This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
Which of the following is not true in the context of the passage?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
According to the passage, the main purpose of bringing tourists in the forest areas is

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
Which of the following best explain this according to the passage?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
What, according to the author, should be the step to improve the situation?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
What according to the author, will win the hearts and minds of the general public?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
What, according to the passage, should the forest staff be engaged in?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
The main concern expresses by the author in the above passage is to

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
Which of the following words is most nearly the same in meaning as the words ― “hands on” as used in the passage?

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
Man-animal confrontation, according to the passage leads to

This past decade has witnessed a surge in wildlife tourism that has doubled and tripled the tourist load in several of the more accessible national parks and reserves. But serious infrastructural shortcomings have brought us precariously close to a breakdown of the ecosystem‘s capacity to absorb this load. The result is an unsatisfactory tourist experience (and an opportunity to impart conservation values lost), overworked, pressurized and confused wildlife staff, and occasional man-animal confrontation crises such as man-killing by tigers. Not to speak of the ecosystem that is being battered by humans. A road area, which accommodated four vehicles a day, ten years ago, is now being used by 12 a day. The road area the wildlife population of that area has in any case gone up. A collision of interests is inevitable. An important function of wildlife refuges is to encourage tourism. Recognizing that it forms an ideal ―hands-on method of orienting, educating and winning the hearts and minds of the general public over to conservation values and concepts. This can only be achieved by communication with tourists before and during their visits to a wildlife refuge. The interpretation, as it is generally referred to, is properly done by having an interpretation centre, consisting of photographic, written and audio-visual exhibits supplemented by free or priced literature and a person on hand to answer the queries of visitors. Tourists should perforce be routed through this facility by the simple expedient they have some time to see it while their entry permits are being prepared. The general message should be the history of the wildlife refuge as a conservation microcosm, interesting facts of some of the species it supports, and an explanation of the mechanics of an ecosystem and its relevance to man, plus codes of conduct specific to the area and to wildlife and jungles in general. This should be backed up by a cadre of trained naturalist guides, preferably from the local population, who should accompany the tourists in the refuge. In some of our wildlife refuge, very poor facilities for this sort of thing exist. In most, none exist at all. The result is tourist traffic, which is generally quite ignorant of wildlife, ecology and conservation values, who leave the refuge no wiser than when they came in. leaving behind for good measure the detritus of their presence: plastic bags, cigarette packets, bottle, paper, a lot of which is nonbiodegradable and toxic. Added to this is the fact that wildlife guards and rangers are often diverted from their normal work-monitoring and managing wildlife and the ecosystem –and made to guide tourists and generally be at the back and call of people, irrelevant to the priorities of the wildlife refuge.
What, according to the author, is the main reason for the near collapse of the capacity of the ecosystem of wildlife refugees?