In recent times, many rural inhabitants have been relocating to big cities, decreasing the population of small town. In my opinion, it is a negative development as, bringing about many problems for both dwellers in cities and villages, as well as society as a whole.

One obvious reason why decreasing the population of rural areas is detrimental is food concern. By decreasing the population of the countryside, there would be fewer farmers to produce agricultural products. Rural people provide the country with products such as vegetables, fruits, and grains, without which we are unable to satisfy our basic need for food. So, the authorities will force to import from abroad with higher price.
If authorities cannot supply people with enough food, this will lead to tremendous consequences including malnutrition and other disease that put further strain on government.

Decreasing the population of the countryside means increasing the inhabitants of the city. If we have an overpopulation city, there would be less job available for settlers. Another point to consider is that people in the rural people are not familiar with office work or industrial work that are prevalent in urban areas. As a result, new comers will face many challenges to find a job and they usually force to accept lower paid positions. This leads to higher population of outskirts, increasing the crime rate, and lower safety of the cities which causes tremendous problems for the society.

In conclusion, I see the dwindling population of the countryside as negative since it causes many issues for people, government and the whole country.

The migration of rural people to cities has a significant impact on a nation's development process. This phenomenon has different consequences in modern and undeveloped countries. In developed nations, such migration has fewer negative effects compared to less developed countries. Organized cities in developed nations have appropriate plans to manage this situation, while less developed countries may experience serious problems due to the migration of peasants from villages to cities.

In developed nations, there is a smaller gap between the facilities provided in villages and modern cities. As a result, fewer people move to cities compared to less developed countries. Governments in developed nations have the ability to manage production shortages and can replace the agricultural and dairy products previously produced by peasants with products from large factories and companies, resulting in minimal impact on the country's development. Additionally, developed nations provide equal educational opportunities in both cities and the countryside, reducing cultural conflicts between rural migrants and city residents.

In contrast, less developed nations experience a large population shift to cities as people seek better facilities for their families due to the significant differences in government provided facilities in cities and villages. This results in deserted villages and overcrowded cities, leading to a lack of adequate facilities per person. The weaker governance in less developed countries also hinders their ability to replace traditional agricultural and dairy production methods, causing economic problems.

Overall, the harmful effects of rural-urban migration on a nation's development are more pronounced in less developed countries due to their less advanced governments, making it a negative development compared to advanced nations.

Special thanks to Mr. Abolghasemi and his essay writing guidelines at  www.ielts2.com

Countryside populations worlwide are migrating to cities, resulting in a decline in rural residents. While urbanization contributes to industrial growth, I believe this trend leads to overpopulation issues in cities.

 Industrial growth is undoubtedly considered an advantage in the aftermath of increasing population density in towns and cities. Developing zones offer a variety of vacancies, therefore, the working class in need of immediate income from rural areas, are effortlessly absorbed to these employment opportunities. As a consequence, the overflow of the labour force keeps the wheels of industry turning around prosperously. Take my country in the 1970s as an example that possessed  a flourishing industry and economy due to this shift and rural citizens from all over the country were attracted to factories and companies.

However, the new migration patterns can present significant overpopulation challenges that must not be overlooked. Rapid population rise increases demands in public facilities, whereas no infrastructures are provided. More people means an increased demand for food, water, housing energy, health care, transportation and more, which leads to additional strains on resources. India depicts a great example of a developing country with cramped urban districts where a majority of citizens live in a shortage of sanitary facilities, with no access to basic commodities and housing.

 In conclusion, urbanization is occurring at great speed and although it assists countries in developing economically and industrially , I believe we should not underestimate the drawbacks resulting  in a state of complete chaos in the industrialized regions. 

#فیدبک_رایگان_رایتینگ

🥇 سطح نمره 7

The given graph illustrates information regarding the proportion of urban population in four Asian countries over a period of fifty years from 1970 to 2020. The graph also includes procrastinations for 2030 and 2040.

Overall, what stands out from the graph is that more and more people immigrated to cities from 1970 onwards. The number of those who live in cities in all countries (the Philipines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia) showed an upward trend and is predicted to grow even more in the following decades.

Back in 1970, approximately 30% of total population of the Philipines and Malaysia lived in cities and the rest of people located in rural areas. While the number of urban residants of the Philipines peaked to more than 70% in 2020, less than half of Malaysians chose to live in the cities. However, the figures anticipated to increase to more than 80% for the former and 60% for tha latter in 2040.

Both Thailand and Indonesia experienced a gradual rise in terms of city inhabitants, Although the statistics for Indinesia were a bit sharper. Whereas both countries had less than 20% of their population living in urban regions, in the next 50 years, their urban residents grew to 30% and 50% respectively in 2020.

#فیدبک_رایگان_رایتینگ

🥇 سطح نمره 7

🔴 اگر از سرویس فیدبک رایگان به صورت پیوسته استفاده میکنید باید در آینده در فعالیت های دیگه گروه هم شرکت داشته باشید.

Special thanks to Mr. Abolghasemi and his essay writing guidelines at  www.ielts2.com

The line graph illustrates some information about proportion of people who live in four Asian countries between 1970 and 2020 with prediction by 2040.

Overall, we can see the most increasing trend in Malaysia and the least in Thailand.

In Malaysia we can see this amount steadily increase and it is predicted to reach approximately 80% until 2040. In 1970, Thailand had the lowest percentage of population living in cities ,around 14% and it is predicted to rise about 60% in 2040. Moreover, the highest percentage of people was for Philippines in 1970, the proportion had a slight increase until 1980 but after this year the percentage fluctuated . It climbed up to nearly 50% in 1990 but the percentage fell to about 40% in 2010. At least it predicted to grow again around 55% by 2040. In Thailand the percentage of total population was just under 20%. in addition, we had slow upward trend until 2010. after that it remained steady until 2020 but the percentage is predicted to have significant growth around 45% by 2040.

#فیدبک_رایگان_رایتینگ

🔴 اگر از سرویس فیدبک رایگان به صورت پیوسته استفاده میکنید باید در آینده در فعالیت های دیگه گروه هم شرکت داشته باشید.