argument top image

Is tourism beneficial to developing countries?
Back to question

The biodiversity of the area is affected

Tourists may destroy the valuable ecosystem that the country is reliant on.
< (4 of 4)

The Argument

The environment is fragile - any major changes created by humans could negatively impact the natural order in developing countries. An increase in tourism may cause the creation of more buildings, attractions, and airports. While this may be good for economic income, it is bad for the natural environment. Food supply and medicine is threatened. The productivity of the ecosystems decreases, lessening sources on which the locals may rely. The area may also, as a result, not be as well-equipped to deal with natural disasters.[1] Non-native plants and animals brought in by tourists can have a lasting negative result as well, not to mention the introduction of germs and diseases. The development of a country relies more on the ecosystem than people may realize. Without it, a country cannot advance.

Counter arguments

While this may be true, there are also measures that can be taken to protect the natural world in the area. Many developing countries are visited purely for nature, so destruction of the ecosystem is not always the result of tourism.



[P1] The ecosystem is a critical part of a country's development. [P2] Tourism destroys the ecosystem.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Measures can be taken to prevent this.


This page was last edited on Tuesday, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:09 UTC

Explore related arguments