Guess the countries of the world that entertain the highest number of tourists (regardless of whether or not those tourists crossed an imaginary line on a map).
The data in the source is a bit out of date, but it's the best I could do.
The data for this quiz is old. China might already be the #1 tourist destination in the world, and if not it will be soon. I read somewhere that they were expecting 3 billion domestic tourists in China in 2013, which would almost certainly eclipse whatever number American tourism has grown to, but figures for almost all of these countries have grown since the data being used was published.
Of course, that method is heavily biased toward large populous countries, and heavily biased against small less populous countries surrounded by many other countries.
Or... it's heavily biased toward accurately counting the number of tourists, and against using a selective criteria that grossly distorts the data based on quirks of geopolitics.
wtf are you even talking about? Seriously you are totally off your rocker today. What happened to you? Once in a while before you used to say things that were intelligent.
See the comments below (and responses) from benjaminbarker if you are too lazy to cut and paste the link and read up on the rationale for these figures which are part of a joint study from many prestigious universities and not something I invented myself. Driving past the Arc de Triomphe does not count as tourism. Driving from Paris to Cannes and getting a hotel for the night to spend the next morning on the beach does. And absolutely should.
The place I was born actually has nothing at all to do with my position. I don't attach my ego to my nationality. And I have proven this very clearly. I have no problem at all admitting areas where the US isn't #1. In fact in the comments section of this quiz I concede that, if I had up-to-date information, there is no doubt that China would be #1 now. Sorry.
So what exactly makes you say just because we are french we can't "have no problem at all admitting areas where [France] isn't #1"? Where you compelled by any mystic force to do so?
Drunken Gandalf has implied a couple times that I somehow am unable to accept when the USA isn't #1, or that I am skewing data or biased in which data set I accept because it favors the USA. But this is demonstrably false and I've proven as much. I really honestly don't care at all if the country I was born into isn't #1 at something, even if I have to accept this far less often than a Frenchman would. Perhaps if tourism was all we had left I would be more sensitive about giving up the title.
In your imagination, where as far as I can tell I often say things that I've never said, I'm sure I sound quite a bit different than in the real world.
This quiz is different from most other lists on the subject as, usually, those lists do not count domestic tourists as tourists. This way of measuring is, of course, heavily biased toward small countries surrounded by many other countries and produces laughably inaccurate data such as, for example, the idea that Prague entertains more tourists than Orlando. That's just flat out wrong.
So... I went digging for better information that included both domestic and international tourists and counted them the same. On this quiz 1 tourist = 1 tourist regardless of nearby geography and geopolitics. However, it's hard to find data like this, thus the small size of the quiz and the fact that the data is not up-to-date.
It's extremely difficult to believe that Poland attracts more tourists than Germany, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Croatia and Greece. Not sure if this is reality being 'adjusted' to fit a personal vision.
Having been to most of those countries, I have no problem at all believing Poland gets more tourists than the Czech Republic or Croatia. Suggesting otherwise actually seems a bit silly. Germany, Spain and Italy on the other hand would be surprising, but all it would take for this to be true would be for Poles (on average) to take a vacation within their own country thrice per year, and Spaniards to do so only 1-2x. That would even up the scores given Spain's lead in receiving more international tourists. As to your implication that the data has been adjusted, well if you are speaking to my own integrity I've demonstrated time and again that this at least exceeds your own. I don't just make stuff up to put on my quizzes. If you're implying that the five researches who put together the study (one from Carnegie Mellon, one from Leuven in Belgium, and three from the University of Hamburg) had a personal agenda to put Poland ahead of Germany, I'd love to hear what it was.
The discrepancy I mentioned above could be explained one of three possible ways (and maybe more). Possible explanation a) Spaniards take fewer vacations than Poles. b) when Spaniards take vacation, they stay at home rather than traveling. c) when Spaniards travel, they go to France or the UK or Portugal (or Poland) while Poles tend to travel within their own country... or any combination of the above.
1. Everything in Poland - accomodation, food, especially alcochol and prostitutes - is cheaper than in other countries. 1 euro = 4,12 zloties actually. In fact most Poles are poor and the prices are still raising, but for tourists they are funny.
