Topic
While tourism can indeed be a money-making endeavor, it can do more harm than good, especially tourism to small, remote places that are not heavily populated. What is your opinion? Should local or national governments promote tourism to remote regions not typically visited by tourists before Why?
Instruction
Content
I think both Andrew and Claire make good point on this issue. Personally, I think the government should ask the willness of the local residents before developing the toursim at some remote area. The economic benifit brings from the toursim is far more large and less risky than that of agriculture. Some types of remote area, such as mountain and sea island are not suitable for developing the agriculture. On the other hand, the government can set the limitation to the amount of tourists to protect the local enviroment and culuture from ruined.
In nutshell, with suitable protection, the tourism industry can benifit the local economics while enusure the local environment not be ruined.
Revision
I believe both Andrew and Claire make valid points on this issue. Personally, I think the government should assess the willingness of local residents before developing tourism in remote areas. The economic benefits derived from tourism are often more significant and less risky than those from agriculture. Certain types of remote areas, such as mountains and sea islands, may not be suitable for agricultural development. On the other hand, the government can set limitations on the number of tourists to protect the local environment and culture from potential harm.
In a nutshell, with appropriate safeguards, the tourism industry can benefit the local economy while ensuring the preservation of the local environment.