Montenegro’s tourism strategy has increasingly emphasized “high-end,” “elite,” and “value-driven” growth. The goal is to attract fewer visitors who spend more, thereby reducing infrastructure strain and enhancing profit margins for both operators and the state. This shift from volume to value is often presented as both necessary and beneficial. However, an analysis of recent tourism data reveals complexities that challenge this narrative, indicating that neither high-end nor volume tourism alone addresses the underlying weaknesses in the country’s tourism economy.
Overall visitor statistics demonstrate a recovery, with arrivals and overnight stays returning to or surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Nevertheless, this recovery is uneven, with peak summer months showing robust performance while the rest of the year contributes minimally to revenue. Specifically, July and August account for approximately 40% of annual overnight stays, whereas the six weakest months collectively contribute less than 25%. This uneven distribution limits the economic impact of any tourism model, irrespective of whether it targets high-spending or mass-market visitors.
The premise behind high-end tourism suggests that an increase in average spending per visitor can offset limited visitor numbers and seasonal fluctuations. However, data indicates that this compensation is only partial. Although luxury visitors tend to spend more per day, their overall contribution across the tourism value chain does not significantly increase, nor do they arrive in sufficient numbers outside peak times to stabilize occupancy rates. For instance, a guest paying €350-450 per night during July occupies a room that could otherwise be sold for €250-300, resulting in only incremental rather than transformative value.
Moreover, high-end demand in Montenegro remains highly seasonal. Premium coastal resorts achieve exceptional occupancy rates during peak summer months, often exceeding 90%, but experience significant drops to 20-30% occupancy in winter. High-net-worth travelers show limited interest in visiting Montenegro during January or February due to factors such as access issues, climate preferences, and competition from destinations offering better winter experiences. Consequently, high-end tourism does not escape seasonality; it merely maximizes revenue during peak periods.
Conversely, volume tourism is frequently criticized for being environmentally and economically unsustainable. While this critique holds some truth when volume growth is unregulated and ignores infrastructure capacity, volume tourism also provides essential base utilization that high-end tourism does not. Mid-market and regional visitors are more likely to travel during shoulder seasons and are more adaptable to varying weather conditions. The challenge for Montenegro lies in the concentration of volume growth within peak months rather than spreading it throughout the year.
This situation leads to a significant misunderstanding in policy discussions. High-end tourism and volume tourism are often viewed as alternatives; however, they address different economic needs. High-end tourism enhances yield during peak seasons while volume tourism can improve off-season utilization if properly managed. Currently, Montenegro’s approach prioritizes yield during already high-utilization periods while neglecting low-utilization times.
Fiscal data supports this observation as well. Revenue from tourism-related VAT, local taxes, and concession fees experiences sharp increases in summer but declines significantly during winter months. Even high-spending tourists cannot provide consistent fiscal benefits if their visits are limited to just eight to ten weeks annually. As such, the state’s tax base remains seasonal, complicating budget forecasts and increasing macroeconomic volatility. A smaller number of high-value visitors does not fundamentally alter this pattern unless their timing also changes.
The labor market perspective reveals another aspect of this issue. While high-end tourism is expected to offer better wages and higher-skilled job opportunities, employment remains predominantly seasonal. Luxury hotels still need to increase staffing levels during summer while downsizing in winter months. This results in similar patterns of turnover and reliance on temporary labor as seen in volume-oriented models; the primary difference lies in wage levels during peak seasons rather than overall employment stability.
Investment trends further highlight these tensions within the sector. Capital continues to flow into upscale hotels and resorts based on expectations of increased average daily rates or improved occupancy year-round. However, data from January and shoulder seasons indicate that the latter expectation has largely not been met. As a result, returns increasingly depend on maximizing revenues during peak months, which raises financial risks rather than alleviating them.
Volume tourism from regional markets has demonstrated resilience during shoulder periods through shorter stays and weekend trips that are more flexible with timing; however, this segment often suffers from inadequate air connectivity and limited year-round services. When access is restricted and off-season offerings are sparse, potential demand fails to materialize. The issue is not that volume tourism is inherently negative but rather that it has not been strategically utilized to address utilization challenges.
Environmental arguments frequently advocate for a strict transition away from volume tourism; however, extreme seasonality itself incurs environmental costs due to overbuilt infrastructure for peak demand and underutilized facilities throughout the remainder of the year. A more balanced influx of visitors throughout the year could alleviate peak pressures while enhancing asset efficiency. In this light, controlled volume growth during shoulder and off-peak periods may prove environmentally advantageous compared to further intensifying summer peaks.
International examples reveal that destinations which have effectively mitigated seasonality did so not by eliminating volume but by diversifying demand types and investing significantly in access and programming outside peak times. High-end tourism played a role but was not the sole or primary driver of success. The current data from Montenegro suggests that relying solely on luxury offerings to rebalance seasonal demand may be unrealistic.
The prevailing narrative poses a risk of strategic complacency by framing high-end tourism as a singular solution while deferring attention from critical structural issues such as air connectivity and winter programming challenges. Low occupancy rates at luxury hotels during winter illustrate this gap: a hotel operating at 20% occupancy in January cannot be considered a valuable asset economically despite its high room rate.
The evidence indicates that Montenegro faces not a binary choice between high-end tourism and volume growth but rather a sequencing issue where optimizing yield without extending utilization exacerbates fragility within the sector. Conversely, unmanaged volume growth places additional strain on infrastructure capacity. The path forward lies in integrating various market segments strategically to enhance overall calendar utilization rather than focusing solely on peak periods.
High-end tourism undoubtedly plays an important role in Montenegro’s future by positioning the destination effectively and maximizing summer revenues; however, it cannot independently ensure year-round stability or fiscal consistency. Redirecting volume growth toward shoulder seasons through improved access strategies offers solutions that high-end segments currently lack.
By 2026, it becomes evident that discussions should center around optimizing revenue generation versus improving calendar utilization rather than pitting high-end against volume growth against each other. Montenegro has excelled at maximizing returns during peak times; however, addressing off-peak utilization remains an unresolved challenge.
