Tourism: Facts before headlines

You may be tempted to think that tourism is something Malta could easily do without. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the National Statistics Office (NSO), tourism generates a record €4 billion annually and directly or indirectly supports one in every four jobs. That income underpins our standard of living and helps finance the public services on which we all depend. This is why public debate about tourism deserves facts, not headlines.

Earlier this week, several local newspapers reported that Malta is Europe’s most overcrowded island destination. The claim quickly gained traction, yet, few questioned its origins. It stemmed from an article in the New York Post, itself based on a so-called ‘study’ produced by BookRetreats, a commercial travel company. Whatever its marketing value, this is hardly the benchmark against which serious public policy should be judged.

If we genuinely want to understand tourism pressure across Europe, there is an obvious source: Eurostat, the European Union’s official statistical agency. Its figures are transparent, methodologically sound and comparable across all member states. In its latest publication, Tourism Statistics at Regional Level – Statistics Explained, Eurostat measures “tourism intensity” as the number of nights spent in tourist accommodation per 1,000 inhabitants.

The 2023 European average stood at 6,574 tourist nights per 1,000 inhabitants. Eurostat also openly acknowledges that this measure underestimates tourism pressure because it excludes same-day visitors, many online accommodation bookings and visitors staying with friends, relatives or in second homes.

Even with those limitations, the figures tell a different story. In 2023, 40 European regions recorded at least 40,000 tourist nights per 1,000 inhabitants while nine exceeded 100,000. Malta was not among them. Zakynthos topped the list with almost 150,000 tourist nights per 1,000 inhabitants, followed by Croatia’s Istarska županija and Spain’s Canary Islands of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote. Three other Greek island regions, including those containing Mykonos, Corfu and Rhodes, also featured among the top nine.

By comparison, Malta recorded 19,890 tourist nights per 1,000 inhabitants, while Gozo and Comino registered just 9,096. Cyprus stood at 17,451, the Rethymno region of Crete at 70,727 and Eivissa y Formentera, which includes Ibiza, at 65,185. These figures alone should have prompted greater caution before proclaiming Malta Europe’s most overcrowded island destination.

The New York Post relied on a different indicator: tourism density, measured as tourist nights per square kilometre. By this measure, Malta does rank among Europe’s most densely visited regions. However, the comparison deserves closer scrutiny. Eurostat’s regional classifications often group several islands into one statistical region. The Dodecanese, for example, covers 2,714 square kilometres, yet only about three per cent of its area is built up, roughly 109 square kilometres.

The future lies in attracting higher-value, quality tourism but that transition cannot happen overnight- Jo Etienne Abela

Malta’s total land area is just 316 square kilometres but around one-third is developed, giving it a built-up area of a similar size. Yet, tourism density is calculated using total land area, making Malta appear almost nine times more crowded than the Dodecanese despite comparable developed areas.

A similar distortion exists elsewhere. Zakynthos is one-third larger than Malta but most of its tourism activity is concentrated within a coastal strip of around 16 square kilometres. Ibiza’s developed area is only about 30 square kilometres, yet, it accommodates almost four million visitors every year. Malta welcomes a comparable number of tourists across an urban area roughly three times larger while also distributing arrivals more evenly throughout the year instead of relying on a short peak season.

Make no mistake, none of this suggests that Malta faces no tourism challenges. Pressure on infrastructure, transport, public spaces and the environment must continue to be addressed if tourism is to remain a positive force for our economy and society. Nor does it mean that tourism density is an invalid indicator. It is useful, but only when interpreted alongside other measures and with an understanding of the geographical differences between regions.

It is worrying that sensational claims are readily accepted without even the most basic fact-checking. Tourism is far too important to Malta’s economy to be discussed on the basis of commercial rankings or marketing exercises masquerading as research. Public debate should be informed by evidence rather than amplified by attention-grabbing headlines.

Tourism and the Maltese Islands have evolved together over decades in a relationship that benefited both our economy and our communities.

The future lies in attracting higher-value, quality tourism but that transition cannot happen overnight. It requires continued investment in our tourism product, careful stewardship of our cultural, historical and environmental heritage and the determination to preserve what makes Malta unique.

That conversation is worth having. It should be open, informed and based on credible evidence. Simply repeating poorly researched headlines does little to improve either tourism policy or the quality of public debate.

Jo Etienne Abela is Minister of Tourism.