New Urban Tourism: an On-Site Analysis of City Tourism’s New Trend in Selected Spots in the Destination of Munich, Germany

2.1 OTBT in the World Tourism Cities

According to Maitland and Newman (2009b), World Tourism Cities (WTC) offer potential for the development of tourism off the beaten track (OTBT). WTCs are large, polycentric, multifunctional cities, “[…] attracting large flows of visitors, well located in global circuits with substantial historical assets, iconic buildings and […] centers of cultural excellence” (Maitland & Newman, 2009a, p. 4). Due to its polycentric character, tourism does not necessarily develop in a central location or district, but also in other, less well-known, and less frequented parts of the city. WTCs are global cities – business locations that have an important influence on the globalized world. These cities attract large numbers of visitors, new residents, and international investors. Tourism therefore plays an important role in WTCs, as they attract millions of visitors every year. Yet it only represents one of many other activities embedded in the city’s economy (Edwards, Griffin, & Hayllar, 2008; Maxim, 2019). WTCs exhibit various characteristics that influence tourism development in these destinations: they have world-class attractions (Law, 2002), they are a showplace of business and cultural excellence (Maxim, 2019, p. 1009) and they offer visitors several benefits. They are easily accessible through well-connected airports, they have better scheduled tourism services, several, diverse accommodations and many entertainment options (Edwards et al., 2008; Maxim, 2019).

2.2 Cities are changing – The result: standardization

Cities are undergoing significant transformations, driven primarily by globalization, which has resulted in their consumption by a global audience. This phenomenon has led to the standardization of urban spaces as cities strive to attract tourists and investors through similar strategies. Gilbert and Hancock (2006) explain this shift by attributing the desire to explore abandoned or undiscovered places to the city being transformed into an object being consumed globally. They argue that the search for undiscovered places is a reaction to the commodification of urban paths.

Maitland (2010, 2013) adds that cities in the 21st century are consumed globally, and to appeal to a global (tourist) public, they often pursue innovative yet similar strategies, resulting in a standardized urban product. This standardization creates ‘placeless’ environments that lack a unique connection to the city or culture in which they are developed (Maitland, 2013). Richards and Wilson (2006) describe this as ‘serial reproduction,’ where cities implement similar revitalized districts and cultural projects, leading to interchangeable cityscapes. Ritzer (2014) likens this process to ‘McDonaldization,’ where urban spaces become predictable and standardized in their efforts to stand out.

However, it would be wrong to claim that all cities are the same. What is important is that the behavior and needs of city tourists are changing. Tourists want to discover what cities have to offer in addition to their sights, museums, and harbor districts.

2.3 Sophisticated city tourists in standardized cities

The result of interchangeable cityscapes is their commodification, leading to a declining appeal for a certain group of city tourists, specifically, the “increasingly sophisticated tourists” (Maitland, 2013, p. 13). According to the author, it is ineffective to create more attractions if the needs and habits of tourists are changing. This statement rests on two key observations: the activity of ‘tourism’ cannot be distinctly separated from other forms of mobility in the city, and the needs of tourists are not markedly different from those of other city users.

2.4 New Urban Tourism

NUT is the “[…] phenomenon of leaving the established and classic tourist areas […]” (Kagermeier et al., 2021, p. 58). NUT and OTBT tourism are interwoven, as NUT takes place OTBT (Maitland, 2010; Maitland & Newman, 2009b; Stors & Stoltenberg, 2023). However, NUT is not a homogeneous phenomenon that takes place in the same way in every city: “New Urban Tourism [is] dependent on the local conditions, [on] the history […] of a city” (Sommer et al., 2019b, p. 26), which is why it is difficult to define it in a uniform way. However, Sommer et al. (2019b) list three aspects that fundamentally define NUT:

3.1 The qualitative content analysis of selected travel blogs

The qualitative content analysis is a systematic, rule-based, and category-supported evaluation and interpretation method for texts and other communication content. The procedure is strictly rule-based, ensuring high intersubjectivity and verifiability of the results. The analysis is conducted in several steps, where categories are either developed inductively from the material or deduced theoretically in advance and then assigned to text passages. According to Mayring and Fenzl (2019), text coding is a rule-based process where categories are developed inductively or deduced theoretically in advance and assigned to text passages. His model integrates inductive and deductive approaches, including steps like category definition, formulation of the coding guideline, application, and review. Each category is defined, with typical text passages and rules for distinguishing categories, refined during a pilot phase. For this study, an inductive approach was chosen.

