Why is reuters looking at spending per trip? Did they also look at carbon emissions per capita?
Nobody looks at spending per trip as the headline.
Spending actually went up 16% and trips went up 15% for any normal analysis of economic trends.
If you have 10 tourists spending $2000 each you would have an average better than 1M tourists spending at $1995 each. But obviously having a 1M tourists being able to travel is a hell of lot better for the economy than just 10 tourists. That's why you look at totals year on year.
This kind of retarded reporting in the West is exclusively reserved for China.