Dubrovnik, the southernmost Croatian tourist destination, according to e-visitor data, achieved record winter tourist overnight stays. According to the published data, in November 2018, there was an increase in the number of overnight stays by 22% compared to the same period the previous year, in December 2018 an increase of 3% compared to the same period the previous year, and in January of this year, 12% more compared to the same period last year. February recorded as much as 38% more overnight stays than February of the previous year, while March recorded 12% more overnight stays than the same time last year. Nice numbers, one might say. However, if we put these figures into the context of the utilization of total accommodation capacities in the destination, that is, the total potential of the destination, then we come to results that are not so brilliant. Namely, the percentage of utilization of total accommodation capacities in November of last year was at the level of 5.56%, in December 3.46%, while in January of this year it was only 2.74%. February and March recorded slightly better percentages, so February was at 3.89%, while March was at 7% utilization of total accommodation capacities. Despite sincere praise to the sector for the effort to increase the number of overnight stays compared to the previous year, in absolute terms, those increases are negligible, thus showing that Dubrovnik, as much as we sincerely desire it, still cannot be called a year-round tourist destination. However, what is good is the trend, and it should definitely be pursued.
A correct interpretation of the issue of capacity utilization, regardless of which Croatian destination is concerned, can certainly be helped by a picturesque story based on a joke, which is quite humorous and instructive.
THE STORY OF THE HEN, THE EGG, AND THE ACCOMMODATION CAPACITIES
We remember a joke from some past times that referred to the poorest, economically devastated state in the Balkans, and which humorously spoke about how their egg production fell by 50% because one hen died. Genius, we would say. However, how would that joke look if a little drama were introduced into it?
Let's imagine, then, that the number of hens remained unchanged, so two hens, and that into the same henhouse, out of nowhere, another hen walked in. What would happen to the economy of the devastated state then? According to the logic of the joke, this would mean that egg production in that poor country would increase by 50%, because there is now an additional hen in the henhouse. Three hens, that means. A great statistical luck for the state. What would this mean for the owner of the henhouse? He should also be happy, but only partially. After all, he now has three hens running around, not just two. However, he remembers very well some ancient times when there were many more hens in his henhouse than just three. In his big, old henhouse, he can, in fact, "squeeze in" at least another thirty additional chicks. There used to be exactly that many.
Translated into tourist jargon, he knows that all the accommodation capacities of his old henhouse are not filled simply because an additional hen walked into the henhouse out of nowhere. So now there are three instead of two. The capacities of his henhouse are much larger, no matter how good that 50% increase in numerical terms sounds compared to the previous two hens.
IN CONCLUSION
What does the story of the hen and the henhouse tell us? It tells us that the analysis of physical indicators for a certain period, if we want to be completely precise, must be comprehensive and put realized arrivals or overnight stays into relation with the overall available accommodation capacities in the destination, not comparing them solely and only with realized arrivals and overnight stays from the previous year. Such a "partial" way of analyzing statistical data often deceives and leads to blanket conclusions about the success of a particular tourist destination, using collected data as needed, mostly for daily-political purposes.
The question arises, based on which parameters and calculations, and for what purpose, are conclusions drawn about the tourism season of 11 months in this specific case? When selectively interpreting available data, then, besides healthy eyes, individuals somehow seem to believe that the season in Dubrovnik really lasts for the mentioned 11 months, of which a full 9 months are high seasonality, ignoring the fact that the average total occupancy of capacities in Dubrovnik during the five (5) winter months does not exceed 5%. Moreover, when such incomplete information is repeated and disseminated to the public, then the same public begins to believe that this information is, in fact, correct. However, the truth is quite far from it.
