Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people. Why is this the case and why can be done to attract more local people to visit these places?
It is true that tourists from many parts of the world pay more visits to museums and historical places than local inhabitants. There are many reasons for this, but this situation should be addressed by attracting locals in some practical ways.
There are two main reasons why museums and historical sites are preferred more by tourists than by local residents. One reason is that museums are too familiar to the locals. If museums do not change anything, there will be nothing new for locals to discover. Like eating the same dish every single day, they feel bored with visiting the same places. Furthermore, entrance tickets at some historical sites are expensive for the local inhabitants to afford. For example, in Dien Bien, a province in northwestern Vietnam, it is rather hard for the residents to make ends meet, let alone to spend money on visiting some famous historical attractions there.
The government should take some measures to tackle this issue effectively. Firstly, museums ought to be invested in more by the authorities to refresh the exhibits. The fresher the exhibitions are, the more local residents will be interested in them. Secondly, historical relics need to be free for all the local people. Without worrying about additional expenditures, residents will pay more to visit historical sites in order to broaden their knowledge about their home towns.
In conclusion, there are some known reasons for this trend. However, something should be done by the authorities to attract more visitors from the local ares.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-03-18 | regina.m97 | 56 | view |
- Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people. Why is this the case and why can be done to attract more local people to visit these places? 56
- The line chart compares how much time it would take for three companies to manufacture a car from 2000 to 2012 36
- The graph below shows the amounts of waste produced by three companies over a period of 15 years. 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, for example, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1297.0 1615.20841683 80% => OK
No of words: 251.0 315.596192385 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16733067729 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67377282618 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 176.041082164 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.577689243028 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 506.74238477 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9681340448 49.4020404114 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4666666667 106.682146367 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7333333333 20.7667163134 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06120827912 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.432283110973 0.244688304435 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139893284394 0.084324248473 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954457116704 0.0667982634062 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.271669245668 0.151304729494 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0730505343282 0.056905535591 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.58950901804 96% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 78.4519038076 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.