Cuyp street, using ArcGIS.

3.3.c. Question 3 – Stakeholder 3: Tourists

- How do tourists use, experience and value the street and its authenticity? Method

As was done for the resident respondents, a quantitative research method was used and a concise survey has been conducted, giving tourist respondents the possibility to rate the frequency of their use of the Albert Cuyp street and giving them the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the street and its changes on a Likert scale of one to five. A reason for conducting a similar survey among tourists as with residents, apart from the similarly formulated research questions, is the fact that the quantified results are better suited for a comparison between the two respondent groups (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, they provide an insight in the narrative of the gentrifier as a tourist and/or vice versa (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017).

(23)

17 This specific survey can, too, be found in the appendix. All survey questions are based on, or derived from, the previous literature study.

Selection and finding of respondents

Most urban tourists, associated with touristification, seem to share the same characteristics and interests as the gentrifier group. In an attempt to draw valuable comparisons between the gentrifiers and the tourists, tourists with similar characteristics as the gentrifier population were approached; preferably being young, middle-class visitors. Although it turned out to be difficult to specifically read and predict the age of people upon approach, the majority of the respondents did fit in the yuppie age category of 20 to 40 years. As was the case with the sampling method used for the resident data collection, purposive sampling was used to increase the reliability and relevance of the sample (Bryman, 2012). The respondents were approached in the same manner and on the same days as described in the previous paragraph concerning the gathering of resident respondents; random passers-by fitting the age category, after which it was established if it involved a resident or a tourist.

Ethics

The same ethical considerations as mentioned above applied, with the exception that the ‘tourist gentrifiers’, although largely from the same generation as the researcher, did not have the Amsterdam residential status in common. Whereas this commonality benefitted the researcher while questioning residents, that feeling of sameness now lacked, although the age category was still similar. Another thing that was important to keep in mind was the fact that tourists are specifically in a place to experience the place and to spend their free time. This creates a situation where they might feel free and de-stressed, causing them to have time to answer a survey, but on the other hand this could make them feel disturbed in their free time. With that in mind, everyone was approached respectfully and with caution.

Analysis

A statistical analysis has been conducted. The same methods have been applied for the processing and analysis of the tourist survey results, as they have earlier been described for the resident survey results; a combination of crosstabs, descriptive variables and, when possible, a simple linear regression, which is the most suited statistical test in this case, considering the small sample (Stolzenberg, 2004).

3.4 Operationalization

As it pertains to the data collection, through the process of conducting both interviews and surveys, the entirety of the questions was based on and/or derived from the literature. The following paragraph serves to specify how the main concepts were operationalized.

3.4.a. Operationalization of key concepts

Gentrification

Gentrified areas share a variety of common characteristics. Residents are stereotypically depicted to be young and highly educated, either still a student or a Yuppie, while they are oftentimes relatively new to the neighborhood and are, increasingly, international (Beauregard, 1986; Gale, 1979; Goffman, 1971). Most of these characteristics were therefore directly included in the survey questions. Furthermore, these

(24)

18 resident characteristics translate to the types of ‘resident customers’ the entrepreneurs receive and serve. They were therefore asked to describe their average customer, their perception of the average resident and their perception of the neighborhood in general.

Another important aspect attributed to gentrification in a neighborhood, is the effect of the process on the local business activities and the potentially corresponding changes (Gravari-Barbas, 2017; Janssens & Sezer, 2013; Murphy, 1981; Solman, 2017). The survey questions concerning the types of businesses visited, the satisfaction with the variety of businesses and the experienced changes, provided an insight in this commercial side of gentrification. Furthermore, the interviewees provided additional information on the matter, when asked to describe the changes in not only their business activities, but those of their colleagues, and the market in general, as well.

