2025 OCR GCSE Geography B (Geography for Enquiring Minds) - J384 Practice Paper with Answers

Plates moving apart with new crust forming from rising magma is a constructive (divergent) boundary. Collision boundaries involve two continental plates pushed together, conservative boundaries involve plates sliding past each other, and destructive boundaries involve an oceanic plate being subducted.

1 mark for C (Constructive boundary). No mark if more than one letter is given. Do not credit 'divergent' written instead of a letter if the letter contradicts it.

Milankovitch cycles are variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt that change how much solar energy reaches the planet, and they are a natural cause of climate change. The other three options are human activities that enhance the greenhouse effect.

1 mark for B. No mark if more than one letter is given. A, C and D are human (anthropogenic) causes.

Hydraulic action is the force of water and compressed air entering cracks, which weakens and breaks the rock. Abrasion is rock fragments thrown against the cliff, attrition is pieces of load wearing each other down, and solution is the chemical dissolving of rock such as limestone.

1 mark for C (Hydraulic action). No mark if more than one letter is given.

High temperatures and humidity let decomposers break down leaf litter very fast, and shallow roots take up the nutrients quickly, so the nutrient cycle is rapid and most nutrients are stored in biomass and litter. Option B is wrong because rainforests are hot, C is wrong because rainfall is high, and D is not a general feature of rainforest soils.

1 mark for A. No mark if more than one letter is given. Distractors B and C contradict the rainforest climate.

Identify the loss of the ocean energy source, then develop by linking it to reduced evaporation and condensation, so the storm decays. Friction with land is an alternative.

Identify (1): no warm ocean water / moisture supply; OR increased friction from land. Development (1): less evaporation and latent heat released so the low pressure fills / wind speeds drop; OR friction slows winds so the circulation breaks down. Max 2. Do not credit 'it gets colder' without a link to energy or moisture.

State the type of movement (sliding past, neither created nor destroyed) and add a development such as plates locking and then releasing, causing earthquakes.

Any two from: plates move/slide past each other sideways (1); plate is neither created nor destroyed (1); plates move in different directions or at different speeds (1); friction makes plates lock and pressure builds, then is released as an earthquake (1). Do not credit plates moving towards or away from each other.

Identify what the ice core contains (trapped air, layers, isotopes) then develop how it is used to infer past temperature or greenhouse gas levels.

Identify (1): trapped air bubbles / annual layers / oxygen isotopes in the ice. Development (1): measuring CO2 or methane concentrations through time / deeper layers are older so changes can be dated / isotope ratios show temperature. Max 2. Do not credit 'ice melts so the climate is warming' without reference to the core.

The natural effect is the existing, necessary level of heat trapping. The enhanced effect is extra warming due to human-released gases.

Human activity increases greenhouse gas levels / burning fossil fuels, farming or deforestation release extra gases (1); more heat trapped so global temperatures rise above natural levels (1). Accept natural effect is without human influence as a contrast for 1 mark. Do not credit the ozone layer hole.

Hydraulic action is the force of water and compressed air in joints. Repeated compression and release weakens and breaks the rock.

Waves crash against the cliff and force water/air into cracks (1); air is compressed then released, pressure weakens the rock so pieces break off (1). Do not credit rocks being thrown at the cliff (abrasion) or rocks being worn smooth (attrition).

Link two climate features (rainfall, temperature, wind, snow) to a visible landscape or land-cover effect.

Any two, 1 mark each, must link climate to a landscape feature: high rainfall creating rivers/lakes/peat bogs/waterfalls; cold temperatures and exposure limiting trees so moorland vegetation dominates; frost action (freeze-thaw) producing bare rock, screes or steep slopes; snow cover or mist affecting land use such as sheep grazing. Do not credit climate statements with no landscape link.

The nutrient cycle is rapid: warm, wet conditions decompose litter fast and roots absorb nutrients immediately; high rainfall leaches the rest.

Identify (1): rapid uptake by plants / high rainfall leaching / fast decomposition of litter. Development (1): nutrients are taken up by roots straight away so none builds up in soil / water drains through soil carrying minerals away / nutrients are held in the vegetation. Max 2. Do not credit 'soil is poor because of deforestation' unless linked to the nutrient cycle.

Give two distinct negative impacts, such as pollution, disturbance of wildlife, damage to vegetation, or introduction of non-native species.

Any two, 1 mark each: pollution from ships such as oil/fuel leaks or waste; disturbance of breeding colonies or wildlife; trampling of mosses and lichens; non-native species or disease carried on boots or clothing; litter or human waste that decays slowly in cold conditions; increased carbon emissions from travel. Do not credit positive impacts. Do not credit two versions of the same point.

Identify a limitation (1 mark) and develop it with a reason or consequence (1 mark). Example: ice cores can only be drilled where there are thick, long-lasting ice sheets, which are in polar regions (identify). This means the evidence may not show how temperatures changed in lower-latitude places, so it cannot be assumed to be global (development).

Award 1 mark for a valid limitation and 1 mark for development (DEV) attached to it. Maximum 2.

Accept any of:
- Only available from polar/glacial regions (1), so not representative of the whole world / other climate zones (DEV 1).
- Deeper layers are compressed and thin, so fine detail of older periods is hard to read (1), which reduces accuracy of dating and of short-term changes (DEV 1).
- Expensive and difficult to drill and analyse in remote, extreme locations (1), so few cores exist and results may be less reliable (DEV 1).
- Air bubbles trapped in ice give only indirect (proxy) measures of temperature (1), which have to be estimated and may contain errors (DEV 1).

Do not credit vague statements such as 'it is not accurate' or 'it is old' without explanation. Do not credit a limitation of a different source (e.g. diaries or paintings).

Identify a reason for rapid cycling (1 mark) and develop it (1 mark). Warm temperatures and high rainfall encourage decomposers, so leaf litter breaks down within weeks (identify). Nutrients are then absorbed straight away by shallow roots and stored in the vegetation, and heavy rain leaches any surplus from the soil, so little remains in the soil store (development).

Award 1 mark for a valid point and 1 mark for development (DEV). Maximum 2.

Accept any of:
- Hot, humid conditions mean rapid decomposition of litter by bacteria/fungi/insects (1), so nutrients are returned to the soil quickly (DEV 1).
- Large amount of leaf fall all year round (1) provides a constant supply of nutrients to the cycle (DEV 1).
- Shallow roots/mycorrhizal fungi absorb nutrients immediately (1), so the nutrients are held in the biomass store rather than the soil (DEV 1).
- Heavy rainfall leaches nutrients out of the soil (1), so any nutrients not rapidly taken up are lost (DEV 1).

Do not credit 'because it is hot' or 'because it rains a lot' alone. Do not credit descriptions of a slow cycle (e.g. coniferous forest or cold environments).

Increase = 8.2 − 6.1 = 2.1 °C. Percentage increase = \( \frac{2.1}{6.1} \times 100 = 34.4\% \), so 34%.

Method (1): (8.2 − 6.1) ÷ 6.1 × 100 or 2.1 ÷ 6.1 shown. Accuracy (0.5): 34% (accept 34.4; accept 33.5–34.5). Do not credit 25.6% (dividing by the later value) for the accuracy mark, but method may be credited if the working is shown. Answer only with no working: 0.5 max if correct.

(i) Order the values: 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 14, 16. The middle (4th) value is 12. (ii) The most frequent value is 14 (appears twice).

(i) 12 (1). Allow 0.5 for a correctly ordered list shown if the median is then misread. (ii) 14 (0.5). Do not credit the mean (12.3) for (i) or (ii).

1 cm on the map = 25 000 cm on the ground. 6.4 × 25 000 = 160 000 cm. 160 000 ÷ 100 = 1600 m (1.6 km).

Method (1): 6.4 × 25 000 (= 160 000 cm) or 6.4 × 250 m. Accuracy (0.5): 1600 m (accept 1.6 km if unit stated). Do not credit 160 000 without a correct conversion to metres. Accept 1580–1620 m if working is shown.

Hydraulic action and abrasion widen a crack into a cave. Caves erode through the headland to form an arch. The arch roof collapses leaving a stack.

Crack (accept notch/joint/fault) (0.5); cave (0.5); arch (0.5) and stack (0.5) – maximum 1.5 marks in total, any three correct. Allow 'wave-cut notch' for the first. Do not credit 'stump' or 'cove'. Spelling must be recognisable.

(i) Axes labelled with year and area; all four points plotted accurately and joined with a ruler. (ii) 2012 lies midway between 2008 and 2016, so the value is \( \frac{488+449}{2} = 468.5 \) thousand hectares.

