Evaluating an entire destination requires weighing such subtle issues as aesthetic appeal and cultural integrity, as well as balancing good points against bad. No simplistic numerical measures could do justice to the task. The best solution was to turn to informed human judgment. We convened a global panel of over 200 experts in a variety of fields—ecology, sustainable tourism, geography, urban and regional planning, travel writing and photography, historic preservation, cultural anthropology, archaeology—all well traveled enough to have a good basis for comparing destinations against each other.

We asked experts to evaluate only those places with which they were familiar, using six criteria weighed as appropriate to each destination: environmental and ecological quality; social and cultural integrity; condition of any historic buildings and archaeological sites; aesthetic appeal; quality of tourism management; and the outlook for the future.

For places where experts disagreed widely, a second round of scoring used a version of a research tool called the Delphi technique, whereby panelists anonymously exchange further comments about the place and then re-score accordingly.

The index, then, is a compilation of informed judgments and perceptions about places that may themselves have many faces. It should be taken as such. In low-scoring Key West, for example, you can still find an eco-friendly conch farm and plenty of back-street charm; high-scoring Tuscany still must cope with a badly polluted Arno River and summer overcrowding in Florence and Siena.

Like the cards that Olympic judges hold up, our experts' scores take into account both measurable accomplishment and the intangibles of style, aesthetics, and culture. And like Olympic athletes, each destination has a chance to improve its performance.

Rate your favorite places

Here's what panelists were asked. Using the criteria they used, try to rate your favorite destination. First, consider the following:

• Environmental and ecological quality.

• Social/cultural integrity.

• Condition of built heritage (archaeological, historic, and current structures).

• Aesthetic appeal, both natural and human-made.

• The nature of tourism development: To what degree is it of appropriate character? Does it benefit local people in a way that encourages protection of the locale? How well are tourists informed about the locale and their proper role in it?

• And, perhaps most important, the future outlook for the destination in terms of sustainability, taking into account all prevailing stewardship practices and policies.

Now, assign an overall score using the one-to-10-point Destination Outlook Scale:

1 to 2: Catastrophic: all criteria very negative, outlook grim.

3 to 4: In serious trouble.

5 to 6: In moderate trouble: all criteria medium-negative or a mix of negatives and positives.

7 to 8: Minor difficulties.

9: Authentic, unspoiled, and likely to remain so.

10: Enhanced.