Foreign Visitors Should Pay More than Local Visitors for Cultural

Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Sample 1: Foreign Visitors Should Pay More than Local Visitors for Cultural

It is often argued that tourists from overseas must pay more than the local people to visit important cultural and historical attractions. I strongly agree that foreigners should pay more than local people for some reasons.

Firstly, with tourists having to pay more for the attractions, it can help to minimize the number of visitors, especially the tourists; by all means, it can prevent the attractions from being too crowded and keep the places clean. Many tourists are not responsible for what they do. For Instance, littering as they wish and damaging the property. This kind of problem will make the place dirty and reduce visitors’ interest in coming.

Secondly, the income from the tourists, which is really high, might be used to maintain the place regularly by the government. Maintaining the place may help the place stay in good condition. Historical attractions and other monuments need some sort of preservation and special care to keep them in good condition for a long last. For example, it will give a fresh look when it is maintained monthly. A place that is neat and beautiful can attract people’s attention to come.

To conclude, applying higher fees at cultural and historical attractions for tourists is required to avoid some unwanted problems such as the cleanliness of the places, but it should be controlled and taken care of the place to draw people’s attention from all over the world.

Sample 2:Foreign Visitors Should Pay More than Local Visitors for Cultural.

If sometimes argued that Overseas visitors should pay more money than local residents to visit historical sites and other monuments. This essay will discuss my reasons with relevant examples in upcoming paragraphs.

The foremost argument is why foreign travelers pay extra money to visit historical sites and other monuments. To begin with, local people pay tax already for this facility, and Overseas visitors do not pay tax for that. So, foreign visitors pay extra entry fees as compared to local visitors. For instance, Ranki Vav is located in Patan with only a 5 rupees entry fee for Indian visitors and a 200 rupees entry fee for foreign visitors. It was almost 40 times higher than local visitor entry fees. Moreover, if foreign visitors pay the extra money, then governments generate income and utilize this money to preserve historical monuments. Also, these actions bring less of a burden on the government budget. Thur’s government should take more entry fees for foreign visitors compared to local ones.

Follow Us on Pinterest IELTSPlaza

On the other hand, if Travellers realize that they would have to pay more money to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular Nation, they would avoid visiting this country. Even though this brings more money, Fewer people visit this place, and Nations do not spread the historical story in front of the world. Not only do these demerits, but they also have a negative impact on economic growth. For example, the UA has some visiting prices for both local visitors as well as foreign visitors. Many countries depend on tourism, such as UAE and Egypt. Well, These countries have more than half the income from tourism, so they take care of attracting more people instead of more money.

To conclude, if there is less money, then more people visit this place and generate more income as well as job opportunities. I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from Overseas, and it would be no benefit to make them pay more than local visitors.

Sample 3 Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural

The question of whether foreign visitors should be charged higher fees than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions is a complex issue that warrants careful consideration. While there are valid arguments on both sides, I firmly disagree with the notion that foreigners should pay more. Implementing such a policy risks perpetuating inequality and diminishing the goal of cultural exchange and understanding.

Charging higher fees to foreign visitors could inadvertently create a sense of exclusion and discrimination. Cultural and historical attractions are meant to be shared and appreciated by people from all backgrounds. By imposing a financial barrier based on nationality, these sites may inadvertently send the message that certain visitors are less welcome or deserving of access. This can foster negative perceptions and hinder the establishment of positive relationships between locals and foreigners.

Furthermore, cultural exchange is a significant aspect of global understanding and diplomacy. Charging foreign visitors more could dissuade them from engaging with the local culture and heritage, limiting opportunities for cross-cultural learning. In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, cultural understanding is crucial for promoting tolerance, empathy, and peaceful coexistence. By facilitating access to attractions for all visitors, regardless of their nationality, countries can foster an environment of mutual respect and appreciation.

It is also important to consider the practical implications of differential pricing. Implementing such a policy might require complex administrative structures to verify visitors’ nationalities, which could lead to longer wait times and logistical challenges. Moreover, the negative backlash from foreign tourists who feel unfairly treated could outweigh the potential economic benefits from increased revenue. This might discourage repeat visits and adversely impact the tourism industry, which often contributes significantly to local economies.

Instead of emphasizing financial disparities, cultural and historical attractions could consider alternative methods to generate revenue and promote inclusivity. For instance, offering tiered pricing based on factors such as age or income could ensure that all visitors have the opportunity to enjoy these sites without undue financial strain. Additionally, exploring sponsorship, public-private partnerships, and donations could help support the upkeep and accessibility of these attractions.

In conclusion, while the idea of charging foreign visitors more for cultural and historical attractions might seem to generate revenue, it risks perpetuating inequality and hindering cultural exchange. Encouraging inclusivity and understanding among all visitors, regardless of their nationality, is essential for fostering a more interconnected and harmonious global community.