Today, tourism industry plays a crucial role to show heritage places, habits and customs of each country to foreigners. This industry is a major source of income in many countries. Some believe that tourists visiting these areas must be charged more than the local inhabitants. I personally disagree with this view because I think this plan will have more disadvantages.
On the one hand, those who support that, foreign travellers have to pay more for visiting historical places have their own reasons. One is that these people are averagely more well-to-do than the local residents. Paying hundreds of dollars for booking of hotel, airline or visa, foreign tourists are able to afford higher prices to visit these places. In this case, in Isfahan, a historical city of Iran, to visit ‘Menar Jonban’, an old tower located in the centre of the city, foreigners are charged five times more than the local inhabitants. While local citizens have to pay various taxes, foreigners visiting temporarily a place have not paid any tax; therefore, the regional government must charge them in other ways. To repair, renovate or protect these places, the local state will have more budgets.
On the other hand, I personally believe that the price of tickets for these locations must be the same for both local and foreign tourists. The first reason behind it is that this plan can avoid decreasing the number of visitors. Clearly, the more they are asked to pay, the less they will travel. As a prime example, had the government of B. C charged those foreigners visiting the national museum of Vancouver, their population would have dropped dramatically; however, by attracting more visitors, this government would have raised its revenue in other sectors, including hotels or public transportation, and foreigners would not have been forced to pay more money for visiting of these locations in Vancouver. Furthermore, this policy can have a huge negative impact on nations` relationships. Definitely, heritage premises are the best ways to show each nation`s culture, whereas increasing these fees will lead other nations to know less about the host country. In additional, this has a negative psychological effect on tourists while they are forced to pay more than the local visitors. They might feel discriminated and would plan to visit other places than spending more on cultural and historical places. Over the year the number of tourists would drop and that would be a bad impact in the long run.
In conclusion, although receiving more money from foreign visitors who visit historical places can have several advantages, I personally think that this will cause them to not only have less tendency to visit there again, but the host country will have less opportunity to show its culture to other nations.
Today
, tourism industry plays a crucial role to
show
heritage
places
, habits and customs of each
country
to
foreigners
. This industry is a major source of income in
many
countries
.
Some
believe that
tourists
visiting these areas
must
be charged
more than the
local
inhabitants. I
personally
disagree with this view
because
I
think
this plan will have more disadvantages.
On the one hand, those who support that,
foreign
travellers
have to
pay
more for visiting
historical
places
have their
own
reasons. One is that these
people
are
averagely
more well-to-do than the
local
residents. Paying hundreds of dollars for booking of hotel, airline or visa,
foreign
tourists
are able to afford higher prices to
visit
these
places
.
In this case
, in Isfahan, a
historical
city of Iran, to
visit
‘
Menar
Jonban
’, an
old
tower located in the
centre
of the city,
foreigners
are charged
five times more than the
local
inhabitants. While
local
citizens
have to
pay
various taxes,
foreigners
visiting
temporarily
a
place
have not paid any tax;
therefore
, the regional
government
must
charge them in
other
ways. To repair, renovate or protect these
places
, the
local
state will have more budgets.
On the
other
hand, I
personally
believe that the price of tickets for these locations
must
be the same for both
local
and
foreign
tourists
. The
first
reason behind it is that this plan can avoid decreasing the number of
visitors
.
Clearly
, the more they
are asked
to
pay
, the
less
they will travel. As a prime example, had the
government
of B. C charged those
foreigners
visiting the national museum of Vancouver, their population would have dropped
dramatically
;
however
, by attracting more
visitors
, this
government
would have raised its revenue in
other
sectors, including hotels or public transportation, and
foreigners
would not have
been forced
to
pay
more money for visiting of these locations in Vancouver.
Furthermore
, this policy can have a huge
negative
impact on
nations`
relationships. Definitely, heritage premises are the best ways to
show
each
nation`s
culture, whereas increasing these fees will lead
other
nations
to know
less
about the host
country
. In additional, this has a
negative
psychological effect on
tourists
while they
are forced
to
pay
more than the
local
visitors
. They might feel discriminated and would plan to
visit
other
places
than spending more on cultural and
historical
places
. Over the year the number of
tourists
would drop and that would be a
bad
impact in the long run.
In conclusion
, although receiving more money from
foreign
visitors
who
visit
historical
places
can have several advantages, I
personally
think
that this will cause them to not
only
have
less
tendency to
visit
there again,
but
the host
country
will have
less
opportunity to
show
its culture to
other
nations
.