To answer the first question – which places in Munich are most frequently marketed as insider tips by travel blogs? the first step was to analyze the selected travel literature. For this purpose, the material to be analyzed was selected. Travel guides were excluded for financial reasons, which is why the choice fell on travel blogs. The blog posts had to fulfill the selection criteria listed in Table 1.

A Google search was carried out using the keywords ‘insider tips Munich’. From the broad selection of search results, four posts were selected for the QIA; all others did not meet the selection criteria, albeit to varying degrees. The following blog posts were selected:

1. Munich with a difference: top tips for a cool weekend

2. Munich insider tips: 18 insider tips off the beaten track

3. Hey Minga^[2] – with Thies through Munich

4. SECRET TIPS FOR MUNICH: 11 alternative sights & insider tips

The actual rules of the QIA are not defined until the analysis technique exact steps are defined. It must be decided which analysis technique is to be selected, then a concrete process model for the QIA with individual interpretation steps of the analysis is defined. The summary technique was chosen. The basic principle of a summarizing QIA is the precise definition of its level of abstraction: the material must be reduced to its ‘rough outlines’ so that it can still be recognized as a reflection of the basic material at this level (Mayring, 2015). The abstraction was reduced to identifying the insider tips in Munich and filtering out the tips that were mentioned most frequently.

The QIA of the selected travel blogs was limited to reading the texts carefully and coding them when selected keywords appeared. The categories were formed inductively. The blog posts were uploaded to the MAXQDA software, which was used for the coding. The software was chosen due to its ease of use and because it enabled a clear, professional content analysis. After the initial coding, the blog posts were analyzed again to delete any superfluous categories, merge repetitive categories, or create new ones. After the entire material had been reviewed, the evaluation and the listing of insider tips followed. After the coding was completed, the blog content was reduced to eight categories and 224 coded segments. The specific resulting categories will now be presented using exemplary quotes. First, NUT-related words that refer to a special, alternative tourist experience OTBT, such as ‘off the (tourist) beaten track’, ‘discover’ or ‘like the locals’, were looked for. Three categories emerged from the search: K1) Reference to alternative, special, unique, unknown; K2) Stroll, discover, explore, experience; K3) Local offer/participation in the life of the locals.

Some examples are:

K1: “Even in Munich, there are still hidden corners, unknown neighborhoods or tours that are off the beaten track”

K1 and K2: “So if you fancy experiencing the curiosity of surfers […] without the big tourist crowds”

K2 and K3: “Munich individually, personally & authentically – [I] experience […] Munich with other smart locals. Different from the usual sightseeing tours, of course. I see the Bavarian metropolis from an alternative perspective.”

The individual insider tips were coded as a separate category, to which the same tip was assigned again if it was suggested by other bloggers. These categories were combined to form the top category ‘Alternative places of interest’, to which a total of 67 coded segments for 33 insider tips were assigned.

The places in Munich that are considered insider tips and should still be free of tourism are spread across the entire city area, as Figure 1 shows. This covers a broad spectrum of places and facilities: Museums, parks and gardens, cemeteries, castles, individual streets, and entire neighborhoods are all represented.

As explained, NUT Areas are gentrified districts that do not have any significant museums or facilities that traditionally attract visitors from outside. Retail stores and a wide range of restaurants are also typical. Although this description does not apply to all the insider tips mentioned, this is the case for some of the insider tips that were mentioned most frequently, including the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts, the Werksviertel-Mitte and the Viehhof area.

Once the insider tips had been identified and the first research question was answered, it was necessary to decide where the interviews should take place. However, due to certain characteristics of the insider tips, it was not sufficient to simply select the two places that were mentioned most frequently. For example, the Café Vorhoelzer Forum on the roof terrace of the Technical University Munich was excluded because the roof terrace and the café were closed at the time of research (Vorhoelzer Forum, n.d.). In addition, it was necessary to consider some general conditions of the survey locations. Ideally, a constant flow of people should be guaranteed, for example by being close to a train or subway station. For these reasons, the Viehhof area, the Endless Staircase, the Isar meadows including the Flaucher, the Rosengarten, the East-West and North-South Passages, the MUCA^[3] and Tram 19^[4] were eliminated from the selection. This left the Werksviertel-Mitte and the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts, where the surveys took place on June 16^th and 17^th, 2022.

