Write about the topic below for 5 minutes
Some people think tourists should be free to visit any destination they can afford, whenever they want. Others think popular destinations should limit the number of visitors allowed each year. Which do you agree with?
A follow-up question based on your answer will appear here.
Useful Expressions
Show Model Answer · Step 1
I agree that popular destinations should limit the number of visitors allowed each year. Some historic sites and natural areas are simply not built to handle unlimited crowds without permanent damage.
When too many tourists arrive at once, ancient buildings wear down faster, wildlife habitats get disturbed, and local residents often lose access to their own neighborhoods. A visitor limit protects these places so they can still be visited safely in the future, not just enjoyed briefly today.
This does not mean closing destinations to tourists. A reasonable cap, combined with advance booking, still allows people to visit while giving these fragile places a real chance to recover between seasons.
Show Model Answer · Step 2
That concern is fair, since not everyone can choose when they travel. But a visitor limit does not have to mean total exclusion. Destinations can offer advance booking windows or a portion of tickets reserved for last minute travelers, so access remains possible even with a cap in place.
Without any limit at all, the people who suffer most are often local residents and future visitors, who lose the site entirely once it is damaged beyond repair. A temporary inconvenience for some travelers is a smaller cost than permanently losing a place that many more people hope to see.
The goal of a limit is not to punish anyone, but to spread access fairly across more years instead of a few crowded ones.