Investigating a Sustainable Tourism Claim
A student is completing an investigation for school-based assessment on whether a small coastal resort operates sustainably. The resort claims 'eco-certification' and advertises that 90% of its staff are local, it uses solar hot water, and it has a reef-protection program. The student's evidence: a staff list showing 22 of 40 employees live in the nearest town (the other 18 commute 90 minutes from the capital); electricity bills showing solar hot water covers hot-water demand but air-conditioning runs on grid power; and a resort brochure describing the reef program, with no independent audit found. The student wants to conclude the resort 'is sustainable' because it holds eco-certification.
1. Evaluate the strength of the student's evidence for each of the three claims.
Read the worked answer
Local employment claim: The resort says 90% local; the staff list shows 22 of 40 (55%) live in the nearest town. Even allowing that 'local' might mean the wider region, the student has contradictory primary evidence and should report the discrepancy rather than repeat the claim. This is the strongest part of the investigation because it is verifiable.
Solar hot water claim: The evidence supports the narrow claim (hot water is solar) but shows air-conditioning - likely the largest load - runs on grid power. The student should not generalise from one system to 'the resort is energy-sustainable'.
Reef-protection claim: The only evidence is the resort's own brochure, which is promotional, not independent. Without an audit or third-party verification, this claim is unverified and should be reported as such.
Overall, the evidence is mixed and partly self-reported, so it cannot support a blanket conclusion.
2. The student wants to conclude the resort 'is sustainable'. Explain why this conclusion is not supported and what a defensible conclusion would look like.
Read the worked answer
The conclusion is not supported because:
- 'Sustainable' is a broad, multi-dimensional judgement (environmental, economic, social), and the evidence covers only fragments of each.
- Some evidence contradicts the resort's claims (the local-employment figure).
- Key evidence is self-reported (the brochure) and unverified.
- Eco-certification is not proof of performance; it indicates a process was followed, and the student has not examined what the certification covers.
A defensible conclusion would be qualified and evidence-based, for example: 'On the evidence available, the resort demonstrates some sustainable practices (solar hot water, a substantial local workforce), but its headline claims are not fully supported: local employment appears lower than advertised, major energy use remains grid-based, and the reef program is unverified. A full judgement would require independent audit data.'
The exam rewards proportional conclusions - matching the strength of the claim to the strength of the evidence.
3. Recommend one additional piece of evidence the student should seek and explain how it would change the conclusion.
Read the worked answer
A strong recommendation is an independent audit report or third-party certification documentation covering the resort's environmental performance, including energy sources and the reef program.
How it would change the conclusion:
- If the audit confirms the reef program and quantifies energy use, the student could make a stronger, evidence-based judgement about environmental performance.
- If the audit contradicts or is silent on the claims, the student would be justified in treating the brochure claims as marketing and concluding the resort's sustainability is partially demonstrated at best.
The key reasoning is that the additional evidence must be independent and verifiable, not more promotional material. This addresses the central weakness - reliance on self-reported claims - and lets the conclusion rest on evidence rather than assertion.