The reading and the lecture are both about eco-tourism. The author of the reading feels that there are three main reasons why green tourism is a good development. However, the lecturer disagrees and explains why those ideas made by the author in the article are faulty.
To begin with, the writer argues that eco-tourism causes less damage to the environment unlike other activities such as logging, farming and manufacturing. The article says that it is an alternative way of development. The professor explains this point by saying that maybe building small hotels in the middle of a juggle, instead of many stores and big buildings with pools in front of a beach could have a less impact but she points out that it is necessary to build routes to get to places of green tourism and that would increase significantly the air and water pollution. Besides that, she mentions the problem with litter.
Secondly, the author states that those places would be protected by the government. In others words, the government would preserve the nature to improve the eco-tourism and to conserve the animals from that region. On the other hand, the speaker says that even if those places were sheltered by the government it would not be enough to stop poaching, in fact it would be easier for the hunters, because of the routes.
Finally, the writer believes that eco-tourism would provide more jobs for the local people and a life with better conditions. Moreover, the text says that everybody wins, the tourists, the government, the local people and specially the animals and plants. Meanwhile, the professor refutes this point by noting that local people earn the lowest salaries. Furthermore, she states that most of the time the people hired are from other places, resulting in cultural pollution. That is, local people lose their customs.
The reading and the lecture are both about
eco-tourism
. The author of the reading feels that there are three main reasons why green tourism is a
good
development.
However
, the lecturer disagrees and
explains
why those
ideas
made by the author in the article are faulty.
To
begin
with, the writer argues that
eco-tourism
causes less damage to the environment unlike
other
activities such as logging, farming and manufacturing. The article says that it is an alternative way of development. The professor
explains
this point by saying that maybe building
small
hotels in the middle of a juggle,
instead
of
many
stores and
big
buildings with pools in front of a beach could have a less impact
but
she points out that it is necessary to build routes to
get
to
places
of green tourism and that would increase
significantly
the air and water pollution.
Besides
that, she mentions the problem with litter.
Secondly
, the author states that those
places
would
be protected
by the
government
. In others words, the
government
would preserve the nature to
improve
the
eco-tourism
and to conserve the animals from that region. On the
other
hand, the speaker says that even if those
places
were sheltered
by the
government
it would not be
enough
to
stop
poaching, in fact it would be easier for the hunters,
because
of the routes.
Finally
, the writer believes that
eco-tourism
would provide more jobs for the
local
people
and a life with better conditions.
Moreover
, the text says that everybody wins, the tourists, the
government
, the
local
people
and
specially
the animals and plants. Meanwhile, the professor refutes this point by noting that
local
people
earn the lowest salaries.
Furthermore
, she states that most of the time the
people
hired are from
other
places
, resulting in cultural pollution.
That is
,
local
people
lose their customs.