Malta has spent years talking about quality tourism. Every tourism strategy, conference and policy document has echoed the same ambition: attract visitors who stay longer, spend more and contribute more to the economy.

Yet the latest Deloitte Malta survey suggests that, despite the rhetoric, that transition remains unfinished.

During the first quarter of 2026, Malta recorded more inbound tourists and more guest nights when compared to the same period last year. Yet the average length of stay declined, and the average spend per visitor also fell. In other words, growth is still being driven mainly by volume.

That is not a small detail. It goes to the heart of a debate Malta has been having for years.

We have repeatedly spoken about attracting quality tourists, shifting away from numbers alone and building a tourism model that brings greater value to the country.

However, the figures suggest that, while tourist arrivals continue to grow, the shift towards higher-value tourism is still not being achieved in the way Malta says it wants.

Tourism remains one of Malta's most important economic pillars, sustaining hotels, restaurants, transport operators, cultural sites and thousands of workers. A fall in arrivals would create its own problems.

At the same time, residents are increasingly feeling the effects of overtourism, from congested roads and crowded beaches to greater pressure on infrastructure during the summer months.

If Malta is asking communities to shoulder these pressures, then it is only fair that the country succeeds in attracting visitors who generate greater value, rather than simply greater numbers.

But if the country continues to measure success primarily through how many people arrive, then the phrase "quality tourism" risks becoming little more than a slogan.

The survey showed that higher-spend tourists are significantly more efficient economically than lower-spend tourists.

Around 8,500 higher-spend visitors are needed to generate €10 million, compared with 17,600 lower-spend visitors. Higher-spend tourists also spend more than twice as much per person. These figures should guide policy.

The aim should not be to reject lower-spending visitors, nor to turn tourism into something elitist, but the country must ask whether it is doing enough to attract visitors who stay longer, spend more, and contribute more widely to the economy.

The survey found that higher-spend tourists tend to stay more in Sliema, St Julian's and Valletta, while lower-spend tourists are more likely to stay in northern localities such as Mellieħa and St Paul's Bay.

That raises a wider question. Are we marketing Malta's full tourism product well enough? Are we selling only the obvious areas - which are already tourist-filled - or are we doing enough to promote our temples, historic towns, cultural events, gastronomy, diving, walking routes and villages?

This should not become the central issue, but it is part of the same discussion. If tourists, irrespective of spending power, are visiting many of the same destinations, then perhaps Malta needs to develop more premium, personalised and better-managed experiences around its strongest assets.

Tourism Minister Jo Etienne Abela said that quality and quantity should complement each other rather than compete against one another, echoing a message also made by the Prime Minister.

It is a sensible objective. Malta could attract more visitors while also increasing the value each visitor brings.

The latest survey, however, suggests that the balance has yet to be found. If visitor numbers continue to rise while the average tourist spends less and stays for fewer nights, then quantity still appears to be doing more of the heavy lifting.