16 hours ago, happy chappie said:

benidorm beach v patong beach...I think someone is telling porkies.

TAT maybe  555

On 9/21/2019 at 8:56 AM, 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.

Everything is irrelevant as "Phuket" is not 5 square miles, so any findings for this flawed raw data are flawed from the beginning. 

 

"Visitors" Vs "Tourists" has no relevance. The raw data is flawed.