Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in

some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourism
will have no benefits. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

BAND 9
The ban on tourism for cultural preservation has been a topic of heated debate
for decades. Although the ban can have many potential positive effects on
culture, I would argue that it may do more harm than good.

On the one hand, banning tourism can help protect local culture in a number of
ways. First, tourism has caused a variety of environmental issues. In fact, the
increasing number of littering, such as plastic bottles, bags and packaging, has
caused contamination in many popular tourist attractions, which not only harms
the health of indigenous people but also puts marine animals in danger. Second,
numerous historical sites have been damaged by a part of modern tourists. For
example, Stonehenge in England has been closed to the public since many
visitors carved historic stone monuments into small pieces of stone to bring
back as souvenirs.

On the other hand, the ban on tourism has many significant drawbacks to
countries and their people as a whole. Since tourism can generate income all
year long and create more employment, banning it may be harmful to the
national economy of a country to a great extent. For instance, tourism accounts
for approximately 40% of the national economy in Maldives, ensuring its
economic security and stability every year. In addition, if tourism is banned,
there would be a lack of mutual understanding and unification among humans.
In fact, since tourism has the special ability to bring together people from
various backgrounds, countries, traditions and cultures, restricting it can rip
society apart, causing more conflicts and higher tension among human beings.

In short, both views appear reasonable to a certain extent. However, I believe

that the ban may do more harm than good since tourism is offering broad-based
benefits to both individuals and countries.

BAND 7.5
With the rapid growth of the population, people discovered many places in the
forests and mountains which are different for normal cultures like old art
paintings etc. Many people who want to explore these places and cultures often
need the permission from local governments. Some people believe that local
tourism should be banned due to its significance and importance. However, I
completely disagree with this statement and in this essay I will discuss some
reasons to support my opinion.
Firstly, Tourism increases money and significance of cultures. What I mean by
this is that tourists buy permits, visas and local goods when they visit any tourist
place which helps in the growth of revenue. Moreover, most of the revenues
generated, are used for the local developments and maintenance. For Example,
Taj Mahal is being visited by thousands of people every year, generating huge
revenues for local bodies. Additionally, tourism generates more jobs to local
people, I mean that tourists who visit any place requires stay, travel and food.
For Instance, people who visit for the Taj Mahal should travel to the nearest city
by air and then by road to reach the destination also should have local food.
This direct effect of income from tourism, highly benefits local people.
Furthermore, tourism boosts significance of old traditions with huge popularity
and media coverage.

Turning on to the other side of the argument, many people think that tourism
often affects their culture and customs. They believe that with popularity, their
values and traditions are changing completely to cope with flooding tourists. In
addition to this many people who travel have a habit of misbehaving with the
monuments or the paintings or the place they visit marking the way for bans.
For Example, A tree in the middle of the Sahara desert was cut down by the
visitor making the place treeless.

In conclusion, although tourism benefits and increase revenues for

governments, it should be protected and maintained. One to know the
responsibility and importance of the place they visit. People also should be
given adequate rules before they visit. In my opinion, benefit in the form of
generating huge revenues will overcome all other outcomes. Finally, tourism
should not be banned and it should not affect the local traditions as well.

BAND 8

Some people would argue that it is necessary to ban tourism in some places to
preserve local culture, while others think that it is not needed because those
places no longer have importance as it was in the past. I agree with the first
statement and believe that we should leave the local live in their ways.

On the one hand, it is necessary to ban tourism in some sacred places. The
locals use those places to strengthen their relation to others as well as the God.
Unfortunately, many tourists do not understand it and tend to be busy with their
activities only, such as taking pictures and chatting with other visitors. As a
result, the locals find it difficult to concentrate and have spiritual
communication with their creators. For example, the Sultan Mosque in
Singapore is closed during prayer times to allow people from the surrounding to
pray in it without any disturbance from tourists. I believe this the correct
approach for those holy places.

On the other hand, preventing tourists from visiting places which have lost their
original functions is unnecessary. There are many places which were important
in the past, but it does not have critical functions anymore these days. Such
places are more beneficial if they are converted into tourist attractions. For
example, the Borobudur temple today is entirely for tourism instead of the place
for meditation as it was in the past. I agree this view because it does not threat
the local culture.

In conclusion, tourism should be banned in places where the original functions

of those places remain unchanged, however, this is not applicable for places
which have lost their functions and will be beneficial if it is converted into
tourist attractions.

BAND 7

It is often argued that it is necessary to stop tourism for protecting the native
culture of various areas, whilst their counterparts opined that it is not beneficial
as changes are certain to happen. In my opinion, I believe that although tourism
has some negatives, overall it is a boon to the country’s economy, therefore
should not be banned.

A growing way of research suggests that tourism is a threat to local culture. One
of the key reasons is that international tourism increases the intercultural
interactions among people. This can lead to the adoption of foreign culture
easily, which thereby impacts on native culture and traditions. Taking India as
an example, the regular influx of tourists has increased communication between
locals and visitors. Nevertheless, people are likely to migrate from their native
countries to adopt the lifestyles of others.

However, a complete ban on tourism has some cons. One of the major impacts
would be on the local businesses. This means that the owners of native
companies might face a loss without consumerism as they considered tourists as
their sole customers, which ultimately compel them to shut down their shops.
For instance, a minimum of a six-month ban on visitors in Bali, for cleaning the
polluted beach leads to shutting down the careers of many local shopkeepers,
who used to sell souvenirs over there.

In conclusion, while tourism can benefit the countries developing economy, it

can also threaten the traditional values of local culture. It is my considered
opinion that despite some negative effects, I believe the pros of tourism to
developing nations are undeniable, so it must not be prohibited.