As someone who loves travelling, I often wonder why certain destinations attract more tourists than others. Why, for example, is Bali significantly more popular than Lombok? Why do Kyoto and Bangkok draw more visitors than Singapore? Today marks my final day in Hanoi, Vietnam, and throughout my travels, I’ve consistently compared cities from a tourism perspective. Now seems like the perfect time to reflect on these observations.
The first question my friends ask me when I tell them I want to go somewhere is what to see there, or, in social media language, what to do in X city. Does the city have something interesting enough that make us want to see it? If yes, how many attractions? How long does it take to see all of them? Are they varied enough so that there is always something for everyone? The more positive answers to these questions, the more attractive the city is to tourists. To illustrate this, let’s compare Bangkok and Hanoi. Bangkok requires weeks to explore its palaces, temples, markets, floating markets, nightlife, shopping malls, and museums, which also means it serves multiple tourist segments: backpackers love Khao San Road and cheap street food; luxury travellers enjoy high-end spas and malls; culture seekers visit temples; and foodies explore diverse markets. In contrast, Hanoi appeals more to travellers seeking authentic Vietnamese experiences and historical depth, largely centred around the old quarter and requiring only a few days to explore fully. As a result, Hanoi attracted around 25 million tourists (5.67 million international) in 2024, while Bangkok welcomed 47.20 million visitors (32.40 million international tourists and 14.80 million domestic travellers).
The second factor is infrastructure and accessibility. Is it easy and affordable to go and stay at the destination? How many transportation & accommodation options are available? Are the journeys between spots and the stays enjoyable? A destination might have incredible attractions, but if it lacks decent airports, roads, hotels, or reliable services, most tourists will struggle to visit comfortably. I realized this when I brought my international friends to visit Mount Bromo and Mount Ijen in East Java last year. They loved the beautiful nature and the accommodation, but the long, boring drives (6-hour highway trips) between these destinations exhausted them. Add to that the journey from Juanda Airport to our villa in Batu and from Jember back to the airport, a total of around 8 hours. Yes, there are buses and train options, but they either take longer or are less enjoyable. This factor, to some extent, also explains why Singapore attracts more visitors than Kuala Lumpur: Changi Airport serves over 100 airlines connecting to more than 160 global cities across all major regions (Asia, Europe, North America), and people love to explore the city during layovers.
Beyond these two main factors, tourists are attracted to culture, food, and anything that offers new experiences. Culture here doesn’t necessarily mean traditional culture, though that is also attractive. Kyoto and Bali are prime examples of destinations whose traditional culture is among the top reasons why travellers come. Meanwhile, Bangkok, even though it also has cultural charm, is also preferred for its nightlife and food. Other interesting examples are the Kampong Gelam area in Singapore and Thailand’s Chiang Mai. For their respective religious followers, the Sultan Mosque and Phra That Doi Suthep temple are “just” places to pray, but for others, they offer experiences unavailable in their home cultures and countries.
Another factor that can’t be ignored is the perceived safety and political stability. If outsiders think a city is dangerous, it’s less likely to be visited, even if locals consider it safe. A recent example is Thailand, where Chinese tourist arrivals dropped sharply after a kidnapping case was widely covered in Chinese media, despite most tourist destinations in Thailand remaining safe and welcoming. Thus, maintaining a good image is also important.
That brings us to branding and marketing. In this regard, among all the cities I have visited, Singapore stands out despite its relatively limited natural attractions. The creation of the Merlion statue and impressive structures such as the Jewel and Gardens by the Bay are certainly great, but its branding and marketing efforts are even more remarkable. The city not only promotes itself worldwide with TV spots, billboards, airline tie-ins, and tourism offices around the world, but also partners with airlines like Malaysia Airlines and travel apps like Agoda to bundle flights, hotels, and attractions. Additionally, it also hires micro-influencers to generate millions of social media campaign impressions and discreetly backs mega-events like music concerts (and music video filming) and sports events. Combined, these branding and marketing efforts, costing hundreds of millions annually, have kept Singapore highly visible despite its relatively limited natural attractions, helping it draw 13.6 million international visitors in 2024, a figure that surpasses many Southeast Asian peers when seen relative to its size.
As I prepare to leave Hanoi and reflect on these patterns I’ve observed, it’s clear that every city has the potential to attract more tourists, or, from a more critical standpoint, many cities actually underperform. They fail to recognize their unique strengths and do not know how to position themselves consistently in the tourism market. To prove this point, I plan to write a proposal on improving tourism in my hometown, Kediri, using the above framework. For you, my reader, the next time you find yourself drawn to a particular destination, ask yourself: what combination of these factors is pulling you in?