Travel and the Law of Diminishing Returns

It's an interesting idea. A few years into retirement, I am transitioning from the "modern HR vacation" towards a Slow Traveler and testing my boundaries for the length of my trips. By the end of my 16 day trip last fall, I was just ready to come home. This fall I'm going for 24 days. I think I may hit the limits of practicalities (how long will my parents be willing to watch my dog?) before I hit my personal point of diminishing travel returns. I see for myself, though, that by traveling longer I'm able to travel slower. I don't have to wring as much out of every travel day as I did pre-retirement days.

If we are going to apply economic ideas to travel, I propose the idea of an optimal trip (after Pareto).

That's the itinerary that you cannot improve in any way that will not sacrifice something even better from another part of the itinerary.

It's a concept that would be useful to many seeking to see 7 countries in 6 days.

And then there's "maximizing" and "satisficing". A young person (or highly energetic not-so-young-person or newbie traveler) wants to squeeze every ounce of worth out of their vacation which often results in infeasible itineraries and/or running yourself into the ground. He or she is a typical maximizer, and sometimes doesn't know it. As you get older and have more time and experience, you learn to strike the right balance...you don't need to maximize anymore because your constraints have been loosened (time and money). Plus the energy levels aren't like they were when you're in your 20s and 30s. So you learn to satisfice and "make do" with slower travel. Married people and traveling partners have to compromise and satisfice (or they probably won't have a good trip together).

The law of diminishing returns doesn't seem to apply to gelato, every bite seems as good as the last.

Interesting article; thanks for sharing! The longest trip I've ever taken has been 9 nights and I wasn't ready to come home. I'm really pushing for a 14-nighter next year, but my significant other isn't 100% on board but I think he's willing to try! When you have kids in the mix, which we do, finding everyone's "sweet spot," plus the economic factor of "we've flown on this long and expensive flight to get all the way to Europe, so we may as well stay longer/do more" comes into play.

Fun article. It actually makes me feel better. Come day 15 I am ready to go home. I am done and plan my travels accordingly.

"A two-week vacation, for example, seems to be the ideal length for most people, particularly office workers who’ve structured their own travel mentality around what’s allowed by the boss."

This sentence shows that this article seems to be written from a US perspective. In Australia (and many other countries), we get 4 weeks leave per year. For most of us in Australia, 2 weeks is not a very long holiday. My holidays in Europe have typically been 4 to 5 weeks, and to me that is the ideal length, because that is what I am used to. I have also done 5 week trips in North America and Asia.

1 week trips for me are for nearby places such as within Australia or New Zealand. For European trips, 2 days are lost for flights, and the first day in Europe is lost to fatigue and jetlag, so 2 week trips to there for Australians are a poor use of time.

I do not even agree that the 4 to 6 week trip is for slow travellers. My 4 to 5 week trips tend to be mostly 2 to 4 days stays at locations. I have also noticed that companies like Trafalgar have 4 week tours of Europe, consisting of a series of 1 and 2 night stays. That is not my style of travel, but I am simply pointing out that a 4 to 6 week trip is not indicative of a particular style of travel.

I guess I'm in the "Vagabond" category. Next month I'll mark 2000 straight nights in hotels.

No home to go back to although there are a few hotels I return to for longer stays.

I’ve done 2 and 3 month trips in Europe and was not ready to come home. Each and every day was fun. No diminishing return for me. My next trip, next month, is 6 wks long and that seems too short.

I reject that type of concept as it pertains to traveling in Europe. There are trade-offs depending how one interprets them or not.

As long as I do not have a pressing health issue that requires and compels me to return, I am satisfied staying over there as long as the weather is "all right" in the summer regardless if it's 45F or 95 F

The 2nd longest Europe trip I took lasted 67 days, solo, this first post-retirement trip, in 2009. I came back since by the 67th day it was the grandson's 9th birthday or close to it, If that had not been the case, I could have easily arranged and planned the trip to last 77 days.

I agree with you Fred. This is a writer applying his weak understanding of economics to a very small data set (himself).

I'm usually able to squeeze 21-22 nights for a trip (next month is 22 nights, not incl the flight overnight). I'm glad we travel slower now as it doesn't make me want to throw in the towel halfway thru and come home. I'd love to do about 6 weeks, but I honestly don't think I could send my dog to boarding for that long (3 weeks is bad enough, and I since my mom is older now, I can't ask her to watch my crazy dog for that long). Maybe next time we are 'between' dogs I'll be able to plan a much longer trip.

