BootsnAll Travel Community

Looking at the controversial "How many countries have you been to?" poll I recently created, as well as the thread Annie so kindly linked to, and having been visiting these forums for years, I've noticed there are certain countries and entire regions of the world that few seem to travel to. By continent:

North America: Greenland
South America: Paraguay, Suriname, French Guyana
Europe: The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Albania, Macedonia, Belarus
Africa: Nigeria, Gabon, Angola, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, most other Western and Central African countries, Madagascar
Asia: Central Asia in general (especially countries other than Uzbekistan), Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States besides U.A.E., Paupa New Guinea

Doing a search seems to verify my conclusions; the tiny, land-locked country of Laos registers 1,938 hits, while Kazakhstan produces only 189. Bolivia, another backpacker favorite, returns 1,318, while the far more populous Nigeria, just 137.

What accounts for some of these countries' lack of popularity among travelers here? Is travel in some of them too difficult, or flights too expensive? Do they simply not offer much for the visitor? I'm curious.

Try searching for the interior of Northeast Brasil or Rio Grande do Norte. Cities of Mossoro, Maccau, or Acu. LOL, you won't find much, but it's an incredible part of Brasil. I'm sure the same could be said for many parts of many countries, but I'm just much more familiar with NE Brasil.

The biggest reason why I think is because most folks want to see landmarks. The numbers seen on the recent "wonders" thread seem to prove this. Nothing at all wrong with this, but you don't just "stumble across" 100s of these places in your travels. The second biggest reason is following the standard guidebook paths.

quote:

The second biggest reason is following the standard guidebook paths.

Yup. My theory, based on the experiences I made with travelers is, that what many thread most is not to have fellow Westerners around. I never quite understood that. Many I have met on the road, need at least one westerner around to travel and enjoy the trip. And I believe that is the reason why some countries are much more popular than others - it's sort of a vicious circle. In Kazakhstan I have not met one western traveler during the whole month. And loved it.

Another reason, which sort of ties into the above, is language. With increasing popularity of a country, it gets easier to get by with simplified English (Me Nasi Goreng. Me Singha. Etc.). And I'm sorry to say that most native English speakers are terribly lazy with learning new languages. Or even try to learn the 50 fundamental sentences that will get you by.
Again, you don't find too many people speaking English in Kazakhstan. Russian helps though.

quote:

Many I have met on the road, need at least one westerner around to travel and enjoy the trip.

I don't think it is this, but rather having other travelers around. Other travelers (regardless if they are Westerners, Asians or Africans) who are traveliing in your style are there for the same/similar reasons and are more likely to share a meal/drink and conversation with you in the evening. They make the costs more feasible since you can often share travel expenses with them as they share the same experiences.

No matter how well you speak the local language, we are just a novalty for a few minutes of conversation to the locals. They actually have lives to live, jobs to do, families to attend to. If you are traveling alone, that becomes boring.

I think besides the guidebooks, word of mouth plays an important role here too. If you know someone who's been to Laos and they really liked it, or you read about it on these boards, you're more likely to go there than to a country you never heard anything about.

Oddly though a lot of the countries you mention are high on my list - Suriname, the Baltic States (though I think they don't really belong on your list, plenty of people travel there), west Africa (especially Burkina Faso, Mali and Ghana - will probably go to Burkina Faso and maybe one of the others this year), central Asia. Not so much because they're "off the beaten path" but because I'm genuinely interested in those countries and their culture.

I think the country where I met fewest foreign travellers was Serbia.

As for Nigeria, foreigners get abducted there on a regular basis (it happened to someone who works for a client of ours), so I wouldn't really go there either.

I guess parts of some countries may be unsafe. Others may have less infrastructure making it hard to get around, most people want their holiday to be fun rather than stressful. Others may have fewer interesting sights etc...

Personally, I don’t think language or the need for fellow travelers have much to do with it. I believe many countries are ignored for a combination of reasons:

civil war
costs to get there and/or visa costs/availability
limited access to alcohol and/or drugs
no beaches
limited infrastructure

It is in my opinion that if you have a number of these within one country then it’ll never make it on the traditional guidebook circuit or get word of mouth and, hence, gets ignored by most travelers

Um, I think hardly any one travels to Nigeria for a VERY GOOD reason.

Hummm... I have nothing to add except that I agree with all of the above comments...

For Africa, it is the perceived danger of some and the real danger of others. There are wars in just about every country on that list.

I imagine in a few years Gabon will become more accessible to tourism seeing as though it is one of the only regions in central Africa that is doing anything about protecting every aspect of its wildlife. The government is pretty stable there as well.

I dream of a day when I can freely travel through the Congo with out the threat of being caught up in a war. Me and x00m were fortunate enough to be in Rwanda during a relative peaceful few months in the Eastern DRC so we crossed the border at Goma and got to see first hand the stark contrast between a relatively well run central African nation and an extremely corrupt one.

I think some of these "dangerous" destinations hold a lot of rewards for travelers willing to look past initial warnings advising that the entire country should be avoided when in reality it is usually certain sections usually outside of major urban areas or in slums that are typically not visited by travelers.

Gabon is accessible today but expensive to travel there. One of the scientists on my Antarctica trip runs a eco tours into the area.

I think its all about access and stability and infrascturcture in the area. Not all of us are trail blazers..some of us just follow.