(i) All four points plotted correctly within half a small square (1); 0.5 only if three points are correct. Lines joined with straight lines (needed for the full mark). (ii) 468.5 (accept 465–472) (0.5). Interpolation must be read from the plotted line.

(i) Sum = 0.0 + 0.6 + 1.1 + 0.8 + 0.0 = 2.5. Mean = \( 2.5 \div 5 = 0.5 \) m. (ii) Banks are at 0 m and 8 m, so the width is 8 m.

(i) Method (0.5): 2.5 ÷ 5 shown. Accuracy (0.5): 0.5 m. Answer only, correct: 1 mark. Do not credit 0.625 (dividing by 4). (ii) 8 m (0.5). Maximum 1.5 marks in total.

A strong answer would (1) outline the causes of the extreme weather in the named event, e.g. a slow-moving low pressure system, warm ocean water, a blocking high pressure or a jet stream shift, with dates and figures; (2) explain consequences linked to causes, e.g. saturated or baked ground increasing runoff or fire risk, flooded homes, damaged roads, crop loss, health impacts, with some social, economic and environmental effects; (3) explain responses, e.g. forecasts and warnings, evacuation, emergency shelters, flood defences, water rationing, aid, later rebuilding, and judge how far these reduced losses.

Mark using levels. AO1 knowledge of the event; AO2 understanding of causes, effects and responses.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough, well-developed explanation linking the extreme weather to consequences and to how responses limited damage. Place-specific detail is accurate and used throughout (names, dates, figures). Secure 6: all three elements well developed. 5: one element less developed.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable explanation; covers at least two of causes, consequences and responses with some development and some place detail. 4: consistent development; 3: borderline.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple, generic statements about the hazard with little or no place detail; mostly description rather than explanation.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Caps: an event that is not a weather hazard (e.g. an earthquake) or lacking any place detail is capped at Level 1. An answer that covers only consequences with no reference to responses is capped at Level 2.

Indicative content: Simple idea: 'Heavy rain flooded homes.' Developed: 'Intense rainfall over saturated ground ran straight into rivers, so homes flooded.' Well-developed: adds a figure, place and a link to response, e.g. warnings gave residents time to move belongings upstairs, reducing losses.
Accept any valid event type and any valid local, regional or national responses. Do not credit unnamed 'a city' type answers at Level 3.

A strong answer names the coast and at least two landforms (e.g. headlands and bays, cave-arch-stack, spit, beach). It links rock type and structure (e.g. resistant chalk or limestone next to softer clay) to differential erosion, and explains processes such as hydraulic action, abrasion, longshore drift and deposition. It then assesses management (e.g. sea walls, rock armour, groynes, beach replenishment, managed retreat) giving place detail and a judgement of whether the management protects, alters or has side effects on landforms and neighbouring areas.

Mark using levels. AO1 knowledge of landforms and processes; AO2 understanding of how geology and processes form landforms; AO3 assessing the effect of management.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough explanation of how geology and processes formed named landforms, with accurate place detail, plus a balanced assessment of management with a supported judgement. 6: both parts thorough; 5: one part less secure.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable explanation of landform formation and some comment on management; some place detail; limited or unsupported judgement.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple, generic statements about erosion or defences; little place detail; no assessment.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Caps: a case study that is not a UK coastal landscape is capped at Level 1. An answer covering only formation or only management is capped at Level 2.

Indicative content: Simple: 'Waves erode the cliff to form a cave.' Developed: 'Hydraulic action widens weaknesses in softer rock, forming a cave.' Well-developed: links named rock types and processes to the named landform and shows how groynes or sea walls trap sediment or move erosion elsewhere.
Accept any valid UK coastal example and management approach (hard, soft or managed retreat).

A strong answer names the area and approach and describes what is done (e.g. limited-impact lodges, community-run reserves, selective logging with replanting, certification). It explains environmental benefits (habitat and canopy kept, lower soil erosion, biodiversity protected) and benefits to people (jobs, income, education, services, keeping traditional livelihoods). It also considers limitations (cost, leakage of profits, pressure from tourists, illegal logging, limited scale) and reaches a supported judgement about the extent of success.

Mark using levels. AO1 knowledge of the case study; AO2 understanding of sustainable management; AO3 evaluation and judgement.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough, balanced assessment covering both the environment and local people, with accurate place-specific detail and a clear supported judgement on extent. 6: judgement well justified; 5: balance or detail slightly less secure.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable assessment; addresses both environment and people or gives some limitations; some place detail; judgement partial.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple, generic points on rainforest protection; little or no place detail; no judgement.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Caps: a one-sided answer (only benefits, or only the environment or only people) is capped at Level 2. An example that is not a tropical rainforest management case study is capped at Level 1.

Indicative content: Simple: 'Tourists bring money.' Developed: 'Ecotourism gives locals guiding jobs so they need not clear forest for farming.' Well-developed: adds named place, figures and a limitation, e.g. most profits go to outside companies so benefits are uneven.
Accept any valid sustainable management approach and location.

Candidates name a UK coastal landscape (e.g. one with a mixture of resistant and weaker rock and a managed frontage). A strong answer would:
- Describe physical influences with specific detail: geology (e.g. alternating hard and soft rock producing headlands and bays), prevailing wind and fetch, destructive waves, hydraulic action, abrasion, weathering and mass movement on cliffs, longshore drift transporting sediment and depositing it as beaches or spits.
- Describe human management with named detail: type, location and purpose of defences (e.g. a sea wall protecting a town, groynes trapping sediment, rock armour at the cliff foot, nourishment of a beach, managed retreat on low-value farmland), and the cost or scale.
- Evaluate: management protects some places and holds the coastline in a fixed position, but may cause starvation of sediment and increased erosion down-drift, so physical processes continue to shape unprotected areas. Management can only modify the physical processes, which set the underlying landforms and rates of change. Human influence is greatest in built-up places; physical processes dominate where there is no management.
- Conclude with a judgement (e.g. physical processes are the main control, but management has strongly altered the landscape locally; or the two are closely interlinked).

AO1 (3 marks), AO2 (2 marks), AO3 (3 marks). Levels of response.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Thorough, well-developed knowledge and understanding of both physical processes and human management in a named UK coastal landscape, supported by accurate place-specific detail. Evaluation is balanced and reaches a clear, supported judgement about how far management (rather than physical processes) shaped the landscape. 8 = consistent; 7 = secure; 6 = borderline.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Reasonable knowledge and understanding, with some place-specific detail. Some explanation of the role of physical processes and/or management, with some attempt at evaluation, but may be partly one-sided or the judgement is limited or not fully supported. 5 = consistent; 4 = secure; 3 = borderline.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, generic knowledge with little or no place-specific detail. Mostly simple statements, listing or description with no real evaluation or judgement. 2 = secure; 1 = borderline.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Caps: if the case study is not a UK coastal landscape, or is entirely generic with no named place, maximum Level 1 (2 marks). A wholly one-sided answer (only management or only physical processes) is capped at Level 2 (5 marks).

Indicative content (accept other valid points):
Physical: geology and rock resistance (simple: 'hard rock forms headlands'; developed: 'resistant limestone is eroded more slowly than clay so bays form between headlands'; well-developed: add named location and wave refraction concentrating energy on the headlands); waves, fetch and climate (storms); erosion processes (hydraulic action, abrasion, attrition, solution); transport by longshore drift; deposition forming beaches or spits; weathering and mass movement (slumping) on cliffs.
Human: hard engineering (sea wall, groynes, rock armour, gabions); soft engineering (beach nourishment, dune stabilisation, managed retreat); reasons (protect homes, tourism, farmland, roads); effects (fixed coastline, sediment trapping, increased erosion elsewhere, altered beach profile, visual change); costs and benefits.
Evaluation: interaction of both; scale of management versus scale of natural forces; unmanaged stretches show natural processes dominate; judgement.

Place-specific detail (named defences, locations, rock types, landforms) is required for Level 3. Do not credit generic descriptions that could apply to any coast as place-specific.

Subtract the earliest value from the latest value: 10.3 − 9.4 = 0.9 °C.

0.9 (°C) (1 mark). Accept +0.9. Do not credit 0.9 with a wrong unit (e.g. %). Do not credit a negative answer.

Wave exposure is similar at all sites, so the site with the slowest retreat (0.02 m per year, site C) has the most resistant rock.

C (1 mark). No mark if more than one letter is given.

Compare the two columns. Rainforest biomass holds more nutrients (72% vs 38%), while its litter (3% vs 12%) and soil (25% vs 50%) hold less.