Our longest trip was 30 nights, and I wasn't ready to come home. Of course our bank account was ready! Our other trips generally fell between 17-22 nights. Really though, its the darn cats, and specifically the diabetic cat, that is infringing on our social and traveling life. We used to be able to get by with someone coming in every other day to put some food down, but now he needs to eat a specific diet every twelve hours.

I recently said to DH that after these two cats go, we shouldn't get more, he just looked at me and said not a chance. I guess I should plan a lengthy trip in the brief period between pets then.

I get 5 weeks vacation (six in 2023), and find myself in a good spot -- important enough that my pay allows me to travel (if less than most people I know), not important enough that they have solid ground to deny me my vacation requests. (Mind you check back next week - an amalgamation of my employer is looming, and could result in having to commute further for less pay, and being lumped with folks with more seniority).

I just thought it was a not so cunningly disguised advert for his books.

I have many friends who find 'retirement' boring. I, on the other hand, don't know how I ever had time to work and am always eager to get home to all my interests. We all have different interests or lack of interests, so we react differently to activities and length of activities. What might be the point of diminishing returns for one, could be the point of actually beginning for another. I don't think the length of corporately sanctioned vacation time in the past has anything to do with it...as in training to stop vacationing. I, now, vacation every day of my life, but only truly enjoy 15 at a time away. On the other hand, I might spread additional sets of 15 days throughout the year. My 'toys' are too large to bring with me...and my family is too busy in an earlier stage of life to take with me, because while I love to travel solo, I do love to spend time with my family.

So, bottom line, this is just a fun article, and a means to sell his work, as are most articles and PR. As usual we are all different and enjoy different things for different lengths of time. There's no right or wrong, or better than you, it just is.

But I will say, having multiple trips per year allows me to pack regularly, but one long trip per year would only give me one shot at packing enjoyment. LOL

I am immensely happy when traveling. Immensely. It is uncomplicated, entertaining, stimulating. We travel slowly with longish stays when we have our druthers. Living with just a few changes of clothes in rented digs, shopping in local markets, taking long walks, having no car. SiGH. Can’t wait to leave again.

Hubby hits his saturation point at about 7 weeks (we did 8 once and will again, God willing), 6 weeks for Europe is a minimum, though, to amortize the long flights. This year we have two trips to Europe, a first and hubby’s idea. We’ll see how he does and if there is a repeat.

Clearly we have not hit diminishing returns.

Would I feel this way in my own country? I don’t think so. I love being somewhere where I am a but out-of-touch and “foreign” with no obligations.

I actually ran into this concept early on in my travels, and have preached it to my employees over the years. My take was if you are going to take a vacation, realize that there are multiple emotional stages that you need to deal with, and embrace them. I roughly identified 5.
1. Anticipation: the time before the trip that can distract from work, maybe create anxiety
2. On the trip Stage 1: Decompression, the time it takes to leave work and all your other issues behind.
3. Stage 2: The sweet spot, you have put things behind you, enjoying yourself
4. Stage 3: Mental Readjustment, starting to realize that you will need to go back to work/life etc. and mentally preparing yourself for return.
5: Re-Entry: I like to have a day or two of time back at home prior to returning to work to adjust and catch up.

For me, the ideal European trip was about 3 weeks. If things were hectic at work, it could take me most of a week just to disconnect, decompress, then enjoy myself for a while, then 3-4 days to convince myself it was time to go back, another day or two on return to re-adjust.

My point to my employees was that if you are going because you need break, a long weekend or even a week may not be enough, allow time for all of the above to occur. It was a game changer when I took my first 3.5 week trip after 20 years of short breaks, I hadn't known what I was missing. From there, it was at least a two week vacation, usually 3, every other year.

Wray, i agree with you, and you’re right, everyone is different. There is no right or wrong. It’s quality, not quantity.

@Wray, if you need more "packing enjoyment" please drop by and pack for me!

I have lived a total of 9 years overseas as well as traveling extensively. I have been to 78 countries and still want more travel.

My wife and I usually take trips from 3-7 weeks in duration. We never stay in one place, we are on the go a lot. We normally combine a cruise with a lengthly land trip.

For example, we went to England and Wales in 2017 for four weeks, rented a car and had a great time, even visited places where our ancestors came from hundreds of years ago. Then we took a 15 day TransAtlantic cruise back to the USA. It was great.

Did the same thing in 2018 flying to Australia and NZ visiting by land for 4 weeks, then took a 23 day TransPacific cruise that included Fiji and Hawaii, ending in Seattle. We don't want to do any more 7 week trips, but still do 3-4 weeks depending on where we go.

