can you help me with this question thanks
Many London residents are relatively wealthy so they can take advantage of the many transport links available by rail and air to different parts of the country or the world geared to cater for mass tourism. They will hopefully return from their travels/holidays with a better understanding of other cities and an appreciation of things that London lacks. This could change their perceptions, goals and priorities in life and possibly increase the chances of them doing business with the places they have come to know better.
For those Londoners who are adept at translation or speaking multiple languages, the presence of tourists in London increases their employability and choice of vocations. Tourists tend to have high discretionary spending power and, being unfamiliar with customs and pricing structures in the host country, can be easily used to generate commerce and additional custom. When native populations are finding cash hard to raise, the presence of visitors from abroad may take on an extra importance and their spending in London could form a greater percentage of a company’s total business. Heritage attractions such as stately homes and world-class museums stand to gain greatly from tourism.
Clearly in the act of travelling around, tourists do use energy, cause congestion and other negative environmental impacts.They might drive up the prices of accommodation, transport and entertainment for example, such that Londoners are priced-out of those activities, particularly in the summer season. The displacement of everyday shops by restaurants and coffee bars can knock the heart out of a shopping centre and reduce the chances of local people meeting there informally. These could all be seen as harmful effects upon the local culture, for example more airliners waking residents up at 5am instead of 7am, or detracting from the tranquillity of places like Osterley Park, Windsor Castle and Kew Gardens. As with most industries therefore, a case can be made both for and against tourism on social and environmental grounds.
As a capital city, London is of course not typical of the country as a whole, but without the "honey pot" of London, many visitors to the UK would never explore places like Windsor, Oxford, Brighton, Canterbury, Bath, Cambridge, York, etcetera that probably have less reason, overall, to resist a rise in global tourism. Each of those cities would not independently stimulate a foreign holiday lasting a week or more. This contrast has not just arisen because of the relative size of London, but because it is the hub of Britain’s major road and quality rail networks, and it has five airports accepting a large number of international flights plus a range of hotel accommodation unmatched by other cities in western Europe.
A concept of "green tourism" is evolving in Europe and North America but whether this is a serious option or just another wily attempt at niche marketing is open for debate. At the end-of-the-day, tourism is always an optional, discretionary activity and those wishing to undertake more useful or creative tasks might well say "calm down and spend time in your local community!" with some humane justification. Since the days of the great explorers, do those who keep flitting around like butterflies really add much to our collective cultural progress? Discuss!