Any one comparative point using data (1 mark): rainforest has a higher % in biomass (72 vs 38 / 34 percentage points more); / rainforest has a lower % in litter (3 vs 12); / rainforest has a lower % in soil (25 vs 50). Accept the reverse statement for the temperate forest. Do not credit a statement about only one forest with no comparison, or data with no comparative idea.

Sum of readings: \(0.42+0.55+0.61+0.48+0.64 = 2.70\). Mean: \(2.70 \div 5 = 0.54\) m/s. Answer B. A is the median, C is a single reading, D is the total with no division.

B (1.25 marks). One response only; no mark if two letters are given. Distractors: A = median, C = one reading, D = sum not divided by 5.

Gradient = vertical : horizontal = 1.5 : 30. Divide both by 1.5 to give 1 : 20. Answer B.

B (1.25 marks). One response only. Distractors are common ratio errors (C = 30 divided by 1.5 misread, A and D wrong by a factor of 10).

Decrease = \(80 - 28 = 52\) mm. Percentage decrease = \(52 \div 80 \times 100 = 65\%\). Answer C. A is 28 as a percentage of 80, B is the raw decrease, D is 52 divided by 28.

C (1.25 marks). One response only. Distractors: A = 28/80 (final as percentage of start), B = absolute difference, D = divided by the wrong value.

Repeating measurements and averaging reduces the effect of anomalies and random error, which improves reliability. Answer B. A reduces sample size, C affects width not velocity, D affects presentation not data collection.

B (1.25 marks). One response only; no mark if two letters are given.

The table shows velocity rising at every successive site: 0.24, 0.37, 0.52, 0.66 m/s. A conclusion states the overall pattern (velocity increases with distance downstream) and supports it with data, for example the increase of 0.42 m/s between Site 1 (2 km) and Site 4 (14 km).

Maximum 2 marks. Identify plus development (DEV).

1 mark: states that water velocity increases / gets faster with distance downstream (or as distance from the source increases). Accept 'positive relationship / correlation'. Do not credit 'the river gets faster' with no reference to distance or direction downstream.

1 mark (DEV): supports the pattern with accurate data from the table, e.g. 'from 0.24 m/s at 2 km to 0.66 m/s at 14 km', or 'velocity rose by 0.42 m/s' (accept a quoted pair of values or a correct calculated change). Data must be correct and have units, or be clearly from the table. Allow a correct statement that the increase is steady/consistent (each site faster than the last) as development.

Do not credit explanations of why velocity changes (e.g. channel efficiency) unless the pattern is also stated. Data without a stated pattern: 1 mark maximum. Do not credit reversed pattern.

Indicative approach for a learner (example only; any real enquiry is credited): Enquiry: 'How does channel velocity change downstream along a named river?' Location: a named river catchment with sites at set intervals. Methods: measured velocity with a flowmeter or the float method (timing an orange over 10 m, three repeats, mean calculated); measured width with a tape and depth at regular intervals with a ruler; systematic sampling at each site. Evaluation: the flowmeter was more accurate than floats because floats were affected by wind and surface obstacles; only three repeats per site and one visit so anomalies had a large effect on the mean; depth readings depended on where the ruler was placed and on human error in reading it; weather and recent rainfall meant the data were a snapshot, so the conclusion may not be valid for other times; the sites were not all of equal accessibility, which introduced bias. Improvements: more repeats, a larger sample, several visits in different conditions, the same equipment and the same person at each site, and the use of a control. Conclusion: the methods were reasonably reliable for showing the general trend but did not allow a fully valid conclusion because of the small sample and the single visit.

AO3 (evaluation) = 8 marks; AO4 skills in the context of fieldwork are credited within the same levels. Use a levels-of-response approach. Place-specific detail is the gate to Level 3.

Level 3 (7-8 marks): Thorough, balanced evaluation of the data collection methods. Named enquiry and a specific location are given. At least two methods are described accurately, with detail (equipment, sampling approach, number of repeats). Reliability and validity are both assessed with well-developed ideas, such as sample size, human error, equipment accuracy, conditions on the day, or whether the data answered the enquiry question. Improvements are justified. Secure Level 3 = 8; borderline = 7.

Level 2 (4-6 marks): Reasonable evaluation. Methods are described with some detail and some location context. Some limitations or strengths are explained with developed ideas, but reliability or validity is only partly covered, or the answer is unbalanced. Secure = 5-6; borderline = 4.

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic. Methods are listed or described simply, with little or no evaluation or place context. Simple ideas only, such as 'it was not accurate' with no reason. Secure = 2-3; borderline = 1.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Caps: if no enquiry or location is identified, or the fieldwork is human geography, cap at Level 2 (max 6). If only methods are described with no evaluation, cap at Level 1.

Graded examples. Simple idea: 'We only measured 20 pebbles, so the results might not be accurate.' Developed idea: 'Only 20 pebbles were measured at each site, so a few unusually large pebbles could skew the mean, making it less reliable.' Well-developed idea: 'Only 20 pebbles were measured at each site, so one unusually large pebble could skew the mean; this means the apparent change in size between sites might be due to chance, and so the conclusion about the trend along the coast is not fully valid. Measuring 50 pebbles would reduce this effect.'

Indicative content (accept any valid physical fieldwork, e.g. river, coastal, beach, vegetation or soil): sampling method (random, systematic, stratified) and its bias; sample size; accuracy of equipment; human error; repeats and calculation of means; weather, tide or recent rainfall; time of year; number of sites and whether the sites were representative; safety constraints on where data could be collected; how far the data supported the conclusion; suggested improvements. Do not credit generic points that have no link to the learner's own enquiry. SPaG (3 marks) is assessed separately and is not included in this item.

The 3 SPaG marks are awarded for the quality of written English in the candidate's response to the extended fieldwork question, not for geographical content. A high-performance response would, for example, be written in clear, well-punctuated sentences, e.g. 'I measured channel width at ten-metre intervals using a tape measure, but because the banks were uneven my results may be inaccurate, so repeating each measurement would improve reliability.' It would spell terms such as 'channel', 'cross-section', 'velocity', 'sample size', 'reliability', 'accuracy', 'anomaly' and 'systematic sampling' correctly, and use them appropriately.

SPaG is marked only where the candidate has made a genuine attempt at the 8-mark content question and the response is relevant to the task. Award 0 marks if the response is not creditworthy or is too brief to assess.

High performance [3 marks]: spelling and punctuation are consistently accurate; rules of grammar are used with control; meaning is clear throughout; a wide range of specialist geographical terms is used correctly and accurately (e.g. reliability, accuracy, sample size, anomaly, systematic sampling, cross-section, velocity, discharge).

Intermediate performance [2 marks]: spelling and punctuation are accurate on the whole, with occasional errors; grammar is used with some control; meaning is clear; a good range of specialist terms is used, mostly correctly.

Threshold performance [1 mark]: spelling and punctuation are reasonably accurate and may not always be so; some control of grammar; meaning is generally clear; a limited range of specialist terms is used, with some accuracy.

No marks [0]: errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar prevent meaning from being clear, or no relevant specialist terms are used, or the response is not worthy of credit.

Notes: Do not penalise a candidate twice for the same error. Specialist terms need only be relevant to the physical fieldwork described, and need not be technically complex. The SPaG mark must not exceed what the length and relevance of the response allows. Award the mark independently of the content mark for the 8-mark question.

Urbanisation is about the share of people living in urban areas rising over time, not just a city getting bigger in area.

1 mark: the increase / growth in the proportion (percentage) of people living in towns and cities / urban areas. Accept 'shift of population from rural to urban areas'. Do not credit 'people moving to the countryside' or 'a city getting bigger' with no reference to population proportion.

Informal settlements (squatter settlements) are built without official planning permission, usually by migrants who cannot afford formal housing.

1 mark for one valid characteristic: built from scrap / temporary materials (tick); no legal ownership / squatting on land (tick); lack of services such as clean water, sewage, electricity (tick); overcrowded / high density (tick). Do not credit 'poor' or 'dirty' without detail. Do not credit 'in the city centre'.

GNI per capita is an economic measure of development: total national income divided by population gives an average per person.

1 mark: the average income per person in a country / total income of a country divided by its population. Accept 'average amount of money earned per person per year'. Do not credit 'how rich a country is' alone.

Such countries are vulnerable because a fall in the world price of that product reduces national income sharply.

1 mark: a country relying on one or a few (raw / primary) products for most of its export income / trade earnings. Accept an example used to illustrate the idea, e.g. 'depends mainly on exporting coffee'. Do not credit 'a country that has few resources' alone.

