Temples of Malta. Pine forests in Dalat, Vietnam. How about a speck of volcanic rock in the South Atlantic? Itching to get out of town? Every January, The Times Travel section publishes a “Places to Go” Issue.  The selection for 2016 includes Sri Lanka, Hangzhou, China, ... and Providence, R. I.? How did the 52 destinations on this year’s list make the cut, and what did the editors consider as they assembled it? Monica Drake, Travel Editor, and Dan Saltzstein, assistant editor on the Travel desk, explain.  Q. Mexico City. Number 1 destination. Why?  A. Dan Saltzstein: The No. 1 choice has to hit a sweet spot: It has to be a major enough destination to make sense as our top selection, but it can’t be too obvious. Mexico City is one of the biggest cities in the world, but we suspect many Americans are intimidated by it. The truth is that it’s an incredibly dynamic place that hits all the major urban travel buttons — food, culture, etc. — and a character that’s entirely its own.  Monica Drake: I also took an informal poll of our international correspondents, and many of them — even the ones who don’t cover Latin America — suggested Mexico City. This, and the opinions of our regular travel contributors, convinced us.  Q. What’s the criteria for inclusion on the list? You wrote “We aim for a selection of places that we expect to be particularly compelling in the coming year.” Particularly compelling? What does that mean?  A. Ms. Drake: It means that if you’re even thinking about going to any of these places, you should go this year. And we make a pretty compelling case for each of the spots we suggest.  Q. What kind of traveler do you have in mind when you create a destination list that includes Sri Lanka, Hangzhou, China, and St. Louis? (Another way of saying this: Who is this list for?)  A. Mr. Saltzstein: Everyone! We aim for a diversity of geography, themes, cost and scale. Hopefully, all readers can find something in the list to entice them.  Ms. Drake: Anybody who’s a traveler rather than a tourist will find somewhere to go on this list.  Q. Providence, R.I.? Are you kidding?  A. Ms. Drake: No. Look, there are little gems right under our noses that we often miss. Providence has got a nice food scene and a wonderful beachy escape a short ways away. Why wouldn’t we include it?  Q. What’s wrong with Paris? Rome? Istanbul?  A. Mr. Saltzstein: Nothing, of course — and most major cities have made previous lists (Paris and Rome included). But if the list was entirely made up of the usual suspects, that wouldn’t be much fun, would it?  Ms. Drake: I should add that the list was published between the attacks in Paris and Istanbul. Though we pay attention to the climate that visitors will encounter, the attacks were not the deciding factors in their exclusion.  Q. This year’s list comes complete with spectacular drone footage. What else is new this year?  A. Ms. Drake: We’re also aiming to get folks engaged in the list throughout the year. So we created this hashtag, #52places, on Instagram that will allow you to post photos for consideration to put on this page that we curate. We’ll also be releasing remixes of the list geared toward certain types of travelers throughout the year. And we’ll be introducing additional visual features within the list too. We want this feature to be something that you can return to when you’re planning your travel throughout the year.  Q. What kind reader suggestions did you get? And were there lots of these?  A. Mr. Saltzstein: Thousands! [Over 6,500 on Instagram alone, at last check.] We’ve featured about 25 so far on our Readers’ Choice page, and plan to continue adding to that throughout the year. Suggestions have spanned the globe, from Malaysia to Utah to Morocco.  Q. Terrorism or the fear of a terror attack plays an obvious role in the destinations travelers select. Was this a factor as you put the list together?  A. Ms. Drake: Of course. We do not suggest places that we think are absolutely unsafe for travelers. These include active war zones, places that have been struck by a crippling natural disaster or epidemic and areas where tourists will encounter hostility and/or danger. However, it is worth remembering that every trip involves a level of risk, and it’s up to each traveler to figure out what they’re comfortable with. While you shouldn’t entirely throw caution to the wind, we assume plenty of risk in our everyday lives. A no-risk vacation is impossible.  Q. What’s the one destination readers complain most about NOT finding on the list?  A. Ms. Drake: Our readers must be feeling very polite this year. The most common response on our social account was to tag a friend and say, “Let’s go!” I should note that we invited folks who had already been to these places to contribute to our Facebook posts like this one on Mexico City, so maybe they were too busy commenting there to complain about what’s missing.  Q. If you were at the airport now and could get on a plane headed anywhere in the world, where would you go?  A. Ms. Drake: Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Also Bordeaux because, well, wine!  Mr. Saltzstein: From the list? Probably Tamil Nadu and its stunning temples. Or maybe Guadeloupe — those crystalline waters look really inviting. Or maybe Mexico City to sample some street food. Or …  Q. Do you hear from readers who use the list as a travel guide and actually visit all or a lot of the 52 places on your list.  A. Ms. Drake: I have never heard of that happening, but if any of our readers do decide to visit all of these places in a year, they should let us know.
Travel editors Monica Drake and Dan Saltzstein explain how they put together this year’s special issue, “52 Places To Go in 2016.”