There has been some discussion about the environment and tourist. In this regard, it is a highly debated matter whether the environment probably be destroyed in the wake of tourism, while others argue that it is a method to preserve nature. There are some valid arguments on both views and give my own opinion.
It is understandable that there are some minor arguments in favor of the first policy. Initially, it can lead to environmental pollution, because when tourists come to a place, it is possible for them to dispose their rubbishes into the nature, and this rubbish can be eaten by animals in that environment, such as living creatures in rivers and forest. As a result, eating these can lead to increasing animal extinction. In addition, habitats of animals and plants may be destroyed by tourism. For example, when the number of tourist increases, governments also need to increase the number of accommodations, and this sometimes require cutting down trees. Therefore, it might lead to destroying natural environments.
Having said that, the major arguments support the opposite view. To begin, tourism may allow governments to provide money to protect natural habitats, because it allows them to hire new people to protect these places, and they also can stop illegal hunting. So, it enables governments to preserve biodiversity. Besides this, it allows them to raise public awareness about environmental protection. As tourists can learn the importance of protecting wildlife and ecosystems when they visit different natural places. It means that they may become more responsible and avoid activities that damage the environment.
In conclusion, by acknowledging that the first policy may have its own merits, the advantages of the second policy are more noticeable. Therefore, I believe that the best policy is to provide situation to protect the natural habitats as well as raise public awareness.