An ageing population results from longer life expectancy and lower birth rates, shown on a pyramid with a narrowing base and widening top.

1 mark: an increasing proportion / percentage of people in older age groups (e.g. over 65) OR a rising average / median age of the population. Do not credit 'more old people' unless it is clear this is a growing share. Do not credit 'people living longer' alone.

The UK is a member of several international organisations through which it influences global political decisions.

1 mark for one correct organisation named: United Nations / UN Security Council; NATO; Commonwealth; World Trade Organization; G7; G20; Council of Europe; OECD. Accept full name or well-known abbreviation. Do not credit the European Union as a current UK membership. Do not credit non-organisations such as 'Europe' or 'the government'.

Water stress occurs when supply cannot meet demand, or when poor quality limits use.

1 mark: demand for water exceeds the available supply / not enough water to meet people's needs / water available per person falls below an accepted threshold. Do not credit 'no water' or 'drought' alone.

Food security covers availability, access and quality of food; it is not just how much a country produces.

1 mark: everyone / all people have reliable (regular) access to enough safe and nutritious food (to stay healthy). Accept 'being able to get enough food to meet dietary needs at all times'. Do not credit 'having lots of food' or 'growing enough crops' with no reference to access or people.

Boserup argued that pressure from growing populations drives innovation, so food supply can keep pace. Statement A describes Malthus.

1 mark for B only. No mark if more than one letter is given.

A pull factor is an attraction of the destination. Cities offer more paid employment, so C is correct. A, B and D describe conditions in the countryside that push people out, so they are push factors.

1 mark for C only. No mark if more than one response is given. A, B and D are push factors and must not be credited.

The HDI is a composite measure that combines health (life expectancy), education (schooling) and income. GNI per capita is only an economic measure; birth rate and infant mortality rate are single social indicators.

1 mark for A only. No mark if more than one response is given.

Older people on average need more medical treatment and long-term care, so health and social care services come under greater pressure. Pension costs and demand for care would rise, not fall, and primary school demand is linked to the number of children, not older people.

1 mark for D only. No mark if more than one response is given.

Boserup argued that population growth drives innovation, such as new farming methods and technology, so food production can increase to meet demand. Statement A describes the Malthusian view. C and D are not part of either theory.

1 mark for B only. No mark if more than one response is given. Do not credit A, which is the Malthusian view.

Increase = 3.9 - 2.4 = 1.5 million.
Percentage increase = \( \frac{1.5}{2.4} \times 100 = 62.5\% \).

1 mark: correct method, i.e. (3.9 - 2.4) / 2.4 x 100 or 1.5 / 2.4 x 100 (accept 1.5 seen).
1 mark: correct answer of 62.5%. Accept 62%, 63% or 62.5 without % sign.
Answer of 162.5% or 38.5% (wrong denominator) scores 0 for the answer mark; method mark may still be awarded if working is shown for 1.5 / 2.4.
Correct answer with no working scores 2.

Total = 1240 + 2310 + 890 + 1760 + 3050 = 9250.
Mean = \( \frac{9250}{5} = 1850 \).

1 mark: adds all five values (9250 seen) and divides by 5.
1 mark: correct answer of 1850 (accept $1850 or US$1,850).
Do not credit the median (1760) or the range (2160); these score 0.
Correct answer with no working scores 2.

\( \frac{1.25}{6.6} \times 100 = 18.94\ldots \), which is 19% to the nearest whole number.

1 mark: 19 (%). Accept 19.0%.
Do not credit 18.9% or 18.94% unless rounded to 19.
No mark for an answer of 5.3 (inverted fraction).

Identify a push factor (1) and develop it by explaining why it makes people leave (1). Example: Repeated drought causes crop failure, so farmers lose their income and migrate to the city to look for paid work.

1 mark for identifying a valid push factor; 1 mark (DEV) for a reason or consequence explaining why it leads to out-migration.
Accept: drought/crop failure/soil erosion; lack of jobs; lack of schools or hospitals; conflict; land shortage; mechanisation reducing farm labour.
Do not credit pull factors (e.g. better wages in the city) or a push factor with no development. A development mark cannot be given without the identified point.

Name or describe a specific initiative (1) and explain how it makes transport more sustainable (1). Example: A city built a new cycle-lane network, which encourages commuters to leave cars at home and so cuts air pollution.

1 mark for a valid transport initiative (ideally place-specific); 1 mark (DEV) for explaining how it is sustainable (less pollution, fewer cars, long-term affordability, accessible to all).
Accept: bus lanes, cycle hire, tram/metro extension, park-and-ride, congestion charge, electric buses, pedestrianisation.
Do not credit vague answers such as 'build more roads'. The city must be an AC city or the answer should be treated as generic; no more than 1 mark if no valid sustainability link.

Identify a limitation (1) and develop it (1). Example: GNI per capita is an average, so a few very rich people can raise it while most people stay poor; it also says nothing about life expectancy or literacy.

1 mark for a valid limitation; 1 mark (DEV) for development or explanation.
Accept: average hides inequality between rich and poor; does not include social factors (health, education, life expectancy); does not show cost of living; informal economy not recorded; data may be unreliable.
Do not credit 'it is not accurate' without explanation.

Identify a problem (1) and explain why it happens (1). Example: Commodity prices fluctuate, so when the price drops the government's export earnings fall and it has less money for schools and roads.

1 mark for a valid problem; 1 mark (DEV) for an explanation.
Accept: price volatility; crop failure from drought/disease leaves no other income; difficulty diversifying so economy stays at primary stage; trade terms worsen against manufactured imports; increased debt.
Do not credit benefits of trade.

Identify a cause (1) and develop it (1). Example: Better medical treatment of illnesses such as heart disease increases life expectancy, so a larger share of the population is aged 65 or over.

1 mark for a valid reason; 1 mark (DEV) for explaining how it increases the proportion of older people.
Accept: advances in healthcare/NHS; healthier diets and living conditions; falling birth rate (fewer young people); baby-boomer generation reaching retirement; falling death rates.
Do not credit 'people are older' without a reason.

Identify a way media exports spread culture (1) and describe the effect (1). Example: British period dramas sold to many countries show British heritage and landscapes, which encourages overseas tourists to visit filming locations.

1 mark for a valid way; 1 mark (DEV) for a description of the cultural effect.
Accept: programme/format sales abroad; global streaming; film locations promoting tourism; spread of the English language, humour, fashion or music; soft power/reputation.
Do not credit simply 'people watch them' without a cultural link.

Identify a benefit (1) and explain how it improves food security (1). Example: Residents grow vegetables on unused land, which gives cheap local produce and reduces dependence on expensive shop-bought food.

1 mark for a valid benefit; 1 mark (DEV) for linking it to food security (availability, access or affordability).
Accept: cheaper food; fewer food miles; fresh and nutritious produce; skills and community involvement; use of derelict land; produce donated to food banks.
Do not credit benefits unrelated to food supply (e.g. only 'looks nicer').

Strong answers name a real city and one initiative (for example a community waste-collection and recycling scheme, a slum-upgrading programme or a bus-rapid-transit line). They describe what was done and where, then assess benefits (cleaner streets, fewer waste-related illnesses, informal-sector jobs, shorter journeys, lower costs) against limitations (only some districts reached, funding limited, residents displaced, scheme not scaled up, ongoing inequality). They finish with a supported judgement about how far life has improved.

6 marks, levels of response. AO1 (2 marks) knowledge of the city and initiative; AO3 (4 marks) applying knowledge to assess the extent of improvement.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough, balanced assessment of the initiative, using accurate place-specific detail (named districts, schemes, organisations, figures). Benefits and limitations are developed and a supported judgement on 'how far' is made. Secure/consistent 6; borderline 5 if judgement is weak.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable assessment. Some place detail, benefits and/or limitations described with some development, but judgement is partial or unsupported. 4 if both sides are covered; 3 if mainly one-sided.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, generic statements about the initiative or city with little or no place detail and no judgement.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Indicative content: simple idea - 'recycling gives people jobs'; developed - 'waste pickers are paid for sorted materials, so income rises, but only in the districts the scheme covers'; well-developed - adds a place-specific fact and a link to wider quality of life (health, income, environment) and judges the extent.

Caps: if the city is an AC city, or no initiative is identified, cap at Level 1. If the response is entirely one-sided (benefits only or problems only), cap at Level 2. Place-specific detail is required for Level 3. Accept any valid LIDC/EDC city and sustainability initiative; do not credit challenges described with no link to the initiative.

