In a geographical sense of course.
Is the difference in topography and vegetation worth the effort to get to Koh Samui, instead of just staying at Phuket and Koh Lanta. In fact, is there a difference at all??
I'm a solo traveller and want to see the real Thailand, not just the tourist traps... although I do want to see some of the tourist things Thailand is so famous for.
I am going on a longer tour and trek after starting my adventure by the sea.
#1 BrumbyJack has been a member since 7/10/2012. Posts: 19
"I'm a solo traveller and want to see the real Thailand, not just the tourist traps"
Then don't go to Phuket and Samui. Lanta is ok, especially further down the island where it's generally quieter.
In terms of topography many of the west coast islands in Krabi and Trang province have the famous limestone cliffs. Lanta is one of the exceptions and while it has some steep hills it doesn't have the limestone karsts. Same for Samui and Ko Phangan on the east coast - hilly in places but not as dramatic as the likes of Railay and Phi Phi. Vegetation-wise Lanta is dominated by Casuarina trees and the beaches are often strewn with their long thin needles. Ko Phangan and Samui have more coconut trees and a healthy cocnut industry. Go on Google earth and check out terrain and photos.
What time do you plan to traveling there?
If you're coming on November - May , you can travel Adaman coast
Mid October - December these months might not good to travel Gulf side because it's rainy season.
If you want to see the real Thailand then you might have to visit both coast , If you think Phuket is tourist traps , no isn't like that why have to follow them and heading to Patong? you can visit other places instead , visit a nice and quiet beach in Phuket like Nai Harn, Nai Thorn, Nai Yang and Bang tao beach ,
Phuket and Samui are differents ,natural ,culture.
#4 RiniRabbit has been a member since 31/7/2012. Posts: 78