Our next big trip is a Safari in Kenya and Tanzania. After that, we still have more of the World to see. We never take the same cruise again, but we have been back to places we liked, but not a lot.

We don't fit any of the categories mentioned in the article.
One thing we have learned, since we are in our early 70s, and recently did Machu Picchu and Cusco, Peru. The altitude was 8-12000 feet and we did a lot of walking up and down hills for four days. After the remarkable visit to Peru, we had a full day to relax before our cruise. We needed that rest. DO Machu Picchu before you are 70.

Now that I am retired, we are able to take longer trips. My wife and I negotiate over the length of time away, and have settled on three weeks. Truth be told, we start to miss seeing our two year old granddaughter after a few weeks.

For those who are passionate about travel, a related question is: how do you prepare for the fact that sometimes life will get in the way of your desire to travel. Furthermore, things will happen as we get older that will make it impossible to take major trips.

Bob, that’s why it’s important to travel now, while we can.

@Laura, Haha. While I might love to pack you up, it might not be your type of packing so I'd hate to make you miserable on your trip. As length of vacations vary, so do the variety of packing possibilities... sigh.

We are doing the 2-3 weeks away bit right now since my husband is still working. In a year and a half we will be traveling for 5-6 months in our RV. We are already planning or I should say negotiating our route. I am a little nervous with the length of time but we plan on going slowly and visiting many friends and national parks. Of course, it helps that we are taking our dog. She loves to travel and we hate to leave her at home.

Very true about going when you can when the opportunities present themselves. If I can't go or have other obligations, the Mrs goes alone.

I do likewise when going solo in the summer if she can't or doesn't want to. She plans her trip, I plan my trip. No diminishing returns at all when going solo. As long as the concern for not going is not a matter of health, her solo trip or my solo trip will take place if that is the plan.

What a weak understanding of economics. I understand the law of diminishing returns. I ordered a pizza tonight. The first piece was heaven, the second good, and the third just filled me up.

But travel isn’t like that and certainly doesn’t have to be. Ok, admittedly, on a whirlwind trip with a very aggressive itinerary, your 5th cathedral in 3 days might be less amazing than the first one after getting off the plane and ‘pinch me, I’m in Europe.’ euphoria wears off.

I go to Europe at least once a year and every trip is different. Even if you’re going to the same country, the trip can be very different. My last trip to England was very much about chatting with my friends there and meeting new people, I did very few tourist sights. I’ve also had trips that followed a more aggressive sightseeing schedule with plenty of museums, cathedrals, and walking tours.

So, I don’t think the law of diminishing returns applies to travel for leisure travellers. Each trip is different and you’re at a different place in life when you go. I’m sure many 45 year old office workers have fond memories of backpacking across Europe as a college student, but they’re in a different place in life right now. A trip focused on cheap beer, hostels, and chasing members of your preferred gender is going to be very different than one 20 years later with your significant other.

I find even returning to the same city over and over is still an effective use of our holidays - since we've been to London on every trip, we can now just relax, wander thru the parks, visit new spots and less visited museums - because we've already seen all the must see stuff. We will be to Venice next month for the 5th time in 11 yrs and I really plan on hitting the far reaches of the island.

"...returning to the same city over and over...." My way of traveling too. No diminishing returns applicable. Four big cities I always go back to...Vienna, Berlin, Paris, London. Why? Like a pilgrimage, isn't it?

You see areas which are just local areas, where you're the only visitor, the obvious tourist/traveler, etc. you try cafes and restaurants in these areas as in Berlin and Vienna, just exploring parts of it on foot, eg in Berlin exploring Spandau, Köpenick, Karlshorst,

Hostels are still an option in Vienna, Paris and London when I travel without the Mrs, their location is one determining factor.

Travel bloggers and pay for play getting free stuff. I never thought of it, but it makes sense.

I've often wondered about bloggers gushing about nearly everything, and in the back of my mind thinking, "Are they getting paid to be this positive?"

Returning to the same place has never been as magical for me as the first time. Since we are not financially unlimited we prefer seeing new things. If I had all the money in the world then that would be different.

As for some people limiting vacation to one week at a time, I get it. I've had jobs where two weeks of work would be waiting for me as new work came in as always, and it would be a nightmare digging out of it. I sort of had a backup but they did the minimal amount necessary to keep things afloat.

It seems that many people responding here feel that the law of diminishing returns may not apply to travel. The reason could be that most people are constrained with respect to time and/or money, and therefore never reach the point where the pleasure from travel starts to decline.

