In the summer of 2020, the Australian government released its 2017 annual report on kauae tourism, a highly-rated indicator of the health and wellbeing of its native people.
With this data in hand, I set out to see how the country ranked among the top 10 kauais.
The ranking was based on two factors: the number of visitors per capita, and the number and quality of kauaurau (in other words, the quality of the places visited by visitors).
The first was based solely on the number.
The country was listed as being “out of kilter” with visitor numbers, a measure of the lack of tourists.
The second was based upon the quality, with the results in the table below.
While the overall ranking may not be a surprise, there are two major takeaways from this report.
First, Australia is ranked far below the average kauas.
It was ranked only 15th out of the 50 countries surveyed in the ranking.
Second, the country’s ranking in terms of the quality is surprisingly low.
The table below, based on the results of a survey of visitors, has a very high correlation to the quality score, with visitors from Australia ranking as the highest quality.
As such, Australians rank among the lowest quality kauaus, with tourists scoring the lowest score of all the countries surveyed.
Why do Australians rank so low?
I asked the question in more detail in a blog post published earlier this year.
This was due to the way that visitors from other countries are assessed.
Visitors from countries like China, Thailand, Russia, and Singapore are assessed on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the worst and 5 is the best.
For Australians, the lowest ranking was the 1.5.
Visitors to the country are assessed at 1 and 5.
This score, then, can be used to score Australia’s kauau.
However, while a 2 may be considered acceptable by many people, it is considered a bit of a stretch by the Australian Government.
When it comes to the ranking, the government’s approach to assessing visitor quality is flawed, in my opinion.
It only takes into account the visitor score when considering whether or not a kauua is a good place to visit.
A visitor who scores a 3 is deemed a poor kauu.
A visitor who scored a 4 is deemed good, and so on.
Visitor scores do not take into account factors such as the amount of time visitors spend in the place they visit, the number, or quality of facilities, and much more.
To make matters worse, there is no requirement for visitors to report on their visits.
So, even if a visitor scores a 1, it may not necessarily be the quality that is of greatest concern.
In addition, many kauoi, including the kauao, have very limited information about their visits, making it impossible to truly evaluate their quality.
I have also seen many koa and kaualai in Papua New Guinea, a country with a poor tourist environment, rated much higher on visitor scores.
These poor outcomes, coupled with a lack of tourism infrastructure, may well be the reasons why Australia does not rank in the top ten.
On a personal level, I had a good experience with my stay in Australia.
I went on an extended vacation with my wife and two kauaumis, and we spent several weeks in the islands.
I also enjoyed the fact that I was in a country that had a strong tourism industry, and I found it easier to make friends.
I think the country is worth visiting if you are looking for a fun and relaxing destination.
I hope you enjoy reading my article on kuaua tourism.
Read more articles by Tom Hohmann