Cities are among the most visited destinations worldwide, however, the capacity to capture the overall impact of city tourism varies greatly. The availability and comparability of data is one of the greatest challenges facing urban tourism.

This challenge is not new. The fundamental problems linked to the availability and comparability of data at the local level, and particularly at the city level, were recognized long ago. Numerous guidelines and frameworks have been developed to harmonize practices across city destinations. Nevertheless, the responsibility to ensure the integrity and credibility of data, and the alignment of statistical procedures with international standards, rests with the individual countries and cities. Cities’ ability to align practices, however, is often restricted by legal and regulatory frameworks, lack of human and financial resources, and difficulties in obtaining data from a range of heterogeneous stakeholders.

This joint UN Tourism and WTCF report aims to assess current practices in data collection and reporting in city destinations. Indicators and methodologies used by cities around the world are studied to pave a possible way towards a global urban tourism database. The report’s ambition is to support a better understanding of existing data, thereby addressing the lack of unified indicators and methodologies that currently hinder the estimation of the size and value of the segment of urban tourism globally and by regions.

The findings of this study are based on a literature review and the analysis of 22 case studies of city destinations covering Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.

While the findings show similarities across the indicators measured in cities, especially in the case of accommodation statistics, several key differences also emerge:

1. Conceptual differences

• The spatial definition of city destinations: Conceptual differences in what the unit of the analysis is and what should constitute the boundaries of the city destination.
• The definition of tourism-related products, services and activities: differences in the interpretation of what falls within the scope of the tourism sector.

2. Methodological differences

• Differences in data collection, analysis and reporting procedures (analytical procedures).
• The indicators used in each category of measurement: While there is alignment in the category of performance/impact measured in city destinations (e.g., ‘arrivals’), the indicators used to measure that category are often chosen based on the availability of data, which leads to difficulties when comparing them.
• Systemic vs. experimental research: The systematic collection of urban tourism data as opposed to ad-hoc, experimental projects.
• Centralized vs. decentralized approach to data collection and reporting: Urban tourism data is derived from multiple sources while multiple agencies report statistics, this complexity often leads to inconsistencies in the reported information.
• Obligatory vs. voluntary data collection and reporting: In some cases data collection and reporting are obligatory and/or sanctioned by law, while in other cases it happens on a voluntary basis.
• Open vs. restricted data sharing practices: While in many urban destinations, publicly accessible databases are comprehensive, in other cases, access to information is restricted and/or subject to membership.
• Missing metadata: The difficulty of forming a thorough understanding of the statistical procedures behind the collection, analysis and dissemination of data and its degree of comprehensiveness.

1. Foreword
2. Executive Summary
3. Introduction
4. Understanding Urban Tourism
5. Current State of Global Urban Tourism Data
6. Case Studies: Key Findings
7. Considerations for the Creation of a Global Urban Tourism Database
8. Case Studies