It seems that many people responding here feel that the law of
diminishing returns may not apply to travel.

You can take a simple example of lodging or food or rental cars (or even tours or how many museums to cram into a single day). Every dollar spent after a certain amount will not make someone $1 happier or more satisfied (a $300 hotel room is not twice as good, useful, or enjoyable as a $150 hotel room - you can apply any numbers you want, the result is still the same. It's not linear, which implies that diminishing returns do exist). There's a point after which spending marginally more or a lot more (time or money) than some "ideal" level (which is highly personal) is just not worth it, even though many people don't like to admit it. For me personally, seeing a place the second or third time, is nowhere as exciting as the first so, yes, diminishing returns applies to me in several ways.

I learned about this in college as diminishing marginal productivity (for production functions with inputs like labor and capital), and on the consumption side diminishng marginal utility. The reason why people don't think it applies is they have not reached that part of the curve in their travels. For most there would be some length of trip where their marginal utility would start to diminish.

A more apt application of this general principle would be the marginal utility of an incremental trip. I have taken nineteen trips to Europe, not counting business. I don't know if I derive as much utility from the most recent trips compared to the earlier ones. My most recent trip was to northern Italy in May of this year, and it was a good trip but I just did not find myself taking quite as much joy in it. As traveling becomes less and less pleasant, I question somewhat whether a trip every year or so makes sense for me. And yet I only have so many more in me (maybe another twenty), so I'll probably keep doing that.

"...I question somewhat whether a trip every year or so makes sense for me." This is naturally a question that the individual must grapple with or choose simply not deal with it. I don't think about it, don't want to be bothered either.

As long as the finances and any health issues do not become acute, then the trips as a solo traveler or with the Mrs are on from the start of May to the end of Sept, in England maybe until mid-October. I know I can go even cheaper in terms of expenses, thus, making the trip and accommodations more spartan and basic than what I currently choose.

Of course, one must plan so that down time is included as well as on the go days. The money invested or rather spent will be worth it since I am still desperate enough to get back to Berlin, Paris, London, and so anyway. The smaller the amount spent, even better.

I don't feel diminishing returns from travel as long as I keep going places I haven't been before. Perhaps if you been to a place a bunch of times, the next trip won't be as thrilling as the first?

I have been to certain places I wasn't at all thrilled with but it's not a trend line - it's based on how I felt about a particular place.

That said, I took my ex to Spain for a month (because that's where she wanted to go). I would have loved double the time to cover the same ground. Afterward, her only comment was a month was too long to be on vacation.

We have been to Italy five times. The last trip (spring 2019) was excellent, but we decided that we may not return to Italy.

I do think that there can be a sense of diminishing returns if not actual economic defined diminishment. We have bee traveling to Hawaii once or twice a year for the past 10 years. Just returned from Maui last week- I think it was our 8th trip there- I wondered to myself if I would return any time soon.... we've pretty much done all the things "tourists" do and some things a few times but I think it is time to find a new adventure. When I'd rather stay in my condo and make dinner than eat out - I've hit the bottom of diminishing returns. On the other hand - so far I haven't felt that about Bellagio but I'm only on my 4th visit there.

In regards to repeat/return visits, I have been to Berlin on 23 out of 24 trips, 1977 was the exception. Still, the place has not lost any of its attraction as a pull towards the city.

There are districts where, obviously, I have not visited , much less set foot in, eg, Wedding known for it dubious historical reputation, Moabit , once there in 1984 but so short, I don't recall much of it, Pankow, Zehlendorf, Steglitz, once in 1999 to see the house of a famous writer, Wannsee, and of course, Spandau. where I visited shortly in 2017 and thought immediately that I should have seen the place in the 1970s when I did have the time.

The last few trips I've focused on Berlin-Köpenick...enlightening and revealing.

No diminishing return pertaining to Berlin.

douglasjmeyer-

London on the other hand I could go back to endlessly. Heck I would move there if I could make a living.

Your comments made me think of the Samuel Johnson quote: When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford.

In Italy they have a saying: Roma non basta una vita - For Rome, one lifetime is not enough.

Then, from the movie Casablanca: we'll always have Paris.

When I first visited Rome, it was after a 32 year break since my previous trip to Europe. Seeing the Eternal CIty for the first time was thrilling. The second, third and fourth times were fun, but not as exciting.

I actually still feel the thrill when I visit Venice. Even thinking about returning next month after a 5 year absence gives me goosebumps!