2. Poles spend vacations mainly in Poland, because they can't afford an abroad trip. We've got Baltic Sea, Sudetes, Carpathian Mountains, the province Masuria with many lakes and beautiful views. We don't have to go abroad if we want to admire nice landscapes or spend time in more active ways. But if we would want to go abroad, we have to accumulate money for a long time.
I don't know the trends of Spaniards or other nations, but Poland becomes more and more attractive for tourists, however the society becomes rather poorer every year, mainly because of the government making running a business more and more difficult and unprofitable, what is generating unemployment.
Hi Pawel. Thanks for your input. I've been to Poland myself and concur that it's a very beautiful country and everything there seems very cheap to a tourist. So I can understand why it's an attractive tourist destination for foreigners and also why Poles, who maybe don't have as much money to travel as Germans or other West Europeans, would be inclined to visit places within their own country when they take a vacation. They probably can't afford to travel to more expensive countries like Spain or Italy which can be very expensive to visit even for someone from a wealthy country.
pawelkrknh, the exchange rate doesn't mean that because 1 Euro = 4.12 zloty that goods in Poland are 1/4.12 the price... stuff in Poland don't have the same 'price' as stuff in Europe, just with a different currency. While I'm sure the prices in Poland are cheaper than the rest of Europe on average, the exchange rate is not a good way of proving it.
While, of course, in the abstract you are right. For instance, just because Kosovo uses the Euro (1 eur = $1.10 USD) and Japan uses the Yen (1 yen = approx $0.01 USD), it does NOT follow that Tokyo is 100x cheaper than Pristina! :D
On the other hand, if you are looking at recent trends, such as how the strength of the US dollar has increased 100% versus the Ukrainian grivna in the last couple years, then it can actually make a big impact because inflation tends to lag behind currency depreciation somewhat. It's complicated. Often a devalued currency means a place is very cheap for tourists. Other times not. I don't think Pawel was implying that exchange rates are exactly correlated to value of goods. Though I am surprised at how often I encounter people who believe that. As if a cheeseburger costs 1 rupee in India and 1 dollar in the USA even though it's about 50 rupees to the dollar. That's just not how it works. But India (and Poland) are very cheap.
Yes I should have been clearer, I meant by just looking at at the exchange rate on its own doesn't tell you how expensive a place of going to be. But even then while comparing over time will give you an indication of its inflation, it still won't actually tell you how much it will cost to go there.
Following Eurostat, the countries with the highest number of domestic overnight trips in 2019 were (by far) France, Germany and Spain, and then Poland and Italy.
If you can find me a set of data that is more up to date and just as comprehensive (not just for Europe), I'll update the quiz. I never found any, but I also haven't looked in years.
I'm just curious of how these stats work. If I take a week off work, and spend it outside my hometown (Copenhagen), am I then considered a tourist? And how far away from my home do I need to go, to be considered a tourist?
I find your skepticism encouraging. Your laziness a bit less so. :) You can find the answers if you follow the link I posted above to the study. I'll cut & paste a little bit here:
" Data are mostly in the form of number
of trips to destinations beyond a non-
negligible distance from the place of residence, an
d involving at least one overnight stay. For
some countries such data format was not available,
and we resorted to either the number of
registered guests in hotels, campsites, hostels etc
., or the ratio between the number of
overnight stays and the average length of stay. The
latter formats underestimate domestic
tourism by excluding trips to friend and relatives;
7 years later... I guess as European, you don't consider yourself a tourist when just traveling in your own country. (God, I miss being a tourist though! Can't wait for this pandemic to be over).
Using my own calculations from the available data, I'm pretty sure that Japan is very close and winds up #11. And almost all of their tourism is domestic. I don't think this is because nobody wants to visit Japan; I think it's probably just because it's pretty well isolated. Even from most other parts of Asia, Japan isn't that easy to get to.
Russia and Thailand both get a sizeable number of tourists and I'm also a bit surprised they didn't do better in the rankings. I think there are a combination of factors. Thailand doesn't generate a lot of domestic tourists, that's one. Even though there are a lot of people living in Thailand, most of them don't have the money to go on vacation. Also, Thailand is just as isolated from the major source countries of international tourists (Europe and North America) as Japan is. As China becomes an increasingly important source country for international tourism, a trend we've seen happening in a big way the last couple years, this may change.
