Topic: Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in some areas whereas other think that change is inevitable and banning tourism will have no benefit. Discuss both sides and give your opinion
Please help me to correct and give comments, thank you so much!
People have differing views with regard to the question of how to maintain local culture affected by tourism. While some people think tourism should be forbidden to prevent local practices from changing, I believe that banning tourism in some specific places can be efficient rather than making any change.
On the one hand, people have various reasons why they do not believe in the influence of banning tourism and changing culture is a undeniable trend. Firstly, local culture created from time to time by continuously changing elements such as habitat, history and people's lives, therefore, with or without tourism, culture is still changing. Secondly, forbidding tourism can limit the number of visitors attracted, results in the suspension of local cultural development. Local artists, who contribute a great deal of value in culture play no role in popularizing their culture and other culture are faded away when there is little attention of public. Finally, local agencies may loss money from banning tourism, which can be used to remain and develop their culture. In fact, local residents, artists and agencies need to be paid to make a living, to remain or to perform their local culture.
Despite of these arguments, banning tourism in some places can be considered as an effective way of protecting local culture. The first advantage can be shown is remaining the traditional culture in sacred places such as temples and pagodas. Some people have their tendency to act rudely or do not strictly follow given instruction, especially foreign tourists with different culture; thus, the culture of these are still remained without any distraction. The second advantage which is not less vital is sorting certain places of banning to achieve better effect. Some areas receiving much attention from public, and developed from verbal ways or even social medial are encouraged to open widely so that local culture are known in a positive way; meanwhile, the other places which are banned from tourism can keep their nature through history.
Banning or banning tourism can raise a controversy in keeping local culture among people; however, I personally believe that forbidding tourism can create certain benefits to local cultural protecting and development.
Please help me to correct and give comments, thank you so much!
local cultural protection by forbidding tourism
People have differing views with regard to the question of how to maintain local culture affected by tourism. While some people think tourism should be forbidden to prevent local practices from changing, I believe that banning tourism in some specific places can be efficient rather than making any change.
On the one hand, people have various reasons why they do not believe in the influence of banning tourism and changing culture is a undeniable trend. Firstly, local culture created from time to time by continuously changing elements such as habitat, history and people's lives, therefore, with or without tourism, culture is still changing. Secondly, forbidding tourism can limit the number of visitors attracted, results in the suspension of local cultural development. Local artists, who contribute a great deal of value in culture play no role in popularizing their culture and other culture are faded away when there is little attention of public. Finally, local agencies may loss money from banning tourism, which can be used to remain and develop their culture. In fact, local residents, artists and agencies need to be paid to make a living, to remain or to perform their local culture.
Despite of these arguments, banning tourism in some places can be considered as an effective way of protecting local culture. The first advantage can be shown is remaining the traditional culture in sacred places such as temples and pagodas. Some people have their tendency to act rudely or do not strictly follow given instruction, especially foreign tourists with different culture; thus, the culture of these are still remained without any distraction. The second advantage which is not less vital is sorting certain places of banning to achieve better effect. Some areas receiving much attention from public, and developed from verbal ways or even social medial are encouraged to open widely so that local culture are known in a positive way; meanwhile, the other places which are banned from tourism can keep their nature through history.
Banning or banning tourism can raise a controversy in keeping local culture among people; however, I personally believe that forbidding tourism can create certain benefits to local cultural protecting and development.
