A travel blogger wrote the following on a popular website: 'I visited a community-run ecotourism project in Costa Rica last month. The local people were fri...

(a) One statement based on personal experience rather than verifiable data [1]

Any one of the following [1]:

• "The local people were friendly" - a subjective impression based on personal interaction.
• "The rainforest was breathtaking" - a personal aesthetic judgement.
• "I felt my money was going directly to conservation" - a personal feeling, not a verified financial fact.

These statements reflect the blogger's individual experience and emotions rather than measurable, independently verifiable data.

(b) Two ways to check whether the 50,000 trees figure is accurate [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Contact the project directly and ask for planting records, satellite imagery, or annual reports documenting the reforestation. Legitimate conservation projects typically maintain detailed records of their activities for accountability purposes [1+1].
2. Check for independent environmental audits: Look for verification from an independent environmental body or certification scheme that has assessed the project's claims. Third-party verification is more reliable than self-reported figures [1+1].
3. Consult government forestry data: Government forestry departments or environmental agencies may hold data on reforestation activities in the area, providing an independent baseline against which to check the claim [1+1].
4. Compare with similar projects: Research what comparable ecotourism or reforestation projects report in terms of tree planting rates to assess whether 50,000 trees since 2018 is plausible given the project's size and resources [1+1].

(c) Why the recommendation is not reliable based on a single visit [4]

A single visit provides only a snapshot and may not reflect the project's typical operations, which could vary seasonally or over time [1]. The blogger may have had an unusually positive experience; a different visitor at a different time might encounter problems the blogger did not see [1]. One project does not represent all ecotourism ventures: some may be poorly managed, environmentally harmful, or exploitative of local communities, so the blanket recommendation "every tourist should choose ecotourism" overgeneralises from a single data point [1]. The blogger is not an expert in conservation science, ecology, or sustainable tourism and therefore lacks the technical basis to make such a broad, categorical recommendation [1].

(d) One strength and one weakness of travel blogs as evidence about ecotourism [3]

Strength [1-2]: Blogs provide first-hand, personal accounts that describe the visitor experience in vivid detail. They capture aspects of a project (atmosphere, interactions with locals, practical logistics) that formal reports and academic studies typically do not include, offering a human perspective on how ecotourism feels in practice.

Weakness [1-2]: Bloggers may receive free trips, sponsorship deals, or affiliate commissions from the projects they visit, creating a financial incentive to write positive reviews regardless of their actual experience. This commercial relationship reduces objectivity and means the reader cannot be certain the account is honest.