Variety of Urban Tourism Development Trajectories: Antalya, Amsterdam and Liverpool Compared

Savitch and Kantor explain divergent trajectories of urban development with the help of four variables, namely, market conditions, inter-governmental support, local culture and popular control in their theory. In this article, we apply Savitch and Kantor's theory to the urban tourism development of Antalya, Amsterdam and Liverpool. The case study is partly based on written documents and partly on face-to-face interviews with representatives from public, semi-private and private organizations of the tourism sector. We found that Savitch and Kantor's theory of urban development is only partly helpful in explaining divergent urban tourism development trajectories. A centralized unitary state does not necessarily lead to a social-centred urban development trajectory but can be just as good a pre-condition to a neo-liberal urban development strategy as seen in Antalya and Liverpool. And although market conditions are favourable, an integrated inter-governmental support, a well-developed popular control, and a post-materialist culture have enabled Amsterdam to follow a social-centred urban policy, it has unintentionally and paradoxically resulted in gentrification and a commodification of heritage and culture. A strong social-centred urban policy in a first stage has created an urban milieu that has become exploited by gentrifiers and the tourism industry in a later stage.