The increase in tourism has led to the destruction of the environment, thus tourism ought to be banned in certain areas. What is your opinion? v.2
The increase in tourism has led to the destruction of the environment, thus tourism ought to be banned in certain areas. What is your opinion? v. 2
These days the surroundings are facing dismantle due to the expansion of travellers. Consequently, few places are necessary to be prohibited for visitors. I totally disagree with the opinion. This essay will justify my point of not restricting tourists visiting the places.
To begin with, some believe tourism should be banned in a few places in order to maintain, beauty of the place. Firstly, history and culture have always been an attraction towards tourism. Hence, it not only benefits the place in economic growth, but also in country’s brand value. For example, people around the world would love to visit Paris to see the Eiffel Tower, which is known as one of the best masterpieces in the world. Therefore, this helps in attracting more tourist and profits to the nation.
Secondly, tourism is a major revenue for several countries. Due to high dependency on tourism, could lead to the downfall of the region. To cite an instance, Maldives rewarded by the tourists as the most breathtaking and heavenly place to visit and if the government bans tourism as a result, it would affect the nation food and shelter who majorly depends upon the tourist money. However, there are few lands who have taken preventive measures to save the place like people are not allowed to take pictures or touch the art of the place. To illustrate, Goa is known for its seashore and party life, but there were times when empty alcohol bottles were flowing into the ocean, due to which government took a preservative measure of restricting alcohol consumption near beaches. These preventive measures will not only prevent nation revenue, but also the nature.
To conclude, disallowing visitors in certain places would not only affect the revenue, but also the country’s brand value. Therefore, taking preventive measure would secure the district.
These days the surroundings are facing dismantle due to the expansion of
travellers
.
Consequently
, few
places
are necessary to
be prohibited
for visitors. I
totally
disagree with the opinion. This essay will justify my point of not restricting
tourists
visiting the places.
To
begin
with,
some
believe
tourism
should
be banned
in a few
places
in order to maintain, beauty of the
place
.
Firstly
, history and culture have always been an attraction towards
tourism
.
Hence
, it not
only
benefits the
place
in economic growth,
but
also
in country’s brand value.
For example
,
people
around the world would
love
to visit Paris to
see
the Eiffel Tower, which
is known
as one of the best masterpieces in the world.
Therefore
, this
helps
in attracting more
tourist
and profits to the nation.
Secondly
,
tourism
is a major revenue for several countries. Due to high dependency on
tourism
, could lead to the downfall of the region. To cite an instance, Maldives rewarded by the
tourists
as the most breathtaking and heavenly
place
to visit and if the
government
bans
tourism
as a result
, it would affect the nation food and shelter who
majorly
depends upon the
tourist
money.
However
, there are few lands who have taken preventive
measures
to save the
place
like
people
are not
allowed
to take pictures or touch the art of the
place
. To illustrate, Goa
is known
for its seashore and party life,
but
there were times when empty alcohol bottles were flowing into the ocean, due to which
government
took a preservative
measure
of restricting alcohol consumption near beaches. These preventive
measures
will not
only
prevent
nation revenue,
but
also
the nature.
To conclude
, disallowing visitors in certain
places
would not
only
affect the revenue,
but
also
the country’s brand value.
Therefore
, taking preventive
measure
would secure the district.
8Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
8Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
8Mistakes