Whenever the conversation turns to travel destinations, the one question that invariably pops up is "What is your favourite place?" Sadly, I have not really got a good answer for that one. What makes a country a good place to visit? Is it the culture, the countryside, or the abundance of cheap booze? Everyone has a different idea of the perfect destination and the location from hell.
Although I still cannot answer what my favourite place is, I can try to quantify what I like. As my meager contribution to the good of humanity, I have given a very subjective rating to each country for the natural beauty, the manmade attractions, the food, and the value. These are all qualities that we unconsciously account for when we choose where to take a trip.
That being said, if the location of your next meal is not constantly on your mind, or you have a reflexive need to carry a blow dryer in your suitcase, my opinions are only going to lead you to misery. You should stop reading now, and point your browser to the Conde Naste Traveler website or something else suitably upmarket. However, if you happen to be a gluttonous, hyperfit Canadian with an obsession for staying in cheap hotels, this could be the page for you.
Natural Beauty
This rating is weighted towards the frequency and diversity of beautiful scenery, and away from the quality. For example, Australia has the magnificent Ayers Rock, but you have to travel through vast expanses of red rocks and scrubby little trees to get there. Conversely, New Zealand has nothing on the scale of Ayers Rock, but the scenery seems to change every time you turn a corner.
Man Made Attractions
Man made attractions are a bit more problematic to give any numbers for. The main difficulty is defining a man made attraction. Does Icelandic nightlife count? And what about DisneyLand? To make things a bit easier, I've decided to narrow the scope to buildings and works of art. Dead things, basically. For man made attractions, my rankings are weighted towards the best that each country has to offer. Even though Thailand is dotted with ancient ruins and temples, none are on the same scale as Angkor Wat in Cambodia. So, Cambodia scores higher than Thailand for this.
Food
Some people like to talk about cuisine, but to me, it is food that matters. Within almost every country, there is a great difference in quality depending on where you eat. Seeing as I rarely visit posh restaurants, my ratings are based on the food that is available on the streets. This is the stuff that everyone eats when they need to get a quick bite during their lunch hour, or when they get hungry on the way to somewhere else. Coincidentally, it is also the stuff that most guidebooks tell you to avoid for fear of getting a visit from Montezuma.
Value
Value is easy to quantify, meaning that cheaper is better. Value ratings are based on the needs of the low budget tourist, as the high budget tourist has no need to look at value anyhow. I have benchmarked the value with costs in Canada, with a ranking of 5. Because currencies and economies fluctuate spasmodically, this is only a guide, and based on the date that I was last there.
Ratings are based on a scale of one to ten. For everything except value, I have tried to distribute the scores based on a loose bell curve. This clusters most scores around the average 5.5, with the absolute best scoring ten, and the absolute worst scoring one. For example, the scores for Qatar are one for natural beauty and manmade attractions, and six for food and value. This means that Qatar is arguably the dullest place to visit that I have seen, but is slightly cheaper than Canada, with reasonable food.
Text and images copyright © by Curtis Marr. All rights reserved.