Russia generates a ton of tourists itself but it seems like the majority of them prefer to leave the country (probably for somewhere warmer) rather than stay in Russia. If you've ever been to Sharm AlSheikh in Egypt you'll see that place is almost all Russian.
I found an article yesterday that apparently this year Bangkok is going to receive more international tourists than Paris, marking the first time an Asian city has been the #1 international tourist destination in the world for at least a hundred years or so. I have personally witnessed tourism in Thailand booming the last several years, from my first visit in 2007 when it was still pretty quiet to my last trip in 2014 when things were booming. Though I'm happy for Thailand, I'm personally disappointed with this trend but I guess like they say, you can never go home, and you can never step in the same river twice.
I blame this on positive word of mouth... all those single guys going to Thailand, having an amazing time, then going back home and telling all their friends that Thailand is the best country on Earth. And also the tourism booms of China, Russia, and the Middle East. Used to be only Americans and Western Europeans (plus a few Ozzies etc) there, not so anymore.
yes, per year. Though individual people can be counted multiple times if they take more than one trip in the year. Americans like to travel, and other people like to travel to America. The combination of the two = lots of tourists visiting places in the USA.
and equally easy to reach the numbers France has in international tourism if you count all the people who visit from Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Luxemboug, Spain, Andorra, Monaco, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, San Marino, and Denmark, all of which are closer to France than the distance between New York City and upstate New York. and much much closer than the distance between upstate New York and Americans living in California, Texas, Florida, Washington state, Alaska, Puerto Rico or Hawaii- all of whom do not count if you ignore domestic tourism.
That's not what I'm doing at all. Take your crazy pills and maybe you'll stop saying things so profoundly asinine.
A tourist is a tourist. That's all I'm saying. If city A receives 10,000 domestic tourists a day and 3,000 international tourists, and city B receives 1,000 domestic tourists and 3,500 international tourists (with similar definitions of tourist used for each type), you think it is "profoundly dishonest" to say that city A receives more tourists? Sorry, but that's profoundly stupid.
Except that's all about lullabies. The numbers you disagree with are as much actual numbers but about international tourists. They are used to compare the number of foreigners who visit each country. That's all. You have no reason to call one thing biased and the other the very actual one (Yep that's what you do, right in the title, and then you explain it quite clearly) when there are just different things. What I'd like to see is a "most touristic" quiz that uses the ratio between the number of tourists and the land area (and/or the local population?).
At no point am I whining. I'm simply making the unassailable and totally unbiased point that on a list of places that entertain the most tourists, if you discount all tourists that did not cross an international border (a very arbitrary distinction, especially given the nature of travel between European countries these days)... this is *massively* misleading. A tourist is a tourist is a tourist. This is my only position and it involves no bias. Trying to say a tourist is not a tourist because it allows you to skew data IS biased.
You also all forget that Poland is actually in a huge niche tourism-wise, a niche that almost no other countries in the world can fill. It is one of the only countries (with Germany, I think) where you can visit Nazi working camps and extermination camps. You wouldn't believe the huge numbers of people going to Poland to visit Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, the Warsaw ghetto, etc. Living in France, I can tell you that almost all high-schools/middle-schools in the country send some or all of their classes to visit the camps in Poland. I did such a travel, and there was tuns of people making the same trip, from all over the world. It is also a type of pilgrimage for Jewish people from across the globe to commemorate the memory of their ancestors. Plus, as you said, cheap alcohol, cheap cigarettes, cheap food and rather attractive, beautiful and historic cities (Warsaw and Krakow were amazing, culture-wise and entertainment-wise). :)
I regret that I didn't have time to stop in Krakow during my own trip to Poland. I spent most of my time in Gdansk/Gdynia/Sopot/Hel, plus an afternoon in Warsaw and a couple days in Lublin. But I'll go back next year and visit Krakow then.
I visited Krakow earlier this year. It's a very beautiful city I can't deny that. And the trip to nearby Auschwitz was both harrowing and unforgettable. But to be honest I didn't really care for the city that much. Mostly because it is so teeming with drunken tourists and other unseemly things as a result. I didn't have the most pleasant of experiences there.
