Limiting Visitor Numbers at Popular Destinations

The question

How to approach this opinion essay question

An opinion (agree or disagree) essay needs a clear position from the introduction to the conclusion.

1. Paraphrase the statement and state your opinion in the introduction.
2. Give two main reasons, one per body paragraph, each with an example.
3. Consider the opposite view briefly, then explain why you still hold yours.
4. Conclude by restating your position in different words.

How to plan this answer

Structure

1. Introduction: paraphrase the damage caused by mass tourism and state the extent to which you agree that governments should limit visitor numbers.
2. Body 1: the case for limiting visitors, such as erosion of sites, pressure on local housing and the loss of local character.
3. Body 2: the counter-argument, such as the loss of tourism income and jobs, and why you accept or reject it.
4. Body 3 (optional): alternatives to a strict cap, such as timed entry, dispersal of visitors to other sites or higher charges at peak times.
5. Conclusion: restate your position and say which type of control you believe is most sensible.

Idea bank

• Popular historic sites can suffer physical wear, with stone steps worn down and fragile paintings damaged by the breath and heat of large crowds.
• In some city centres, short-term rental flats have reduced the stock of homes available to residents, which pushes up rents and forces families to move.
• Tourism brings income and jobs to hotels, restaurants and tour operators, and a cap could reduce those benefits for local businesses.
• Timed entry tickets at well-known sites allow authorities to spread visitors across the day and reduce crowding without refusing people altogether.
• Encouraging visitors to explore less well-known towns and rural areas can relieve pressure on the most famous attractions.
• A higher charge at peak times can reduce demand while still allowing those who are willing to pay to visit the site.

Useful vocabulary

• mass tourism: Mass tourism can overwhelm small historic towns during the summer.
• visitor cap: A visitor cap may be needed to protect fragile heritage sites.
• overcrowding: Overcrowding can damage monuments and reduce the quality of the visitor experience.
• timed entry: Timed entry spreads visitors more evenly across the day.
• local way of life: Mass tourism can change the local way of life in historic neighbourhoods.
• dispersal: Dispersal of visitors to quieter towns can ease pressure on popular sites.
• economic dependence: Some towns have an economic dependence on tourism, which makes a cap controversial.
• to a certain degree: I agree to a certain degree, since some limits are needed to protect the site.
• sustainable tourism: Sustainable tourism balances the needs of visitors with those of residents.
• a blanket ban: A blanket ban on visitors would be too blunt a measure for most destinations.

Common mistakes

• Describing the damage caused by tourism in general terms, rather than naming a specific effect such as erosion, noise or rising rents.
• Giving a conclusion that supports a complete cap while the body paragraphs have argued for timed entry or dispersal, which are different measures.
• Ignoring the economic argument, which leaves the counter-argument unexamined and the position less convincing.
• Assuming that all destinations face the same problem, when a small village and a major capital city have very different pressures.
• Using the word ban without explaining how a visitor limit would be enforced, such as through ticketing or a booking system.

Examiner tip: Distinguish between a hard cap and softer tools such as timed entry, and state clearly which one you think is the most suitable response.