Good answers name the LIDC and its main exports and trading partners. Benefits: foreign income to invest in schools and infrastructure, jobs from TNC investment, technology transfer, growth in GNI per capita. Problems: dependence on one or two commodities so price falls hurt incomes, profits leaving the country, low-wage work, trade terms favouring richer countries, and uneven benefits between regions. A judgement then weighs these, for example 'helped growth but left the country exposed'.

6 marks, levels of response. AO1 (2 marks) knowledge of the country's trade; AO3 (4 marks) evaluation of the extent of benefit.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough discussion with accurate place-specific detail (named exports, trading partners, TNCs, figures or dates). Both benefits and problems are developed and a clear, supported judgement on the extent is made. Secure 6; borderline 5 if judgement is limited.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable discussion. Some specific detail, benefits and/or problems explained, judgement partial or implied. 4 if both sides; 3 if mostly one side.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, generic points about trade (e.g. 'it brings money') with no or little place detail and no judgement.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Indicative content: simple - 'exports bring in money'; developed - 'selling coffee abroad brings in foreign income but prices fall in a global surplus, cutting farmers' incomes'; well-developed - adds a named example and links to wider development (health, education, GNI) and evaluates.

Caps: if the country is not an LIDC, or no trade content is given, cap at Level 1. One-sided responses cap at Level 2. Place-specific detail is required for Level 3. Accept any valid LIDC.

Good answers name a UK place and describe change (e.g. a growing share of young adults, a more diverse population, or an ageing population). They explain reasons: migration for jobs or study, chain migration to established communities, rising house prices pushing families out or younger people in, higher birth rates among some younger groups, people living longer, and retirement migration. Place-specific facts, such as named communities, employers, a university or census figures, support the explanation.

6 marks, levels of response. AO1 (2 marks) knowledge of the place and its changes; AO2 (4 marks) understanding of causes and links between them.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough explanation of several linked causes of change in both population structure and ethnic diversity, with accurate place-specific detail (data, named groups, employers, institutions). Secure 6; borderline 5 if one aspect is thin.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable explanation of some causes, with some place detail; may cover only structure or only diversity, or lack links.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, generic statements (e.g. 'people move for jobs') with little or no place detail.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Indicative content: simple - 'migrants arrived for work'; developed - 'workers from abroad came for jobs in the expanding service sector, so more young adults live there'; well-developed - adds place detail and the effect on age structure or culture.

Caps: if the place is not in the UK or no change since 2001 is shown, cap at Level 1. If only one of structure or diversity is addressed, cap at Level 2. Place-specific detail is required for Level 3.

Good answers name the country and one national strategy, outline what it involved, then weigh success (higher yields, more calories per person, lower food prices, less hunger) against limitations (costs to small farmers, fertiliser and water use, soil damage, dependence on imported seed or inputs, uneven access). A final judgement states how successful it has been and why.

6 marks, levels of response. AO1 (2 marks) knowledge of the strategy and country; AO3 (4 marks) evaluation of success.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough evaluation with accurate place-specific detail (named regions, crops, dates, statistics). Successes and limitations are developed and a supported judgement is reached. Secure 6; borderline 5 if judgement is weak.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable evaluation with some specific detail; successes and/or limitations described with some development, judgement partial. 4 if both sides; 3 if mainly one side.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic generic comments about food production, little or no place detail and no judgement.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Indicative content: simple - 'new seeds gave bigger harvests'; developed - 'higher-yielding seeds raised national output so fewer people went hungry, but small farmers could not afford fertiliser'; well-developed - adds named detail and weighs economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Caps: if the strategy is local-scale (e.g. a food bank or allotment) or none is identified, cap at Level 1. One-sided responses cap at Level 2. Place-specific detail is required for Level 3. Accept any valid country and national strategy.

A strong answer chooses a real EDC/LIDC city and identifies the contemporary challenges (e.g. informal settlements lacking water and sanitation, health risks, uncollected waste, congestion and air pollution, reliance on insecure informal-sector work). It then examines one or more named sustainability initiatives in that city, such as a waste recycling or waste-picker cooperative scheme or a transport improvement like a bus rapid transit line, giving place-specific detail (location, scale, who runs it, results with figures where possible). Positive impacts are explained: less waste in streets and drains, so fewer disease risks; recycling income for informal workers; faster, cheaper, lower-emission journeys to work and services. Limitations are then weighed: schemes often cover only part of the city, funding is limited, residents in the poorest informal settlements may not benefit, rapid population growth outpaces improvements, and some challenges (housing, inequality) are not addressed by the initiative. The answer ends with a judgement, e.g. initiatives help to a moderate extent but cannot solve the challenges alone without wider investment and planning.

8 marks, levels of response. AO1 (3 marks): knowledge of the city, its challenges and initiatives. AO2 (2 marks): understanding of how initiatives work and their links to challenges. AO3 (3 marks): evaluating the extent of success and reaching a judgement. SPaG is assessed separately (3 marks) on the paper.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Thorough, well-developed discussion. Accurate place-specific detail (named initiative(s), locations, figures or specific outcomes) is used throughout. Clear, balanced evaluation of how far challenges are solved, with a supported, justified judgement. Secure/consistent 7-8 marks: detail and judgement both sustained; borderline 6: judgement is present but detail uneven.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Reasonable discussion. Some place-specific detail, and some explanation of how an initiative addresses a challenge. Some attempt at evaluation but limited balance, or a judgement that is only partly supported. Secure 5: both sides present; borderline 3: mostly descriptive.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, generic statements about sustainability or city problems with little or no place-specific detail. Little or no evaluation or judgement.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Caps: if the case study city is in an advanced country (AC), or no city is named, or no sustainability initiative is discussed, maximum Level 1 (2 marks). One-sided answers (only benefits or only limits) are capped at Level 2 (5 marks). Do not credit a different type of initiative if it is not sustainability-related.

Indicative content (accept any valid, accurately used example):
- Challenges: informal settlements, poor sanitation and water, health problems, waste disposal, congestion/air pollution, informal-sector work.
- Simple idea: recycling reduces rubbish. Developed idea: waste-picker cooperatives sort and sell recyclables, so streets are cleaner and incomes rise. Well-developed idea: the named scheme, its scale and measurable outcomes, linked to reduced disease and more secure income.
- Simple idea: new transport helps people travel. Developed idea: a bus rapid transit or metro line cuts journey times and pollution. Well-developed idea: named route, numbers of passengers, improved access to jobs for people in informal settlements.
- Limits: partial coverage, funding shortages, corruption/weak governance, continued in-migration, poorest not reached, housing not addressed.
- Judgement: for example, partly effective; works best alongside housing upgrading and investment in services.

Answers may reach different judgements; credit the quality of reasoning and use of place detail, not the conclusion chosen.

The enquiry is about change with distance. A transect samples in a line at regular intervals, so the pattern from centre to edge can be seen. Random sites would be scattered and could leave gaps, making a distance pattern harder to identify.

Identify one reason (1) + development (1; DEV).
- A transect shows change with distance / from centre to edge (1)
- because sites are at regular intervals along a line, so results can be directly compared / plotted on a graph (1)
Accept: ensures coverage of the whole urban gradient; random sites might all cluster in one area (1) so the pattern might not be shown (DEV).
Do not credit: 'it is quicker/easier' without link to the enquiry.

A single 5-minute count may be unrepresentative because pedestrian numbers vary with time of day, weather or events. Repeating the count lets students calculate a mean and spot anomalies, so the results are more reliable.

Identify one way (1) + development (1; DEV).
- Allows a mean to be calculated / anomalies to be identified (1)
- because pedestrian flow varies with time of day / one count may be unusually busy or quiet (1)
Accept: more data gives a larger sample size; results can be compared for consistency.
Do not credit: 'more accurate' alone, or 'it takes longer'.

Name a technique actually used (1) and link it to the type of data needed by the enquiry question (1). Example: land use survey, because the enquiry asked how shop types change with distance from the centre, and mapping each building's use gave comparable data at each site.

Technique named (1) + reason linked to the enquiry question (1).
- Valid technique: questionnaire, interview, land use survey, environmental quality survey, pedestrian/traffic count, sketch map, photograph, etc. (1)
- Reason must link to the enquiry, e.g. collects opinions / counts quantities / records patterns across the study area (1)
Do not credit a generic reason ('it was easy') with no link to the enquiry. Second mark can be awarded only if the technique is valid.

Add the five scores: \( 9 + 12 + 15 + 16 + 18 = 70 \). Divide by the number of sites: \( 70 \div 5 = 14 \). The answer is C. (15 is the median, a common error; 12 and 13 are not the mean of these values.)

