The table clearly illustrates how the average income by household type in New Zealand from 1998 to 2003

changed. It is obvious that there is a slight improvement in all types of household in New Zealand from time to time, from a total of 927 in 1998 to 1171 in 2003. It can be clearly seen that couple, one person household and one parent with dependent child or children types increased very steadily from 1998 to 2003. On the other hand, the three other types, namely couple with one dependent child, couple with two dependent children and couple with three or more dependent children, were seemed to be more fluctuate. In general, they did increase in the long term, but there was still a period of 1999 and 2000 when the average income fell slightly. All in all, in spite of the short-term reduction in some types, the average income by household type in New Zealand from 1998 to 2003 had the trend to go up.

The charts show the tourist arrivals by month and by year and which places they visit. As clearly shown in the charts, the greatest number of tourists increase to approximately 100 million in 2010. The first graph illustrates the inbound tourism by month in 2010. From January to June, the tourist arrivals rose steadily from 60 million to about 85 million. In the next 5 months, there was a notably fluctuation as the number of tourist reached a tipping point in July but then suddenly slumped to just 65 million in the end of the period. Eventually, in the last 2 months of the year, the number of tourist remained unchanged. The second graph described the international tourist arrivals by region from 1950 to 2010. In general, there was a gradual improvement of the number of tourist in all regions. This number reached 528 million in 1995 and 15 years later in 2010, it increased to approximately 940 million. Europe was the place with the biggest number of tourist as it counted for more than half of the total international tourist arrivals. In summary, there was an unstable change of tourist arrivals in the short term. But in the long term, this number went up steadily.

Air travel has become the worlds largest cause of environmental damage and global warming as it creates up to approximately 4% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. In this case, governments are planning the air travel cost to encourage people to fight less. Personally, I both agree and disagree with this measure. At the first analysis, it cannot be denied that air travel causes countless impacts on the environment. Firstly, air pollution from air travel causes the temperature to rise. This issue will lead to a number of other disasters such as the melt of ice in 2 poles and the disappearance of some species. More importantly, noise pollution is also a threat to people living around the airport. At the second analysis, the solution of the government to deal with this problem may be harmful to the economy. Obviously, if the cost of flying increases and less people choose to fly, the airlines will have to shorten their business and the unemployment rate will rise dramatically. More notably,

tourism, depending a lot on the industry of air travel, will be greatly affected. Less people fly means that less people will be able to get to the places of beauty and tourism will be deaden. In spite of the disadvantages of increasing the price of air travel, I am still in favor of this measure. It is obvious that the cost of healing the environment is much higher than the cost of shortening air travel industry. Besides, the reduction of air travel will encourage other means of transportation such as underground and marine.