I want to go to Bukina Faso and Mali as well. Maybe sometime next year.

Oh, c'mon, you're completely ripping this out of context now. The question was not, why don't many people travel to Afghanistan or to Darfour. That's pretty obvious.
I think it has very little to do with perceived danger. Many countries on JGN's list are perfectly safe - probably safer than the city you currently live in (the Baltic States come to mind here). If it would, why are people still flocking to Thailand (violent Muslim separatists; unstable political situation), India (violent religious, political and social tensions), Madrid/Barcelona (remember 7/7 and the fact that ETA renounced the cease fire), etc etc.?

quote:

They actually have lives to live, jobs to do, families to attend to. If you are traveling alone, that becomes boring.

More boring than answering the 5 questions all the time? (Where from? Where to? How long have you been on the road? How old? Name?) Or have drunken/stoned philosophical discussions about life, the universe and everything? Nah. I don't believe that. Nobody is that shallow.

I maintain that it's mostly the fear of the unknown and not wanting to face it alone. It's better to share uncertainty with somebody who's as much shaken by the new culture as I am - and that's best done with somebody from the same cultural background. And all of that you find easier in some countries, than others. That's why you find few tourists in Kazakhstan and plenty in Laos.

As for the infrastructure argument: cop-out (or ignorance). Wherever live people, there's a 'public transport system' - however that might work (mostly it's actually private and not public). And you wouldn't believe in how many remote places in the world you find a place to lay your weary head. And if there's not - locals would accommodate . Maybe you'd have to pay for dinner. But whatever. It's a place to sleep.

Eventually it all comes down to laziness, fear of the unknown and not being willing do work a bit harder for a (traveling) experience - all the symptoms of the consumer society.

A couple of comments:

1) I'm surprised to see the Baltic countries included on a list of countries that aren't much visited. Walking the streets of Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius, you'll probably see more tourists/travellers than locals. Often (and sadly), many of these will be drunk Scandinavians, Brits and Germans who have come for the cheap beer.

These three countries are very popular conference venues for people from all over Europe, as they're inexpensive and easy to get to. Also, they're major destinations for hen/stag-party weekends (what you call "bachelor parties" in the USA, I think).

2) Greenland is also gaining popularity, especially with hikers and crosscountry skiers. Over here, we're always hearing of new (energetic) travellers who cross Greenland on skis. Also, it's increasingly popular with cruise ship travellers. But of course Nuuk will never become a backpacker destination, exactly. Too expensive to get to, and more importantly, it's cold. Most tend to flock to warmer climates.

By the way, I've never seen Greenland classified as North American before. It's a Danish province. Geographically (and ethnically), it's closer to Canada, but in other important ways (historical, political, etc) it's definitely European (Scandinavian/Icelandic).

Anne-Sophie,

Greenland might have more in common with Denmark and Europe, but it is classified as North America because it is de facto on the North American continental shelf.

quote:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/north_america_ref02.jpg

quote:

More boring than answering the 5 questions all the time? (Where from? Where to? How long have you been on the road? How old? Name?) Or have drunken/stoned philosophical discussions about life, the universe and everything? Nah. I don't believe that. Nobody is that shallow.

Yes El Adi, it is more boring. I've traveled several times when I met few or no other travelers for weeks on end and found myself carrying on audio conversations with myself - just to hear a voice. Last summer, I met maybe one other traveler the first 3 weeks in India because of where I traveled. I was much happyier when I finally connected with a 'backpacker' trail and had people to joke and laugh with and spend the day or have a drink with. I've even traveled with people with whom there was a language barrier (not a lot of conversation). However, there were still laughs and shared experiences.

I've also sent $1,000s of dollars over the years for single supplements and for transportation.

As for questionss from the locals, they are much the same as
those asked by other travelers. Of course, they don't often as philosophical/life questions - more often they add: What do you think about my country? Why did you come here? As an American, do you think your country should...?

I don't exactly think that is any less shallow.

elAdi

Just gotta say, I think youv'e hit the nail on the head here !

Quote:

Eventually it all comes down to laziness, fear of the unknown and not being willing do work a bit harder for a (traveling) experience - all the symptoms of the consumer society.

I was just thinking about this the other day, but I rarely hear people talking about visiting Russia.

(I don't want to get in a debate about this statement, just making an observation)

Russia is expensive, the tourist visa is a bureaucratic nightmare, and it lacks tropical beaches.

Russia isn't that expensive at all. Certainly not compared to western Europe, which is awash with backpackers. But I met only a handful of western tourists there (outside of Moscow), and none off the trans-sib. When I went to a party in Novosibirsk with 2 fellow foreign students, one guy said to us (in flawless English) we were the first foreigners he'd ever met. And that was in Novosibirsk, not some inaccesible small town!

Russia is cheap, the Russians and other peoples of the Russian Federation are gracious and good-humored, the visa problem is licked with $150 to a visa service, and it has no tropical beaches, but incredible natural beauty in the Urals, Altai, Baikal, Russian Far East, and Kamchatka (haven't made it to Kamchatka yet, but if I were Putin I would be marketing the hell out of the region as out-Alaska-ing Alaska.)

The main problems with Russia is that it has no tourist infrastructure worth mentioning, and no one wants to learn Cyrillic characters before going there.

There is ten time zones worth of Russia besides Moscow, which is only getting visited by the monied set these days.