1 mark for C (14). Working: sum of scores = 70 (method), divided by 5 = 14 (accuracy). Only the letter is needed for the mark. No mark if two letters are given. Do not credit 15, which is the median.

Model answer outline.

Interpretation of Fig. 1: the score increases from 14 at the market square to 25 at 1200 m (+11 points). The pattern is a positive relationship with distance, with one anomaly: 24 at 1600 m, slightly lower than at 1200 m. This suggests the trend levels off, or that a local factor such as a main road or an industrial unit affected site 5. The data broadly support the enquiry question, but only five points were used, so the conclusion is tentative.

Strengths of the students' techniques: a systematic transect gives a clear, comparable sequence of sites. The five-category scoring gives a numerical result that is easy to compare and graph. Using the same criteria at every site gives consistency.

Weaknesses: the scoring is subjective (one person's 4 for building condition may be another's 3), and only one surveyor was used at each site, giving bias. Each site was surveyed once at one time of day, so it may not be representative (for example, litter after market day or noise at rush hour). Five sites is a small sample, and a single transect may miss variation in other directions. The two-minute pedestrian count is too short and unreliable, and could not be linked securely to the score. Improvements: take more sites, use several surveyors and average their scores, repeat at different times and days, use several transects, and use a longer count with a clear definition.

Own fieldwork: the candidate must name their enquiry question and location, describe at least one technique (for example questionnaires, land use survey, traffic or pedestrian counts, an environmental quality survey, or a sphere of influence survey) with details such as sample size, sampling method (random, systematic or stratified) and timing, and evaluate its reliability, accuracy and bias, with suggested improvements.

Judgement: the techniques gave a reasonable indication of the trend, but small samples, subjectivity and single visits mean the conclusion is only partly reliable.

8 marks. AO3 (evaluation and judgement) and AO4 (evaluating fieldwork methods and data). Mark holistically using levels. Do not exceed Level 2 if there is no reference to the candidate's own fieldwork, and do not exceed Level 2 if there is no use of Fig. 1.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): thorough, balanced evaluation of both the students' techniques and the candidate's own fieldwork. Uses data from Fig. 1 accurately (for example the +11 points from site 1 to site 4, and the anomaly at site 5). Strengths and weaknesses are developed, with reasons (for example subjectivity leading to bias, a single visit limiting reliability, a small sample limiting representativeness). Place-specific detail on the candidate's own fieldwork is secure (named location, sampling method, sample size, timing). A supported overall judgement on how far a reliable conclusion was reached. Borderline 6: one aspect is less developed. Secure 7: all aspects are covered with developed points. Consistent 8: fully integrated judgement with well-developed ideas.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): some evaluation with reasonable development of strengths or weaknesses, and some use of Fig. 1 and the candidate's own fieldwork, but the balance is uneven or the detail is generic. Judgement is partial or only implied.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): simple, generic statements about fieldwork (for example 'it was inaccurate'), with little or no use of Fig. 1 or of own fieldwork, and no judgement.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Indicative content (accept any valid alternative):
- Simple idea: the score rises as distance from the centre increases.
- Developed idea: the score rises from 14 to 25 over 1200 m, then falls to 24, so the pattern is not perfectly consistent.
- Well-developed idea: because each score came from one person at one time, subjective marking may bias the data, so a different surveyor or time could change the pattern; using several surveyors and averaging would improve reliability.
- Five sites is a small sample, so the trend may not be representative; more sites or extra transects would help.
- The two-minute pedestrian count is too short to be reliable.
- Strengths: systematic transect, consistent criteria, quantitative scores that are easy to graph.
- Own fieldwork: named technique with evaluation of sampling, accuracy, bias, timing and safety/practicality, and improvements.

Accept: any valid human geography technique from the candidate's own fieldwork. Do not credit: purely physical geography fieldwork. Do not credit: invented unrealistic detail, or detail that contradicts Fig. 1.

SPaG: a separate 3 marks are awarded on the paper for this question using the SPaG grid (threshold 1, intermediate 2, high 3), assessing spelling, punctuation, grammar and use of specialist terms. These are not included in the 8 marks above.

The SPaG marks are awarded for the quality of written English across the extended answer. A strong answer would: name a human fieldwork method used (for example a pedestrian count, questionnaire or land-use survey) and justify it, for instance because a questionnaire collects people's views that cannot be observed. It would then use Fig. 1: scores fall from +6 to -3, a drop of 9 over 1000 m, which broadly supports the claim; but site 4 (+4) is higher than site 3 (+3), so the decline is not steady, which is an anomaly that might come from a local feature such as a park or a newly renovated building. Finally it would evaluate reliability: environmental quality scoring is subjective, with only one person scoring each site; only six sites and one transect, so the sample is small and may not represent the whole town; the survey was on one day and time, so noise and litter could be atypical; the four features are weighted equally though some may matter more to residents. Improvements: several surveyors score each site independently and a mean is taken; use agreed scoring descriptions with photographs; add more sites, repeat at different times and on a second transect; use a statistical test or scatter graph with a best-fit line. Accuracy of spelling, punctuation, grammar and use of terms such as 'reliability', 'sample', 'anomaly', 'subjective' and 'transect' decides the SPaG mark.

SPaG (3 marks) is marked on the quality of the written English in the candidate's answer to this question, using the grid below. Award SPaG marks only if the candidate has made a genuine attempt at the geographical task (some creditable content); award 0 for no response or a response not worthy of credit.

3 marks (high performance): spelling and punctuation are consistently accurate; rules of grammar are used with control and meaning is clear throughout; a wide range of specialist terms (e.g. transect, reliability, sample, subjective, anomaly, primary data, bias) is used accurately and appropriately.

2 marks (intermediate performance): spelling and punctuation are generally accurate with occasional errors; grammar is generally controlled and meaning is clear; a good range of specialist terms is used with general accuracy.

1 mark (threshold performance): spelling and punctuation are accurate in places; some control of grammar, so meaning is usually clear; a limited range of specialist terms is used, with some accuracy.

0 marks: errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar severely hinder meaning; no use of specialist terms; or no answer worthy of credit.

Guidance on the geographical content that the SPaG performance is assessed on (indicative only, not separately credited here): own method named and justified with a reason linked to the enquiry; Fig. 1 interpreted with data quoted (+6 to -3, 9-point fall over 1000 m, anomaly at site 4 of +4 compared with +3 at site 3); evaluation of reliability (subjective single-observer scoring, small sample of six sites, one time and day, equal weighting) with improvements (multiple surveyors and mean score, clear criteria, more sites or repeat visits, second transect). Accept any valid own-fieldwork method from a human geography enquiry. Do not credit comments on physical fieldwork.

Shortfall = \(250 - 200 = 50\) million m\(^3\). As a percentage of demand: \(\frac{50}{250} \times 100 = 20\%\). The answer is A.

A (20%) = 1 mark. Method: shortfall divided by demand (250), not supply. B (25%) is wrong: it divides by supply (200). C is the shortfall figure itself, not a percentage. D (80%) is supply as a percentage of demand. No mark if two letters are given.

Decrease = 84 - 63 = 21 million m\(^3\). Percentage decrease = \(\frac{21}{84} \times 100 = 25\%\).

Method (weighted 0.75): \(\frac{84-63}{84} \times 100\) or 21 seen / 84 as the divisor ✓. Answer (0.5): 25 / 25% ✓. Accept 25.0. Do not credit 33.3% (dividing by 63) or an answer shown as an increase. Correct answer with no working gains full marks.

Sum = 640 + 720 + 580 + 810 + 650 = 3400. Mean = \(\frac{3400}{5} = 680\) mm.

Method (0.75): total 3400 seen, or \(\frac{\text{sum}}{5}\) ✓. Answer (0.5): 680 (mm) ✓. Do not credit the median (650) or the midpoint of the range (695). Correct answer with no working gains full marks.

Height difference = 240 - 90 = 150 m. Gradient = \(\frac{150}{12} = 12.5\) m per km.

Method (0.75): 240 - 90 = 150 seen, or 150 / 12 ✓. Answer (0.5): 12.5 m per km ✓. Accept 1 in 80 as an equivalent answer. Do not credit 150 / 12000 = 0.0125 unless units are given as a ratio. Do not credit 12 or 1.25.

Demand rises 30 megalitres in 10 years, which is 3 per year. By 2045, demand = 165 + 15 = 180 megalitres per day. Shortfall = 180 - 150 = 30 megalitres per day.

Extrapolation (0.75): demand of 180 (accept 178 to 182 if read from a drawn line) ✓. Shortfall (0.5): 180 - 150 = 30 (allow error carried forward from the candidate's demand figure) ✓. Do not credit the 2040 shortfall (15). Units not required but accept megalitres or ML.

