Touristic places consider an essential national income to many countries as they support the economy and offer a lot of jobs opportunities. Many environmentalisms argue the dire impact of tourism at natural sites, while economists believe that tourism is better for both individual and national benefit. This essay will elaborate the reasons behind each view, and why I support the latter one.
At outmost, there are numerous reasons why tourism at natural sites should be regulated but the most conspicuous one stems from the importance of the environmental places, and tourists misuse to it. For example, many African rhinos are going to extinct because of the illegal hunting of them, to sell their parts in the Middle East and Asia. Therefore, environment conservatives and whistleblowers have raised a flag to stop such act and they helped many African countries, such as Kenya, to stop such a breech and to save the rhino from extinction.
On the other hand, many economist rather thought that to sell a permit to hunt a rhino will be rather beneficial; it will stop the unlawful hunting and it will bring an income, that could be used to protect and preserve rhinos national habitat. For instance, South Africa, has promoted for legally hunting number of rhinos every year, to use the income to help improving rhinos’ national habitat and to support ranchers financially to protect them. Subsequently, number of rhinos which were going to be extinct has bounced back, national parks have been well kept, and many jobs have been created, that is in contrast to the Kenyan government approach which hasn’t led to save lots of rhinos and people who used to work for national parks have converted the land to agricultural land.
To sum up, tourism at natural environments needs to be regulated well to bring national benefit as well as individual one. Although keeping the natural places out of reach of tourists brings good to the environment, the wise use of natural balance of the environment could bring up better benefits.
Touristic places consider an essential
national
income to
many
countries as they support the economy and offer
a lot of
jobs opportunities.
Many
environmentalisms
argue the dire impact of
tourism
at
natural
sites, while economists believe that
tourism
is better for both individual and
national
benefit. This essay will elaborate the reasons behind each view, and why I support the latter one.
At
outmost
, there are numerous reasons why
tourism
at
natural
sites should
be regulated
but
the most conspicuous one stems from the importance of the environmental places, and tourists misuse to it.
For example
,
many
African rhinos are going to extinct
because
of the illegal hunting of them, to sell their parts in the Middle East and Asia.
Therefore
,
environment
conservatives and whistleblowers have raised a flag to
stop
such
act and
they
helped
many
African countries, such as Kenya, to
stop
such a breech and to save the rhino from extinction.
On the other hand
,
many economist
rather
thought
that to sell a permit to hunt a rhino will be
rather
beneficial; it will
stop
the unlawful hunting and it will
bring
an income, that could be
used
to protect and preserve rhinos
national
habitat.
For instance
, South Africa, has promoted for
legally
hunting number of rhinos every year, to
use
the income to
help
improving
rhinos’
national
habitat and to support ranchers
financially
to protect them.
Subsequently
, number of rhinos which were going to be extinct has bounced back,
national
parks have been well
kept
, and
many
jobs have
been created
,
that is
in contrast
to the Kenyan
government
approach which hasn’t led to save lots of rhinos and
people
who
used
to work for
national
parks have converted the land to agricultural land.
To sum up,
tourism
at
natural
environments
needs to
be regulated
well to
bring
national
benefit
as well
as individual one. Although keeping the
natural
places out of reach of tourists
brings
good
to the
environment
, the wise
use
of
natural
balance of the
environment
could
bring
up better benefits.