The question of whether expensive destinations are worth visiting on a budget trip, analyzed through the lens of what you're actually paying for.

Sweden: you're paying primarily for quality of life infrastructure (clean, orderly, reliable). The nature is extraordinary and mostly free. The problem: you pay Swedish prices to experience nature you could experience in cheaper countries. Worth visiting if you specifically want to experience Sweden's culture and society. Skip if you're optimizing for experience-per-dollar.

Japan: you're paying for efficiency, food culture, aesthetic quality, and cultural experience that's genuinely unavailable elsewhere. The capsule hotel, the convenience store culture, the ryokan breakfast, the Shinkansen precision — these are worth paying for because there's no budget alternative that provides the same experience. Worth visiting even on a tight budget, with realistic expectations.

New Zealand: you're paying for accessibility of wilderness. Fiordland, the Routeburn Track, the Abel Tasman coast — these landscapes are rare globally. The infrastructure makes extreme nature accessible to non-technical travelers. Worth visiting once; the working holiday visa structure makes extended stays affordable.

Switzerland: genuinely expensive with limited budget workarounds. The mountain landscapes are spectacular but reachable from slightly cheaper Austria or France. Skip unless Switzerland specifically is the point.

Scandinavian countries: the camping and self-catering approach dramatically reduces costs. Worth visiting with the explicit strategy of camping, cooking, and using free nature activities rather than tourist infrastructure.