2000: surplus 4600 - 4200 = 400. 2020: deficit 5900 - 5100 = 800. 2040: deficit 8300 - 4800 = 3500. Demand rises throughout (4200 to 8300, almost doubling) while supply rises then falls (4600 to 5100 to 4800).

Max 2.5 marks (half-mark steps).
- Supply greater than demand / surplus in 2000 (0.5), with data e.g. 4600 v 4200 or surplus 400 (0.5).
- Demand overtakes supply by 2020 / deficit of 800 (0.5).
- Deficit is forecast to widen to 3500 by 2040 (0.5).
- Demand rises throughout while supply peaks in 2020 then falls slightly (0.5).
Accept figures within +/-50 where read approximately. Do not credit explanation of causes. Data must be used for full marks; maximum 1.5 if no figures quoted.

Identify a modification (e.g. valley flooded, river flow reduced, dam blocks fish migration, land cleared for pipeline) and develop the environmental consequence with a reason.

Max 2.5 marks: identify one modification (1) plus development (up to 1.5) as DEV marks, each reason linked to the point.
Examples: valley flooded / woodland cleared for the reservoir (1); habitats lost so animals displaced and biodiversity reduced (0.5); species cannot migrate or breed (0.5); fewer nutrients and lower flow downstream dries wetlands (0.5).
Also accept: dam blocks fish movement; pipeline construction scars the landscape and causes soil erosion.
Do not credit purely social or economic impacts (e.g. farmers lose homes) unless linked to the environment. Only one modification may be credited.

Compare water use: 7000 - 2000 = 5000 cubic metres per hectare saved. Yield per cubic metre: A about 0.0013 t, B 0.003 t, so B is more water-efficient. Fertiliser: imported (costly, may pollute) against compost (local).

Max 2.5 marks.
- Option B uses less water / 5000 cubic metres per hectare less (1, data needed).
- DEV: so water supplies/aquifers last longer, protecting environmental sustainability or future generations (0.5).
- Uses compost not imported fertiliser (0.5), DEV: lower costs/less eutrophication or pollution/less reliance on imports (0.5).
- Credit a balanced point that B has a lower yield (6 against 9) but is more water-efficient (0.5).
Do not credit statements without reference to Fig. 2 beyond 1.5 marks.

Link: coal burned, CO2 released, extra greenhouse gases, more long-wave radiation absorbed and re-emitted, warming beyond natural levels.

Max 2.5 marks.
- Burning coal releases carbon dioxide / greenhouse gases (1).
- Increases concentration in the atmosphere beyond natural levels (0.5).
- Gases absorb/trap outgoing heat (long-wave radiation) from the Earth (0.5).
- So atmosphere warms / more heat retained than in the natural greenhouse effect (0.5).
Accept methane or other gases released during mining. Do not credit ozone-layer holes (do not credit confusion with ozone depletion).

One developed advantage (identify plus reason) and one developed disadvantage (identify plus reason).

Max 2.5 marks: advantage up to 1.25 and disadvantage up to 1.25 (identify 0.5 or 1; development 0.5 or 0.25 so that each side totals no more than 1.25). Award 1.5 for one side only if the other is missing.
Advantages: investment, jobs, skills/technology transfer, large-scale clean energy cutting coal use, tax revenue.
Disadvantages: profits leave the country, few skilled jobs go to locals, dependence on the TNC, land taken from local people, large land use in fragile dry environments.
Do not credit the same idea on both sides.

X: \(\frac{12\,000\,000\,000}{6\,000\,000} = 2000\). Y: \(\frac{4\,000\,000\,000}{3\,000\,000} \approx 1333\). Y is cheaper per person.

Max 2.5 marks.
- Method for X: 12 billion divided by 6 million (0.5); answer 2000 (0.5).
- Method for Y: 4 billion divided by 3 million (0.5); answer 1333 (accept 1330 to 1334) (0.5).
- Y identified as better value / cheaper per person (0.5) - must follow from calculated values.
Allow error carried forward for the conclusion. Accept answers in other consistent units (e.g. 2000 and 1333 per person, or 2 and 1.33 thousand units). Correct answers without working still gain 0.5 for each correct answer but lose the method marks.

Shortfall: \(560 - 410 = 150\) million litres per day, about 27% of demand (\(150 \div 560 \times 100\)). Population has grown by \(\frac{3.4-2.1}{2.1}\times100 \approx 62\%\), so the pressure will continue. Supporting the scheme: large new supply, reliable for a growing city, supports economic growth and public health. Against: US$1.2 billion cost, 4000 people displaced, wetland and bird habitat lost, farmers' irrigation cut by one fifth (food production and livelihoods), downstream ecosystem effects, and it moves the problem rather than solving demand. Alternatives: fixing leaks, water metering and pricing, rainwater harvesting, treated wastewater reuse, smaller reservoirs; these are cheaper and more sustainable but may not close the whole gap alone. Judgement: scheme is probably necessary in part but should be combined with demand management and compensation, rather than being the sole best option.

6 marks, levels of response (AO2 2 marks, AO3 4 marks).
Level 3 (5-6 marks): thorough assessment; uses data from Fig. 4 accurately (e.g. 150 million litre shortfall, population growth) and own understanding of water-transfer schemes or alternatives; considers advantages and disadvantages across social, economic and environmental sustainability; reaches a supported, balanced judgement on 'the extent'. Secure 6 = well-developed judgement weighing alternatives; 5 = judgement present but less well developed.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): reasonable assessment; some use of Fig. 4 and some development of points on both sides; conclusion may be partial or weakly supported.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): simple statements, mainly copying from Fig. 4 or one-sided; little or no judgement.
0 marks: no creditable response.
Indicative content: Simple idea: the scheme gives more water. Developed: it covers the 150 million litre gap because demand is rising with population. Well-developed: but displaces 4000 people and floods a wetland, so a mix with leakage repair and metering may be more sustainable.
Accept: any valid alternative strategy with reason. Do not credit: unsupported 'it is cheaper/better'. Cap at Level 2 if one-sided (no counter-argument) or no use of Fig. 4.

Yield comparison: Option A is \(7 \div 3.5 = 2\) times the yield of Option B. Economic: A gives high output and export potential but profits may leave the country and few jobs are created; B has low start-up cost and keeps income in the community. Social: B involves 60% of households who are smallholders, improves local access to food and skills; A may reduce smallholders' access to land. Environmental: A causes fertiliser runoff and eutrophication of the lake; GM drought-resistant crops help with unreliable rainfall; B uses drip irrigation and compost, conserving water and soil but may not produce enough alone. Judgement: B is more sustainable in the long term and supports food access, but A's yield is needed for total availability, so a combination or phased approach may be best.

6 marks, levels of response (AO2 2 marks, AO3 4 marks).
Level 3 (5-6 marks): thorough assessment; accurate use of Fig. 7 (e.g. double yield, jobs, runoff) with own understanding of sustainability (economic, social, environmental), GM crops, intensive farming or bottom-up approaches; clear, supported judgement of which is more sustainable.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): reasonable assessment; some use of Fig. 7 with some development; judgement may be partial or one factor of sustainability only.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): simple, mostly descriptive or copied from Fig. 7; no judgement.
0 marks: no creditable response.
Indicative content: Simple: A has higher yield. Developed: higher yield improves availability but runoff damages the lake. Well-developed: B keeps income local and uses low-cost water-saving methods, which suits unreliable rainfall, though yields are half those of A.
Accept: either option as the answer if justified. Do not credit: judgement with no reasons. Cap at Level 2 if only one option is considered or sustainability is not addressed.

Key calculation: 2025 deficit = 610 - 560 = 50 million m3; 2055 deficit = 940 - 560 = 380 million m3. Option A (220) covers about 58% of the 2055 deficit, B (90) about 24%, C (35) about 9%. Cost per million m3 of annual supply: A about $8.2 million, B about $12.2 million, C about $11.4 million.

Option A: biggest supply, lowest running energy, best value per unit of water and meets the 2025 deficit many times over. But it is slow (9 years), the most expensive, displaces 6000 farmers (social cost) and floods woodland (habitat loss, loss of ecosystem services, reduced downstream flow harms farmers and wetlands). Evaporation losses in a warming climate and silt build-up can reduce long-term yield.
Option B: reliable and rainfall-independent, which is important with a changing climate; quick (4 years). But supply is small relative to the 2055 deficit, energy use is very high (greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs, enhanced greenhouse effect), brine harms marine ecosystems, and it is the poorer value for money.
Option C: cheap, fast, bottom-up, involves communities, little environmental damage, supports food security and the farmers who depend on the plateau, and can be built in stages. But it supplies only 35 million m3 and fails in drought years, and it does not directly supply Sorrel, where most people live.