Figure 1:

The insider tips in Munich according to the analyzed travel blogs. Source: the authors

3.2 The semi-standardized questionnaire

To answer the further research questions – ‘Are tourists actually visiting these locations and are they specifically looking for insider tips?’ and ‘Do Munich residents have the impression that tourists are visiting these locations?’ – two semi-standardized questionnaires were created, which were used in interviews in the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts and in the Werksviertel-Mitte. Randomly selected residents and visitors to Munich who were in or near the two insider tips at the time of the survey period were interviewed to determine the extent to which NUT-affine behaviors can be recorded in Munich. As the survey locations were chosen based on German-language travel blogs, the respondents had to be German-speaking.

The questionnaires differ according to the survey group. Visitors had to answer questions about their stay, their plans in Munich and their information behavior. An attempt was made to identify correlations between the number of visits and the travel behavior on site (for example: Does the intention on site change with an increasing number of visits to Munich?). Finally, some questions were asked about destination perceptions and travel priorities to trace some NUT-affine characteristics, including the relevance of insider tips for city trips, their personal definition of authenticity and their perception of the places where the survey took place. The visitor questionnaire contains 22 questions, of which 18 are closed and four are open. The questions were developed based on the literature and the resulting knowledge, to investigate the typical behavior of NUT.

For the residents, on the other hand, the questions focused on the perception of tourism at the survey locations in order to understand whether NUT is also reflected in the perception of the residents. Did the residents think that the district was touristy? Could they name a specific place that might attract out-of-town visitors? Can they recognize tourists? It was also determined which places they would show their guests and whether they themselves are interested in insider tips. The resident questionnaire contains 16 questions.

The age was asked for both survey groups, as this could be particularly relevant in the case of visitors, since according to Kagermeier et al. (2021) age is a characteristic feature of New Urban Tourists.

A total of 49 people were surveyed, 28 of whom were residents (14 per survey location) and 21 visitors, twelve of whom were in the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts and nine in the Werksviertel-Mitte. The interviewees were chosen at random; passers-by were approached and asked if they had time for a short survey.

4.1 Visitor survey

Most respondents (15 out of 21) were between 20 and 29 years old. Only four respondents were first-time visitors. The repeat visitors had all been to Munich more than twice. In terms of the reason for the visit, nine were visiting friends/family (VFR); the remaining eleven were there either for work, to look for accommodation, for an event or because of a general interest in the city. Of the VFR visitors, only four also stayed overnight with friends or family; the remaining five had only made a day trip and returned home in the evening. Five of the GGV respondents stayed in a hotel, while five of the WVM respondents stayed in a hostel. Six WVM interviewees stayed nearby, five of them directly in the Werksviertel-Mitte; in the GGV, only two slept in the surrounding area. Regardless of the survey location, the most common trip duration was the short trip (3–4 days).

4.2 Travel and information behavior

When asked about the reason the respondents were in the neighborhoods, the first notable differences between the survey locations became apparent: ‘Stroll and discover’ was the most popular answer in both districts. In the GGV, however ‘Sightseeing’ was in second place and ‘Exploring the city’ in third place. One possible explanation for this is that the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts border on the old town with its many attractions. In the WVM, on the other hand, ‘going out’ and ‘relaxing’ came second and ‘sightseeing’ and ‘exploring the city’ came third. The likeliest explanation for this is the many clubs and bars in the Werksviertel-Mitte district. The fact that ‘sightseeing’ only came in third place was probably because there are no sights in the vicinity of the WVM or that they had already been visited during the day.

Two questions were used to investigate the travelers’ information behavior: How did they find out about Munich and the survey locations? For Munich, personal recommendations were the most popular source of information, followed by internet searches for specific categories, e. g., breakfast offers. Seven interviewees had not searched for information, albeit for different reasons, such as the many previous visits or the fact that other aspects of the stay were in the foreground (events, work, etc.). Local guides such as Mit Vergnügen München and classic travel guides were each mentioned by three respondents. Travel blogs and Munich Tourism channels were mentioned by one person each.

In contrast, the information behavior for the respective survey locations was different: personal recommendations were still the most frequent source of information for the GGV, but local guides followed in second place, and travel blogs and Google Maps searches in third place. One visitor had not done any research but had discovered the GGV; another was already familiar with it. Except for two people, all of them were visiting the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz district for the first time. Of the two repeat visitors, one was there on business and the other was there again because he found the district ‘particularly authentic’.

At WVM, on the other hand, two respondents had found out about the Werksviertel-Mitte by booking their accommodation. Two others were there because of personal recommendations and two participants had not searched for information; other sources of information were YouTube or Google. All respondents were visiting the Werksviertel-Mitte for the first time.

