Purpose -This paper aims to explore how overseas visitors experience off-the-beaten-track areas and everyday life in London.Design/methodology/approach -Initially scoped through quantitative research using visitor surveys involving some 400 respondents, the study was subsequently developed through qualitative research: 49 semi-structured interviews with visitors from a wide range of countries.Findings -These areas offer city visitors opportunities to create their own narratives and experiences of the city, and to build a cultural capital in a convivial relationship with other city users. At the same time, visitors contribute to the discovery of new areas for tourism -and in some sense the creation of new places to visit.Research limitations/implications -Further research in other areas of London and in other world tourism cities is needed to develop ideas discussed here.Practical implications -Subtler forms of tourism marketing are required to develop the potential of areas like those discussed in the paper.Social implications -Some tourists and residents enjoy a convivial and complementary relationship in area development. Originality/value -The paper focuses on everyday life as an element in the attraction that cities exert for tourists, and on the visitors' contribution to recreating the city.

No abstract

ABSTRACT:This article provides much needed understanding of destination images held by non-visitors.Recognizing the characteristics of non-visitor images and their formation is important in order to understand images more widely. This qualitative study assesses images of London. The Findings indicate that images can be very persistent and that the first images formed of a destination endure over time. Although the research is based on people with no direct experience of London, the research highlights that a range of secondary 'experiences' influence image formation.

This article examines the definitions and implementations of the concept ‘social tourism’ that are in use in Europe today. Examples show that the concept has been implemented in many different ways to suit national contexts and that the justifications and goals of social tourism can differ greatly. The question arises how one can define the boundaries of this versatile and complex concept. This article proposes a model to clarify the interrelationships between the different interpretations: it highlights where common ground exists, but also where contradictions are apparent. The model consists of four main categories: the participation model, the inclusion model, the adaptation model and the stimulation model. The model draws on the historical development of social tourism and the ethical foundations for provision, and it is supported by a range of examples of European practice. Through this sub-categorisation of the concept, it is argued that a ‘scientification’ of the concept of social tourism can take place, so that the term does not lose its academic and political value. This article concludes by proposing a definition for social tourism that can effectively set the concept apart from other forms of tourism with attached social benefits

Literature on tourism development in converted cities or new districts of polycentric cities emphasises planned processes to create attractions, often resulting in standardised tourism zones. The demands and experience of tourists themselves have been neglected. Qualitative research with overseas visitors to new tourism areas suggests that character and sense of place that visitors enjoy derives from a combination of unlike elements, 'lashed up' to create a distinctive place, in which everyday life plays an important role. Rather than familiar stories of conflict between 'hosts' and 'guests', the emphasis in some areas is on conviviality among different groups of city users.