Jump to content

Phuket most tourists per square mile in world, says report


Recommended Posts

Posted

The person who wrote this should come to Rome this week. Believe me Phuket is NOT number one. I would also say Palma Majorca is not number two. Barcelona is up there with Rome for sure. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Obviously, those at this Columbus company have never been to the Great wall, Badaling or the Lourve....or Eifel tower...Disneyland etc....

Phuket? Where is that.......supposedly has more tourists than anywhere else in the world, and the Thais seem to believe it....what a complete nonsense!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

who did the report, TAT ?? 555 they must have included Thai travelers as tourists, thus must have been made by someone who never visited Tiananmen Square Beijing, big numbers for tourists there, meaning Chinese and international tourists, same for Barcelona, Roma, Paris.... foor me not a reliable source of information but that's Thailand

  • Like 2
Posted

still prefer to wind back the clock...

 

 - to when, even on Patong;

 - the only life you had to share your shadow with - was a coconut palm!

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Boyd said:

I think they mean most Indian  Tourist  per sq.mile

I not only think but sure they mean vehicles not tourists ???? 

Posted
19 hours ago, webfact said:

25,452 visitors per day

The land area of Phuket is 222 square miles therefore the daily number of visitors per sq. mi. is 115, not 5,090 as stated - the person calculating this figure for Columbia Direct obviously holds an MMATH degree from one of the renowned local universities.

  • Haha 2
Posted
19 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Yes, they made a very wrong assumption that every visitor to Phuket Province stays in Phuket city.

Can you please, show where in the report that Phuket City or Phuket province are specifically mentioned?  I can only find PHUKET and do not know if that is referring to the city or the province.  However, there is some other confusion.  Read the headings of the columns and you will discern the reason for my comment.

 

19 hours ago, Old Croc said:

 

454.JPG

Also, as a Clinical Psychologist I use stats. and was taught, since a young child, never assume anything and in psychology never to use "assume" in any context because it is not a true variable nor a reliable one.  This table supports that statement especially as the table does not differentiate the types of tourists involved in the "study" or where they came from, e.g. national, international, if national or even international are they Thais or non-Thais, etc., nor the percentage of each.  It fails to stipulate or take into consideration many other variables and the type of statistical analysis used to arrive at the conclusion are not presented, so it is not a fully viable study.  Of course, only raw material could be used but even that should show differences in the variables.

 

Incidentally, did the tourists have to file any TMs of any kind?  Forgot to mention, read the following from the beginning of the article:

 

With 9.29 million visitors per year, an average of 25,452 visitors per day, Phuket has the highest number of visitors per square mile per day than any other tourist destination in the world.

 

Note that at the beginning it states, "visitors" then later "tourist destination".  That alone changes the material of the report.  

 

'nuf sed.

Posted
52 minutes ago, wotsdermatter said:

Can you please, show where in the report that Phuket City or Phuket province are specifically mentioned?  I can only find PHUKET and do not know if that is referring to the city or the province.  However, there is some other confusion.  Read the headings of the columns and you will discern the reason for my comment.

 

Also, as a Clinical Psychologist I use stats. and was taught, since a young child, never assume anything and in psychology never to use "assume" in any context because it is not a true variable nor a reliable one.  This table supports that statement especially as the table does not differentiate the types of tourists involved in the "study" or where they came from, e.g. national, international, if national or even international are they Thais or non-Thais, etc., nor the percentage of each.  It fails to stipulate or take into consideration many other variables and the type of statistical analysis used to arrive at the conclusion are not presented, so it is not a fully viable study.  Of course, only raw material could be used but even that should show differences in the variables.

 

Incidentally, did the tourists have to file any TMs of any kind?  Forgot to mention, read the following from the beginning of the article:

 

With 9.29 million visitors per year, an average of 25,452 visitors per day, Phuket has the highest number of visitors per square mile per day than any other tourist destination in the world.

 

Note that at the beginning it states, "visitors" then later "tourist destination".  That alone changes the material of the report.  

 

'nuf sed.

5 sq.JPG

 

I won't comment further as I've made a strong "assumption" about your character, personality and intellect from your words.

 

'nuf said  (sic)

Posted

The idiots have obviously mixed up Phuket province and Phuket Town.

 

I suppose it demonstrates that it's not only the Thais that come up with unbelievable figures.

 

Unbelievably poor from a company that relies upon accurate statistics in its business.

  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I did a quick Google search on how big Phuket is, according to Google, Phuket is 210 square miles, excluding some island inlets, that said, let's do the math, shall we, 5,090 visitors per day, per square mile = 1,068,900 visitors per day in the 210 square miles......hah

 

Let's do it another way, 9,290,000 visitors per year over 365 days = 25,452 visitors per day over 210 square miles = 121 people per square mile per day, that sounds better oi ???? 

 

Never was good at math, but I know Phuket is bigger than square miles.

OK Einstein how many planes would you need to fly them in? (joking)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...