Touristification

Although many prominent ‘touristification characteristics’ are also related to gentrification, several are oftentimes more directly connected to tourism. For example, urban spaces dealing with tourism regularly experience nuisance related to tourist overcrowding (Edwards et al., 2008; Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Solman, 2017). Furthermore, a consistent large inflow of tourism is often connected to a rising monoculture, resulting in a large share of similar businesses mainly/specifically targeting tourists as their potential customers (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand; Long, 2013; Shepherd, 2002). Survey respondents were asked to grade their satisfaction with both the variety of businesses and the busyness (overcrowding) of the market. Moreover, both tourists and residents were able to grade the overall level of ‘touristyness’, while residents also got to grade their satisfaction with the presence of tourists. Finally, all respondents had the opportunity to indicate to what extent they related tourism to the experienced changes.

Authenticity

As the literature in the discourse of gentrification, touristification and urban tourism illustrated, authenticity is a frequently used concept. However, since authenticity is inherently subject to different interpretations and perspectives from different stakeholders, it is difficult to specifically define and operationalize. In order to solve this issue, survey respondents were asked to grade their personal satisfaction with the experienced authenticity. This enables all respondents to answer the questions from their perspective and creates the opportunity to interpret the results as their ‘sense of authenticity’. This so-called ‘sense of authenticity’, which has been previously discussed in literature like Gravari-Barbas and Guinand (2017) and Zukin (2010), then made the concept of authenticity fit for further analysis. The same applied for the authenticity as it was discussed with the interviewees, since they were individually asked to describe and explain their sense of authenticity. This measured and described ‘sense of authenticity’ was then related to the processes of gentrification and touristification, providing further insights into the developments in and around the Albert Cuyp.

3.4.b. Brief explanation of survey questions

The surveys can be found in the appendix. Most survey questions are directly derived from the literature. Those that might not have been validated through earlier mentioned literature or the previous operationalization section, but potentially need explanation, will be briefly explained. Since some questions were similar for both tourists and residents, while others were specifically meant for one of the two stakeholders, the following section is divided into those three categories.

(25)

19

The resident and tourist survey

Nationality: Information on the different nationalities of the participants provides the possibility to make

a distinction between the native Dutch respondents and those of other nationalities. This was useful, as all respondents were random passers-by, and relevant, since some tourists were national tourists and some residents were international residents; feeding into the narrative of de Pijp becoming more international, which is also illustrated by the demographics (OIS Amsterdam, 2018).

Highest completed level of education: The highest completed level of education provides an insight on the

likelihood of the respondent being characterized as a middle-class tourist or gentrifier, since this characteristic is often an indication of the socio-economic status of an individual (Blasius et al., 2016).

Questions 3 & 4: With a large variety of businesses in and around the Albert Cuyp, the possible reasons for

a visit, for both residents and tourists, are endless. This provided an insight in both their activities as in the popularity of certain types of businesses.

Question 7: While the mode of transport illustrates the reachability and use of the Albert Cuyp to a certain

extent, especially the Noord-Zuid metro line category is potentially valuable, since the addition of such infrastructural hubs has been proven to influence neighborhood activity (Neuts & Vanneste, 2017).

Resident survey

Question 1: This question was meant to provide an indication of the residential experience of a respondent

and the potential knowledge the person gathered on De Pijp throughout the years. Furthermore, the question provides an insight on the period of residency. With De Pijp being known as a gentrifying area, it was to be expected that a relatively large share of the YUP respondents is fairly new to the area. The choice for these specific year categories is based on the age boundaries set and the demographic residency numbers available on OIS Amsterdam (2018).

Question 2: One of the assumptions the literature provided on gentrification, touristification, urban

tourism and the loss of place, was that residents start avoiding certain places due to perceived changes, which potentially influences their urban consumption or its frequency (Gravari-Barbas, 2017; Solman, 2017). This question provided an insight in the frequency of their visits.

Tourist survey

Question 1: If a tourist has visited the Albert Cuyp street multiple times, the tourist is more likely to have

noticed potential changes and/or to have developed an opinion on that matter or the market in general.

Question 2: This could provide an insight in how tourists become familiar with the Albert Cuyp, which could

Touristification and gentrification in ‘de Pijp’ : the case of the Albert Cuyp street in Amsterdam