When you started saying rather attractive, beautiful.... I was with you but then you switched course and started talking about cities. Reminded me of Monty Python... she's got huuuuge... tracts of land. ;-)
While I'm sure they receive their fair share, I'm also sure that it's nowhere even close to 97 million, which they would need to make the top 10 on this list.
See pawelkrknh and kalbahamut's discussion for some possible reasons why Poland is so high -- in short, a good combination of affordability, ease of travel, and large number of attractions.
I believe Egypt's amount of domestic tourism is negligible, so we can get a pretty complete picture if we just look at international arrivals. Between 2010 and the present each year Egypt has received between 9 and 15 million international tourists. They took a big hit following the revolution in '10 and haven't recovered since then, but I think the're still the #1 tourist destination in Africa. I don't know how much domestic figures would boost their overall total but still probably nowhere near 97 million. I could be wrong. There are a lot of people in Egypt.
The UK entertains significantly more domestic tourists than France does.
The UK entertains more domestic tourists and more international tourists than Poland does. Not sure why you are confused about that one.
Indonesia, a country of 250 million people, entertains many more domestic tourists than either Spain or Italy.
Not hard to understand. Many of these small European countries show up on lists that only count international tourists because of the political nature of Europe. That being that there are very many very small countries that border many other very small countries, traveling between them is simple, within the Schengen Area it's as easy as driving between U.S. states- no border checkpoints or passport control or anything. However, when you live in such a small country surrounded by other small countries, when you go on vacation you're probably going to leave the country. Thus, their domestic tourism numbers are smaller.
Count every tourist as a tourist instead of selectively ignoring billions of them that don't cross an international boundary and a more accurate picture emerges of the number of tourists received by each of these places.
While I don't think this quiz is biased to certain countries, it would be quite interesting to have number of 'tourist days' or something to see how long the tourists actually spend in the countries.
You just know that when figures are rehashed on some complicated basis by an American that it is to ensure that the USA becomes top of the list. Poland has more tourists than Spain - which doesn't even figure on the list? Ridiculous. Presumably anyone flying into Heathrow, spending the night and flying out next morning counts for the UK too? No way could the figures be that high otherwise - surprised you didn't count the Irish and Northern Irish crossing the frontier to shop depending on how the respective currencies are performing - or perhaps you did. Don't waste your time with this quiz.
There's no rehashing here. I didn't make the data. The study was conducted by Germans and Belgians. The American ex-pat who lives all over the world, who doesn't believe in nationalism, who is openly against the idea of patriotism in part because it leads to idiotic rants like the above, and who also authored this quiz has happily and openly admitted that with up-to-date data China would be #1, not the USA. The many comments above fully address your asinine complaints.
Conclusion: you are either a hypocrite guilty of the bigotry and bias you project onto others, or a complete idiot. Probably both. The USA exists. Grow up and get over it.
and.. "complicated?" Counting 1 tourist as 1 tourist is complicated? Rather than ignoring millions based on their place of origin? Again, what I said above...
France only has the most if you disregard domestic tourism. This quiz is outdated, but, if I could find up-to-date information it would not help France's standing at all. Almost certainly China would be #1.
Pardon me I forgot to read the caveat... Thought it was just one of those regular "which country gets the most (international) tourist" quizzes so I obviously thought there was no way these countries could get hundreds of millions of annual tourists. Nice quiz
No worries. You're right, most quizzes rely only on international tourist numbers, which paint an extremely misleading picture of the total amount of tourists different places receive. I wanted to do something different and more accurate.
I would be happy to update this quiz, but it's hard to find good information on tourism numbers that include both international and domestic tourists. If you come across any, please let me know. I know that these figures are very out-of-date. Any recent look into the matter would no doubt have China in the #1 position.
;)
So... I went digging for better information that included both domestic and international tourists and counted them the same. On this quiz 1 tourist = 1 tourist regardless of nearby geography and geopolitics. However, it's hard to find data like this, thus the small size of the quiz and the fact that the data is not up-to-date.
1. Everything in Poland - accomodation, food, especially alcochol and prostitutes - is cheaper than in other countries. 1 euro = 4,12 zloties actually. In fact most Poles are poor and the prices are still raising, but for tourists they are funny.
