VISITOR
LGBTQIA+ visitor findability, usability, safety, trust and experience
CANDIDATE MEASURETask completion and voluntary experience feedback
IMPACT / CONTRIBUTION / LEARNING
Make LGBTQIA+ visitor needs visible in the evidence, and distinguish intended benefits from observed results.
MEASURING VALUE / FIVE DOMAINS
An impact architecture for the LGBTQIA+ visitor-economy pilot. These are intended outcomes and candidate measures, not results already achieved.
LGBTQIA+ visitor findability, usability, safety, trust and experience
CANDIDATE MEASURETask completion and voluntary experience feedback
Service readiness, market capability and buyer access
CANDIDATE MEASUREVerified service changes and qualified buyer conversations
Evidence for accessibility, public realm, service nodes and district improvement
CANDIDATE MEASUREDocumented barriers, referrals and decisions informed
Queer cultural capital, local identity, participation and cultural businesses
CANDIDATE MEASURECommunity-validated assets, participation and paid cultural work
Visitor spending, jobs, business opportunities, market access and local value
CANDIDATE MEASUREVerified transactions and local income; no automatic attribution
Agree the unit, sample, baseline date, evidence owner and review period before testing. Record change after use, examine other influences, distinguish the pilot’s contribution from total market change, and feed the learning back into service and district decisions.
SME JOURNEY / OUTCOME-BASED EVALUATION
Track the same SME from diagnosis and referral to use and follow-up. Agree a baseline, measure, evidence owner and review date; record other influences before estimating the pilot’s contribution. Success is not measured only by participation.
TDRI × OSMEP / Research and evaluation reference →INCLUSIVE DATA & EVIDENCE
Start with the decision a city or business needs to make, then collect only the evidence necessary for it.
Purpose, journey tasks and aggregate movement patterns
Service information, location, hours and contact accuracy
Observed barriers and tested service improvements
Voluntary feedback with safe aggregation and withdrawal routes
Queer cultural assets, community interpretation and reuse permissions
Baseline, change, contribution and learning with evidence limits
EVIDENCE / DECISION SUPPORT
An applied LGBTQIA+ visitor-economy evidence layer for district and service decisions. It can complement wider tourism and city intelligence; it is not a competing national tourism data platform. The integration and data-sharing arrangements remain proposed.
View project and development statusDISCOVERY / SERVICE NAVIGATION
The visitor-facing layer: discover places, navigate services and reach relevant offers. Its role in this model is direct visitor access; a discovery listing does not certify LGBTQIA+ readiness, and a live connection to Inclusive City Link™ is not asserted.
See the shared infrastructure model2026 UPDATE / WORKING PRIDE ECONOMY APPLICATION
Use city digital infrastructure, digital public services, City Data Platform, SaaS / cloud adoption and digital solution matching as implementation lenses. Relevant Smart City domains are Smart Mobility, Smart Living, Smart Economy and Smart Governance.
What to observe
Observe whether a prototype improves actual service use and informs a local-government decision. Record the service owner, accessibility, operating cost, data safeguards and measured change; a technology installation alone is not impact.
Inclusive City Link™ is an applied LGBTQIA+ visitor-economy use case and evidence layer. It is not an official depa Smart City or City Data Platform product; recognition, collaboration, catalogue qualification and integration are not confirmed.
Do not infer sexual orientation or gender identity from a visit, photograph or transaction. Separate contact details from research responses, use voluntary participation and purpose-specific consent where required, and define access, retention and safe reporting before collection. Avoid public person-level movement trails and re-identifying small groups. Each research activity needs its own reviewed protocol; the newsletter notice is not research consent.