When asked about the reason why the participants had chosen the survey location or what brought them there, the most common answer in the GGV was ‘It feels authentic’. The wide range of things on offer in the district and the answer ‘never been there before’ came in second place, followed by the motives ‘going out’ and ‘spending the night’ and ‘eating and drinking’. Participants also stated that they wanted to stroll through the district or had happened to pass by or that they were there because of its proximity to the river Isar. Five out of nine respondents were attracted to the Werksviertel-Mitte by the wide range of offers, followed by gastronomic motives (‘food and drink’), their accommodation and that they had ‘never been there before’. Two respondents mentioned the atmosphere of the district. Another mentioned the neighborhood as such (“it’s an insanely cool project!” WVM BES04) and one respondent said that it had not been an active decision. One interviewee was there to go out. Only one person stated that the Werksviertel-Mitte was authentic.

Respondents were then asked to comment on their perception of the districts: Did they think that there were many Munich residents in the respective neighborhoods and that the neighborhoods were particularly authentic? See Figure 2 and 3 for the respective answers.

They were then asked to comment on their personal definition of authenticity and to explain what they based their impressions on. Most of the interviewees made this clear from people’s appearance, for example:

“[Locals have a] relaxed demeanor, [are] charming, dressed hip […]. Tourists probably wouldn’t do that” [GGV BES06]

“Heard a lot of Bavarian. Also, how people walk around, what they say” [GGV BES12]

No one gave a clear definition of authenticity, although two interviewees pointed out the difficulty of this very definition:

“I don’t know, it’s difficult to say or put into words” [GGV BES04].

“It is more of an assumption. Authenticity is difficult to define” [GGV BES11].

A WVM interviewee said that although many Munich residents were there, the Werksviertel-Mitte was not authentic: “I have the impression that there are many Munich residents visiting – it seems like a place that Munich residents show their friends. It’s not authentic” [WVM BES09]

The three participants from the GGV who said that the district was not particularly authentic argued their statement by saying that they had heard a lot of English. This suggests that language is perceived as an elementary characteristic of authenticity – as also confirmed by respondent ‘BES12’ in the GGV, who had heard a lot of Bavarian and therefore perceived the district as authentic. 16 out of 21 visitors said that the presence of locals was important to them when choosing places to visit on city breaks. This was for different reasons – the most prominent being that locals are seen as a bridge to the local culture with their presence and that they guarantee that the places visited are not a ‘tourist trap’ and are not ‘designed for tourists’; 50 % of the respondents expressed negative opinions about tourism. For example, it is important that locals are there (references in bold) …

Figure 2:

Assessment of Glockenbach- and Gärtnerplatzviertel’s authenticity by tourists in Munich

Figure 3:

Assessment of Werksviertel-Mitte’s authenticity by tourists in Munich

… “ so that I know that they are not places designed for tourists [emphasis added]” [GGV BES01]

… because “they [create] a different atmosphere [emphasis added] than in places where [only] tourists are around” [GGV BES11]

… “when I travel, I do it to get to know other places. The stranger the place, the more important it is to look behind the scenes [emphasis added]” [VWM BES03]

Building on this, it was investigated whether respondents specifically look for insider tips in the hope of meeting locals rather than tourists. Only five out of 21 respondents said they did not do this. When asked about their sources of information for insider tips, personal recommendations were the clear favorite, followed by city local guides, travel blogs and social media. YouTube and Google were also mentioned.

4.3 General information about the residents

As with the visitors, the majority (21 out of 28) of the residents surveyed were between 20 and 29 years old. 70 % did not live in the area.

Of those who do not live in the GGV, most had traveled from the Maxvorstadt and Schwabing districts either by bicycle or by public transport. Their plans show that most respondents had traveled to the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts specifically to do something outside of work – the most common answer was ‘meeting friends’, followed by ‘swimming in the Isar’. In the Werksviertel-Mitte, on the other hand, respondents came from all over the city and had either traveled by public transport, bicycle, or car. This greater distance can also be explained by the fact that six out of 14 interviewees came to work in the district. Other plans included attending an event – there was a gin festival on the day of the survey (Werksviertel-Mitte, n.d.) – or meeting friends.

4.4 The tourist assessment of the district

The following questions attempted to understand how the residents of Munich assessed tourism in the respective neighborhoods. First, they were asked whether they thought the neighborhoods were touristy. See Figures 4 and 5 for the respective answers.

