Most of the world’s poor live in countries where tourism is a growing industry. The issue is that tourism does not benefit the poorest.
How can the income generated by tourism benefit the poor? And how can we ensure that tourism does not destroy traditional cultures and ways of life?
It is a ubiquitous notion that tourism has recently become a profitable sectors for most governments. However, the majority of the poor living in these countries do not have the capability to make much use of this development, and their traditional values may be eroded by foreign culture evasion. Offering education to local communities and promoting tradition-based travelling are two are the two practical solutions to these issues.
Providing vocational training to the less privileged may enable them to profit from tourism. As the industry is booming, it requires employees with higher skills and capability. For instance, a luxury hotel would need a highly-trained barista or chef in their restaurants, and would also demand its staffs to speak multiple languages to meet expectation of foreign guests. However, the impoverished do not have access to education and learn these skills; as a result, they can only obtain poorly-paid jobs. Therefore, if the needy received career training, they would definitely have greater earnings.
Moreover, taking advantage of traditional cultures would be an effective way to make use of native values for tourism development and also benefit the poor. This style of travel enables visitors to experience regular lives of local people. For example, instead of accommodating in a hotel, tourists can pay for a home-stay in with villagers. This would both gives them with insights of the local customs and provides the natives with a much-needed income.
In conclusion, the wealth generated by the thriving tourism may not flow down to the poor, and might as well deteriorate cultural values. However, if we provide the under-privileged with education and encouraging the use of conventional features in travelling services, we can bring more benefits to them and as well avoid tradition erosion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-15 | thaovuphuong19 | 67 | view |
- some people think that Genetically modified GM crops are a positive development Others however argue that they are potentially dangerous Discuss both these views and give your opinion 67
- The graph below shows the number of new homes built in a particular region in the UK from 2010 and the figure predicted for 2020 51
- 8 The chart below shows male and female fitness membership between 1970 and 2000
- The table below gives figures for student applications and acceptances for UK university course in the field of tourism transport and travel Write a report for a university lecturer describing the information below 79
- Human activity has had negative impacts on plants and animals around the world Some people think that this cannot be changed while others believe actions can be taken to bring about a change Discuss both views and give your opinion 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 73, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'sector'?
Suggestion: sector
...ourism has recently become a profitable sectors for most governments. However, the majo...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 237, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and encouraging the use of conventional features in travelling services, we can ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 7.30460921844 14% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1568.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42560553633 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05882352941 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.608996539792 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.1533344794 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.0 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6428571429 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17338493442 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05822454057 0.084324248473 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559351538174 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113551362401 0.151304729494 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396847181267 0.056905535591 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.42 8.58950901804 121% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.