Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular. Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and the environment?
In this day and age, more and more excursions to rural areas are designed for tourists, causing some level of public controversy. It is my firm conviction that this tendency exerts detrimental impacts on both the locals and the ecosystem.
With respect to the indigenous people, booming tourism would result in cultural erosion among the aboriginals. When entertaining tourists, in an attempt to earn a good living, the natives adapt to tourists’ needs, attitudes and values, and ultimately start following them; and, consequently, lose their own cultural inheritance gradually. For example, in China, instead of its traditional costumes, the youth who implicitly embrace Western fashion opt for a wedding dress or a suit on their marriage date. Furthermore, the arrival of foreign visitors usually accompanies by the import of exotic cultures, some of which are contradictory to traditional values and customs. Intimate gestures of couples in public places, for instance, which used to be frowned upon in Asian culture, have been considered normal and become prevalent on streets and even at schools, intensifying the degradation of regional customs.
In respect of environmental effects, the introduction of the tourism industry in remote regions poses a significant and tremendous threat to the wilderness there. With the demand for local specialities served in tourists’ meals or even illusionary-pharmaceutical supplements increasing, there would be an enormous acceleration of illegal hunting and logging. As a result, natural resources are depleted due to overexploitation. Taking the highlands of Vietnam such as Gia Lai and Lam Dong provinces as an example, the extinction of various species of snake is on the horizon which is attributed to hunting activities for food serving visitors who crave new dishes. In addition, the mass destruction of natural habitats like rainforests, waterfalls, etc. to make space for convenient facilities and infrastructures will be inevitable if more tourists come. Quintessentially, Brazil’s Amazon, also known as the lungs of the world, has fallen under extensively detrimental impacts of tourism development, including widespread pollution deriving from waste disposal of both visitors and services providers, and destruction of wildlife for souvenirs, and complex areas for accommodation and entertainment.
In conclusion, in my opinion, the expansion of tourism into remote areas would cause catastrophic impacts on not only the native people but also the regional ecosystem.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | chips_0506 | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-22 | chaupnh | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-29 | Lê Khánh Diệp | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-29 | Lê Khánh Diệp | 73 | view |
| 2022-07-21 | doquytuan | 73 | view |
- Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and the environment 89
- Some people think the government funding should not be used for supporting art and culture while others think supporting cultural activities may be beneficial for the population and the culture Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 89
- Cyclists and car drivers sharing the same roads causes some problems What are the problems and what can be done to reduce them 89
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions Do you agree or disagree 89
- Some people believe government should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion Others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion Discuss both views and give your opinion 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, if, so, as for, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in my opinion, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 10.4138276553 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2160.0 1615.20841683 134% => OK
No of words: 379.0 315.596192385 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69920844327 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39179158842 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 176.041082164 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627968337731 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 674.1 506.74238477 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.76152304609 231% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 70.8659454338 49.4020404114 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.0 106.682146367 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2666666667 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7333333333 7.06120827912 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.123647527014 0.244688304435 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0361542366498 0.084324248473 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0318856247634 0.0667982634062 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0798352591943 0.151304729494 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255448757061 0.056905535591 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.08 12.4159519038 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 78.4519038076 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.