Possible explanations are:
- These businesses don´t belong to locals, who are slightly hired or involved to provide the goods and services offered to tourists.
- Most of the employees are locals but their wage is expended outside the region either for availability and/or quality of the products.
- The government has given priority to forein operators, whom have displaced the local businesses and captured the highest percentage of income.
I really like this topic, be careful however not to refer this as a correlation. I think the assignment was to use a correlation specifically, double check this if you like. For the rest, maybe expand on your explanations.
ReplyDeleteDear Diana,
ReplyDeleteI've never thought about this puzzle and therefore I found it really interesting. I wish I could had some more explanations or perhaps some examples, anyway I think you provided very reasonable explanations for it.
The one that convinced me the most is the first one. Indeed I believe this is what often happens in many countries: tourist companies selling themselves as local and as supporting locals that simply do not belong to the territory, and, according to your data, thato do not sponsor local economy.