A good judgement: for example choose A as the only option large enough to address the 2055 deficit, with mitigation (compensation and land for relocated farmers, minimum river flow release), and say that C could be added as a complement; or choose C as the most sustainable and flexible but accept it is not sufficient alone. Reasoned rejection of the other two is required for the top level.

12 marks: AO2 (4 marks), AO3 (8 marks). SPaG is assessed separately (3 marks) and is NOT included in these 12.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Thorough, well-developed evaluation. Makes a clear, justified choice of ONE option and reaches a supported conclusion. Uses data from BOTH figures accurately (e.g. deficit of 380 million m3 in 2055 or 50 million m3 now, percentage of deficit met, cost per unit). Considers economic, social and environmental sustainability and short- versus long-term effects. Explicitly weighs why the other two options are less suitable. Geographical understanding is accurate (e.g. climate change, ecosystem services, top-down versus bottom-up approaches, energy and greenhouse gases). Secure 11-12; borderline 10.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): Good evaluation with a reasoned choice. Uses data from at least one figure, with some development. Considers at least two of the sustainability dimensions and some comparison of options, but the rejected options may be treated less fully, or the conclusion is only partly supported. Secure 8-9; borderline 7.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): Some explanation with partial or generic judgement. Some use of Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 (mainly copying data), with limited development; one option may be discussed with little comparison. Secure 5-6; borderline 4.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic, simple statements, mostly descriptive or listing figures with little geographical understanding and little or no judgement. Secure 2-3; borderline 1.
Level 0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (credit valid alternatives; do not credit a choice of more than one option unless one is clearly identified as the main choice, but allow a lead option with a supporting one):
- Simple idea: Option A gives the most water (220 million m3).
- Developed: A would cover over half of the forecast 2055 deficit of 380 million m3 and has low energy use, but it moves 6000 farmers.
- Well-developed: A is the only option which closes most of the gap and is the best value per unit of water, but costs the most and floods woodland, so should include compensation and a minimum river flow; C could add resilience.
- Simple: Option B is not affected by rainfall. Developed: reliable in a drought but uses a very high amount of energy, adding to greenhouse gas emissions. Well-developed: supplies only 90 million m3, about a quarter of the 2055 deficit, so is poor value, and brine harms marine life.
- Simple: Option C is cheap. Developed: cheap and quick, with villages involved, so gives local people control (bottom-up). Well-developed: supports food security on the plateau and sustainable, but the 35 million m3 is small and fails in drought, so it cannot meet Sorrel's demand alone.
Caps: an answer that gives only a one-sided case for a single option, with no consideration of any other option, cannot go above Level 3. An answer that makes no use of the figures cannot go above Level 2. Accept calculations within +/- 1 percentage point. Do not credit an answer based on a real named country as its case study.

Useful figures: Plan Y clears 15% of the forest (750 km2) against 2000 km2 for Z and 5000 km2 for X. Income per job: X $20 000, Y about $11 700, Z about $83 000. Z earns over ten times the government income of Y ($150 million against $14 million).

In favour of Y: very little forest loss, so most biodiversity, the carbon store, the water cycle and the closed nutrient cycle are kept; income begins after one year; local ownership means profits stay in the area (little leakage), supports bottom-up development, and the project lasts indefinitely, so meets the needs of future generations. Ecotourism and forestry provide training and skills.
Against Y: lowest jobs (1200) and lowest income ($14 million), so might do little to cut the poverty of 40% of the basin's people or fund national services; tourism depends on political stability and global demand; some ecosystem disturbance from visitors and tracks; communities may lack capital and expertise.
Plan X: most jobs, but all forest is cleared, the thin rainforest soil loses nutrients once the trees go, and the soil is exhausted after 25 years; profits go abroad; the 5-year delay; monoculture destroys habitats and releases carbon. Plan Z: highest income and quick, but pollution, soil erosion and water contamination, a pit left after 20 years, and a TNC takes much of the profit; still, it may fund national development such as health and schools.
Conclusion: Y is the best long-term and sustainable choice and suitable for a country that wants to protect its resource, but to what extent depends on whether the government values rapid income (Z) or long-term sustainability. A judgement might be that Y is best if linked with support or taxes from other sources, or only partly best because of its lower economic return.

12 marks: AO2 (4 marks), AO3 (8 marks). SPaG is assessed separately (3 marks) and is NOT included in these 12.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Thorough and well-developed discussion of the extent to which Plan Y is best. Uses Fig. 3 accurately and selectively (e.g. forest cleared, income, jobs, ownership, lifespan). Applies accurate understanding of rainforest ecosystems and development (e.g. nutrient cycle, biodiversity, carbon store, TNC profit leakage, poverty, bottom-up development). Considers the strengths AND limits of Y and compares it with both X and Z. Reaches a clear, supported judgement on the extent. Secure 11-12; borderline 10.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): Good discussion, with clear use of data and understanding. Considers advantages and disadvantages of Y and at least some comparison with X and/or Z. Judgement is present but may be only partly supported. Secure 8-9; borderline 7.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): Some relevant discussion. Mostly one-sided, or lists points from Fig. 3 with limited development. Little comparison. Judgement is weak or absent. Secure 5-6; borderline 4.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic statements, mainly copying from the figure, with little understanding and no judgement. Secure 2-3; borderline 1.
Level 0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (credit other valid points):
- Simple: Y clears only 15% of the forest. Developed: so most of the habitat and the carbon store remain. Well-developed: a small clearance retains the closed nutrient cycle and biodiversity, and the forest keeps providing goods and services such as water regulation.
- Simple: Y is run by local communities. Developed: income stays in the area. Well-developed: avoids profit leakage to a TNC (X and Z), reduces poverty directly and is a bottom-up approach that increases local control.
- Simple: Z earns the most money for the government. Developed: $150 million is over ten times that of Y. Well-developed: money could be used for schools and health care across Tembara, but the mine causes pollution and leaves a pit after 20 years.
- Simple: Y creates the fewest jobs. Developed: 1200 compared with 3000 for X. Well-developed: with 40% of people in poverty, Y might not be enough to improve living standards on a large scale.
- Y lasts indefinitely if managed well (sustainable); X and Z end after 20-25 years.
Caps: a wholly one-sided answer (only for or only against Y) cannot go above Level 3. An answer that does not use Fig. 3 cannot go above Level 2. A response that discusses only the environment or only the economy, with no balance between them, cannot go above Level 3. Accept calculations using the figures given (e.g. 15% of 5000 = 750 km2). Do not credit named real places or companies as evidence in place of the scenario.

The candidate writes a short recommendation (about 6 to 10 lines) that names a scheme and justifies it, using specialist terms such as sustainability, water stress, reservoir, ecosystem, displacement, demand, supply, rainwater harvesting and water transfer. Example: 'I recommend Scheme B. Rainwater harvesting and repairing leaking pipes are more sustainable because they reduce demand and waste without flooding an upland ecosystem or displacing villagers. Although Scheme A would supply more water, it is expensive, slow to build and could cause long-term environmental damage.' The SPaG mark depends on the quality of the writing, not on which scheme is chosen.

SPaG is marked using the three-mark grid below. Award the mark for spelling, punctuation, grammar and specialist terminology only. The geographical content is marked separately and must not be credited here.

The response must be a relevant attempt at the task. If the candidate writes nothing relevant, or writes fewer than a few meaningful sentences, award 0.

0 marks: no response, or the writing is too limited or irrelevant to be assessed, or errors prevent meaning being understood.

1 mark (threshold): spelling and punctuation are reasonably accurate, with minor errors that do not affect meaning. Rules of grammar are used with some control. Some specialist terms are used appropriately (e.g. reservoir, supply, demand).

2 marks (intermediate): spelling and punctuation are considerably accurate, with occasional errors. Grammar is controlled and meaning is clear. A good range of specialist terms is used, mostly accurately (e.g. sustainability, water stress, ecosystem).

3 marks (high): spelling and punctuation are consistently accurate. Grammar is used with control, and meaning is always clear. A wide range of specialist terms is used adventurously and accurately (e.g. sustainability, water stress, rainwater harvesting, displacement, water transfer).

Notes: accept either Scheme A or Scheme B; do not credit or penalise the choice made. Do not penalise correct alternative spellings or abbreviations that are standard in geography. Use the best-fit rule when a response sits between two bands.