Within the perspective of Environmental psychology of sustainability and of ecology (Bonnes, Buonaiuto, 2002; Bonnes, Nenci 2002), our goal was to investigate the representation and experience of urban tourism according to the different types or groups of users (Martinotti, 1993). Following the post-tourism approach (Urry, 2002), which defines it as a cultural form, as a “glance” predetermined by direct and mediated communication, no longer subjected to space-time boundaries or established places and motivated by the drive towards “the right to pleasure”, it was assumed that the psychological and social processes involved are expressed within structures of restorative and self-regulation experiences (Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser F G., Fuhrer, U., 2001); Social Identity (Capozza, Brown, 200) and Place Identity (Twigger-Ross, Uzzell, 1996) and that they rest on Social Representations (Farr, Moscovici, 1984) of the culture of tourism and time, which, together with individual behaviour, direct social and physical environment planning. This involves the issue of sustainability of mobility, linked to the falsifying of places in order to make them appear spectacular. In this first exploratory phase of our research we decided to undertake an analysis of the “discourses” of today’s tourist experience in relation to an urban environment, that of the city of Cagliari, by means of conversational and discursive analysis (Antaki, C. ,1994; Speer, Potter, 2000). We examined 40 in-depth interviews and descriptive reports (Atkinson, 2000; Bruner, 1992) – utilising the “jeffersonian transcription” (Jefferson, 1989) – in order to evaluate if conversational and discursive analysis was able to reveal, not only the conversational and rhetorical moves, but also the shaping of social representations. The results obtained provisionally support our hypotheses and seem to indicate the compatibility between the discursive approach and that of social representations: the rhetorical force of the statements made by the interviewees (Billig, 1996) seems to comply to social norms linked to the different areas of activation, while the objectification of the reference elements appears closely connected to the different positions taken by the social actors (inclusions in the social context, Doise, Clemence, e Lorenzi Cioldi, 1992). The representations which emerged are characterised by the presence of common elements (objects “to be seen” in the city and behavioural characteristics of long term and short term visitors) and different elements (social characteristics of the speakers and of the type of “visitor” referred to). The “regenerative power ” of places is organised in a discursive manner: they are seen as able to produce a psychological and physical “distancing” from daily routine and working life, mainly through sight and, to a lesser degree, through other senses. Moreover, the social and physical characteristics of places are linked to social identity and place identity, as well as relations with co-visitors (the best itineraries are those selected by a stable resident for a friend. The pleasure and satisfaction they generate lies in their capacity to create emotions which remain engraved in memory, and in the quality of the relationship established with travelling companion/s).