Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists and not local people Why is the case What can be done to attract local people

Essay topics:

Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists and not local people. Why is the case? What can be done to attract local people?

Recently, the issue of a small number of locals entering historical facilities has become the subject of heated debate. There are several reasons for this phenomenon, such as entrance fees, and various measures could be taken to alleviate this issue, including launching a campaign. In this essay, I will explain the reasons for this undesirable trend and present some solutions to the problem.

There do seem to be numerous causes underlying this phenomenon. Perhaps the most oft-cited cause is that the majority of local governments have a tendency to only focus on travellers when they promote local attractions. This is partly because governments in local areas are obsessed with attracting visitors from other cities or nations who are more likely to expend a great deal of money on other industries in local areas, which can invigorate economic growth. Another fundamental cause is that the majority of citizens consider paying the same amount of money for entrance to local sites to be unfair, compared to travellers given that they spend a vast sum of money on tax money in order to support local governments.

There are, however, several courses of action that local governments as well as historical amenities could take to address the root cause of the problem. The most practical solution to this problem is a local government-sponsored awareness campaign. An effective advertising campaign could notify the fact that a multitude of local facilities have difficulty attracting locals to them and hopefully, raise awareness amongst local residents. For example, the city government of Daejeon located in the middle of South Korea recently recommended their citizens to visit local facilities and this resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of residents visiting historical sites in Daejeon. A second feasible solution would be for local facilities to charge inhabitants less for admission to these amenities, leading to a growth in the number of local visitors.

In conclusion, the aforementioned problems have resulted from various causes suggested above and can be tackled with various steps. If every sector of our society makes a concerted effort, we can combat the problems.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2022-12-08 maiduc 78 view
2022-02-21 MollyB 80 view
2021-02-01 idid382002 73 view
Essays by user idid382002 :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 24, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
Recently, the issue of a small number of locals entering historical facilities h...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 396, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... present some solutions to the problem. There do seem to be numerous causes unde...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 723, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in order to support local governments. There are, however, several courses of a...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, second, so, well, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1862.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 349.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33524355301 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9023114855 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555873925501 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3021061676 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.0 106.682146367 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9285714286 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236792881667 0.244688304435 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855013915886 0.084324248473 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0476059567086 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132382599773 0.151304729494 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.072954197836 0.056905535591 128% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.