2. Poles spend vacations mainly in Poland, because they can't afford an abroad trip. We've got Baltic Sea, Sudetes, Carpathian Mountains, the province Masuria with many lakes and beautiful views. We don't have to go abroad if we want to admire nice landscapes or spend time in more active ways. But if we would want to go abroad, we have to accumulate money for a long time.
I don't know the trends of Spaniards or other nations, but Poland becomes more and more attractive for tourists, however the society becomes rather poorer every year, mainly because of the government making running a business more and more difficult and unprofitable, what is generating unemployment.
Sorry for my weak english
While, of course, in the abstract you are right. For instance, just because Kosovo uses the Euro (1 eur = $1.10 USD) and Japan uses the Yen (1 yen = approx $0.01 USD), it does NOT follow that Tokyo is 100x cheaper than Pristina! :D
On the other hand, if you are looking at recent trends, such as how the strength of the US dollar has increased 100% versus the Ukrainian grivna in the last couple years, then it can actually make a big impact because inflation tends to lag behind currency depreciation somewhat. It's complicated. Often a devalued currency means a place is very cheap for tourists. Other times not. I don't think Pawel was implying that exchange rates are exactly correlated to value of goods. Though I am surprised at how often I encounter people who believe that. As if a cheeseburger costs 1 rupee in India and 1 dollar in the USA even though it's about 50 rupees to the dollar. That's just not how it works. But India (and Poland) are very cheap.
Following Eurostat, the countries with the highest number of domestic overnight trips in 2019 were (by far) France, Germany and Spain, and then Poland and Italy.
" Data are mostly in the form of number
of trips to destinations beyond a non-
negligible distance from the place of residence, an
d involving at least one overnight stay. For
some countries such data format was not available,
and we resorted to either the number of
registered guests in hotels, campsites, hostels etc
., or the ratio between the number of
overnight stays and the average length of stay. The
latter formats underestimate domestic
tourism by excluding trips to friend and relatives;
nevertheless we included such data for
completeness. "
Russia and Thailand both get a sizeable number of tourists and I'm also a bit surprised they didn't do better in the rankings. I think there are a combination of factors. Thailand doesn't generate a lot of domestic tourists, that's one. Even though there are a lot of people living in Thailand, most of them don't have the money to go on vacation. Also, Thailand is just as isolated from the major source countries of international tourists (Europe and North America) as Japan is. As China becomes an increasingly important source country for international tourism, a trend we've seen happening in a big way the last couple years, this may change.
I blame this on positive word of mouth... all those single guys going to Thailand, having an amazing time, then going back home and telling all their friends that Thailand is the best country on Earth. And also the tourism booms of China, Russia, and the Middle East. Used to be only Americans and Western Europeans (plus a few Ozzies etc) there, not so anymore.
A tourist is a tourist. That's all I'm saying. If city A receives 10,000 domestic tourists a day and 3,000 international tourists, and city B receives 1,000 domestic tourists and 3,500 international tourists (with similar definitions of tourist used for each type), you think it is "profoundly dishonest" to say that city A receives more tourists? Sorry, but that's profoundly stupid.
The UK entertains more domestic tourists and more international tourists than Poland does. Not sure why you are confused about that one.
Indonesia, a country of 250 million people, entertains many more domestic tourists than either Spain or Italy.
Not hard to understand. Many of these small European countries show up on lists that only count international tourists because of the political nature of Europe. That being that there are very many very small countries that border many other very small countries, traveling between them is simple, within the Schengen Area it's as easy as driving between U.S. states- no border checkpoints or passport control or anything. However, when you live in such a small country surrounded by other small countries, when you go on vacation you're probably going to leave the country. Thus, their domestic tourism numbers are smaller.
Conclusion: you are either a hypocrite guilty of the bigotry and bias you project onto others, or a complete idiot. Probably both. The USA exists. Grow up and get over it.
I would be happy to update this quiz, but it's hard to find good information on tourism numbers that include both international and domestic tourists. If you come across any, please let me know. I know that these figures are very out-of-date. Any recent look into the matter would no doubt have China in the #1 position.