a. If UNWTO statistics would be used, data up to July 2022 are available.
b. It probably would make more sense to use the periods of the different S.G.s of UNWTO instead of calendarial decades. The goals of the work were very differently influenced by, for instance the previous S.G. and the current one.
When I first travelled to Vietnam, a little over 2 decades ago, I liked that tourism seemed to benefit locals. Hotels and eating places were often run by a small family. Then managers and young employees, often students were employed by someone who called occasionally, to collect the money. Now it seems more about resorts and big hotels, run by big, often foreign companies. In places like Phu Quoc, the resorts have come at the cost of local livelihoods.
I would argue that all the talk about "quality tourists" often is talking about arresting the growth in overall numbers (just in a head-up-arse way: "how can we reduce the number of people inbound without also reducing the money generated?").
The world has hundreds of millions more middle class people now than it did 40 years ago (and I don't think anyone would disagree that people moving away from poverty is a good thing) so the travel genie isn't going back in the bottle. Covid temporarily paused it, but there's huge pent-up demand now for revenge travel.
So i think, rather than trying in vain to reduce numbers, we should focus on spreading them around (10-new-Bali style), and encouraging people to travel more sustainability.
For example, i remember when flights used to be cheaper if you stayed a certain number of nights. If we go back to that sort of dynamic pricing where a flight is $100 if you stay a week or more, but $200 if you only stay a weekend, and $300 if you only stay a day, that will hopefully encourage people to make fewer, longer trips, or take the train for weekends away, and stop unnecessary business travel.
Two comments:
a. If UNWTO statistics would be used, data up to July 2022 are available.
b. It probably would make more sense to use the periods of the different S.G.s of UNWTO instead of calendarial decades. The goals of the work were very differently influenced by, for instance the previous S.G. and the current one.
When I first travelled to Vietnam, a little over 2 decades ago, I liked that tourism seemed to benefit locals. Hotels and eating places were often run by a small family. Then managers and young employees, often students were employed by someone who called occasionally, to collect the money. Now it seems more about resorts and big hotels, run by big, often foreign companies. In places like Phu Quoc, the resorts have come at the cost of local livelihoods.
Hey Stu,
I would argue that all the talk about "quality tourists" often is talking about arresting the growth in overall numbers (just in a head-up-arse way: "how can we reduce the number of people inbound without also reducing the money generated?").
The world has hundreds of millions more middle class people now than it did 40 years ago (and I don't think anyone would disagree that people moving away from poverty is a good thing) so the travel genie isn't going back in the bottle. Covid temporarily paused it, but there's huge pent-up demand now for revenge travel.
So i think, rather than trying in vain to reduce numbers, we should focus on spreading them around (10-new-Bali style), and encouraging people to travel more sustainability.
For example, i remember when flights used to be cheaper if you stayed a certain number of nights. If we go back to that sort of dynamic pricing where a flight is $100 if you stay a week or more, but $200 if you only stay a weekend, and $300 if you only stay a day, that will hopefully encourage people to make fewer, longer trips, or take the train for weekends away, and stop unnecessary business travel.
Anyhoo, just my 2 cents.