Figure 4:

Assessment of Glockenbach- and Gärtnerplatzviertel’s tourism attractiveness potential by Munich residents

Figure 5:

Assessment of Werksviertel-Mitte’s tourism attractiveness potential by Munich residents

Those who agreed were asked to justify their answer. As was already the case with the tourists, the residents also interpreted the language and appearance of certain people as an indication that they were tourists. The agreement of some residents was also based on a logical or geographical component – e. g., the proximity to the old town. After all, you would inevitably have to walk through the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts if you wanted to go from the Altstadt to the Isar or vice versa. Other residents argued that the district is touristy because of the clubs and bars on offer. One ‘totally’ approving resident claimed that Gärtnerplatz in particular “is in every travel guide. And it’s also on the route of those double-decker buses!” [GGV BEW12].

With her statement, she indicated that the GGV was well-known. However, the question arises as to which tourists it attracts if it is considered an insider tip but is also listed in travel guides. GGV BEW01]: “The district is becoming increasingly well-known due to its atmosphere […]. The typical tourist, who has no social media and tends to walk around in the city center, will probably still not notice anything about Glockenbach”.

It was not explained who the ‘typical tourist’ was. However, he could belong to the ‘classic city tourists’ who prefer sightseeing tourism to discovering Munich’s insider tips.

The Werksviertel-Mitte was also perceived as touristy by 50 % of those surveyed. One reason for this was the Werksviertel-Mitte itself: “Because of the concept, which is very varied, it definitely has the potential to be touristy” [WVM BEW04]. The range of offers specifically designed for tourists was also mentioned – including, for example, the many hotels, the Ferris wheel and the two tourist guide offices whose offices are in the Werksviertel-Mitte.

The next questions inquired whether there were places in the neighborhoods that could potentially attract tourists. For both locations, the majority said that there were such places. The specific places named in the Werksviertel-Mitte were the Ferris wheel, the Werksviertel-Mitte itself or the clubs and bars, and the residential area Haidhausen. In the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts, on the other hand, Gärtnerplatz was mentioned, the range of cafés, clubs and bars, and the nearby Reichenbachbrücke and the Reichenbachkiosk.

Furthermore, it was investigated whether the respondents thought or had observed that there were tourists at the locations. The range of answers was similar to that of the previous question, with four respondents in the Glockenbach and Gärtnerplatz districts answering, ‘I can’t say’. In the Werksviertel-Mitte district, on the other hand, opinions were split exactly – 50 % agreed ‘yes’ or ‘completely agree’ and 50 % ‘not at all’ or ‘disagree’. For both districts, residents most frequently stated that tourists strolled, followed in second place by either ‘sitting in cafés’ (GGV) or ‘going out to party’ and ‘attending events’ (WVM) [F7.1BEW].

Half of the respondents were unsure whether they could recognize tourists [F8BEW]. Some respondents added to their answer:

“Not every tourist [I can recognize]! But sometimes I can recognize them by the way they move” [WVM BEW12].

“They behave very differently from locals […] But above all they have time and don’t run purposefully towards something” [WVMBEW01].

4.5 Own tourist behavior

Two further questions were used to investigate which places the respective respondents show their guests when they have visitors. 13 residents indicated a mixture of sights and personal highlights. Seven participants chose only the classic sights and four only the ‘personal highlights and insider tips’.

There were also additions here, such as “Depending on [who is visiting]. If they are friends, I also show them the clubs” [WVM BEW10] or “Depending on the duration of the visit, I don’t just show them the classics” [GGV BEW14]. The Old Town and the sights in the Old Town were mentioned most frequently among the places that residents show their guests. In second place came the English Garden and the Olympic Park.

The last question examined the behavior of residents on their city trips: Do they also look for places that they perceive as authentic? Only six out of 28 respondents stated that they do not do this. Of the 22 respondents who were looking for insider tips, seven added something to their answer, for example: “Yes, [I do this] to avoid the big tourism. If there are locals there, it means the place is cool!” [WVM BEW10].

One interviewee explained that although he would like to find insider tips, such places “are sometimes not as accessible as I would like them to be. You would have to know locals for that” [GGV BEW01].

For others, the discovery of insider tips was more of a side effect of their way of traveling: “I walk […] a lot, and as a result I discover […] a lot” [GGV BEW02] and “Because I like […] strolling on city trips, a side effect of this is often that I discover places that are not in the travel guide. But I don’t actively google [them]” [GGV BEW11].