Mark Scheme
Section A Mark Scheme
Question 1
(a) (1 mark)
B — Tropical storms form between 5° and 30° north and south of the equator
(b) (2 marks)
Award 1 mark per valid point (up to maximum of 2 marks):
Primary effects include:
• Buildings/homes destroyed/damaged (1)
• Deaths/injuries (1)
• Roads/bridges destroyed (1)
• Flooding (1)
• Crops destroyed (1)
• Electricity/power lines brought down (1)
• Communications cut (1)
• Beaches eroded (1)
(c) (4 marks)
Award 1 mark for each valid point, up to 4 marks. Second marks available for development (d).
Indicative content:
• Warm ocean water heats the air above (1), which causes it to rise rapidly (d) (1)
• As air rises it cools and condenses (1), forming towering cumulonimbus clouds (d) (1)
• Rising air creates an area of low pressure at the surface (1), which draws in more air creating strong winds (d) (1)
• Condensation releases latent heat (1), which powers the storm/causes more air to rise (d) (1)
• The Coriolis effect causes the rising air to spiral (1), creating the spinning motion of the storm (d) (1)
Accept: tropical storm / hurricane / cyclone / typhoon as terminology
(d) (9 marks)
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Detailed assessment
• Detailed assessment of the effectiveness of immediate responses
• Clear reference to specific named example with accurate detail (place, date)
• Range of immediate responses discussed (at least 3)
• Judgement about effectiveness supported with evidence/data
• Good use of geographical terminology
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Clear assessment
• Some assessment of effectiveness of immediate responses
• Named example used with some detail
• Some immediate responses discussed (at least 2)
• Some judgement about effectiveness attempted
• Adequate use of geographical terminology
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic response
• Limited or descriptive account of immediate responses
• Named example may be vague or implicit
• Limited range of responses (1 or 2)
• Little or no judgement
• Basic geographical terminology
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
Immediate responses may include:
• Search and rescue operations
• Emergency medical treatment
• Evacuation to shelters
• Distribution of food/water/supplies
• Restoration of power/communications
• Clearing debris/roads
• International aid/emergency services deployment
Effectiveness factors:
• Speed of response
• Coordination between agencies
• Availability of resources
• Infrastructure remaining
• Preparedness/warning systems
• International support
• Weather conditions hampering efforts
Expected named examples: Typhoon Haiyan (2013, Philippines), Hurricane Katrina (2005, USA), Cyclone Nargis (2008, Myanmar), Hurricane Maria (2017, Caribbean), etc.
Accept: any appropriate named tropical storm with accurate supporting detail
Question 2
(a) (1 mark)
July (1)
Accept: July / 7
(b) (2 marks)
38 – 14 = 24°C (1) for correct working (1) for correct answer with units
Accept: 24 / 24°C / 24 degrees (must show working for full marks)
Award 1 mark only if answer is correct but no working shown
(c) (4 marks)
Award 1 mark for each valid point, up to 4 marks. Second marks available for development (d).
Indicative content:
• Long/deep roots (1) to reach water stored deep underground/water table (d) (1)
• Small leaves/spines (1) to reduce water loss through transpiration (d) (1)
• Thick/waxy cuticle on leaves (1) to reduce water loss (d) (1)
• Ability to store water in stems/leaves (1), e.g. cacti store water in fleshy stems (d) (1)
• Seeds remain dormant (1) until rainfall occurs/germinate quickly after rain (d) (1)
• Short life cycles (1) to complete reproduction before dry conditions return (d) (1)
• Widespread shallow roots (1) to quickly absorb any rainfall (d) (1)
Accept: specific named examples of plants (e.g. cacti, baobab tree, euphorbia)
Question 3
(a) (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for any one of:
• Oak tree (1)
• Grass (1)
Do not accept: caterpillar, animals, anything not a plant
(b) (3 marks)
Award marks as follows:
• Likely impact identified (1)
• Explanation linking to food web (1)
• Further development (1)
Indicative content:
• Fox population would decrease/decline (1)
• Because rabbits are a food source/prey for foxes (1)
• So foxes would have less food available/would starve/would need to rely more on shrews (1)
OR
• Fox population might decrease slightly/remain stable (1)
• Because foxes can also eat shrews (1)
• So they have an alternative food source (1)
Accept: answers recognising that foxes have alternative prey but would still be affected
(c) (4 marks)
Award 1 mark for each valid point, up to 4 marks. Second marks available for development (d).
Indicative content:
• Decomposers break down dead organisms/organic matter (1), releasing nutrients back into the soil (d) (1)
• They include bacteria and fungi (1), which feed on dead material through decomposition (d) (1)
• Nutrients released are then taken up by plant roots (1), allowing plants to grow (d) (1)
• Without decomposers, nutrients would remain locked in dead material (1), and plants would lack essential minerals (d) (1)
• Decomposers complete the nutrient cycle (1), ensuring continuous recycling of materials in the ecosystem (d) (1)
Accept: specific nutrients named (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.)
Question 4
(a) (1 mark)
B — Erosion
(b) (2 marks)
Award 1 mark per valid point (up to maximum of 2 marks):
Indicative content:
• Flow is faster on the outer bend (1)
• Flow is slower on the inner bend (1)
• Outer bend has the fastest/main current/thalweg (1)
• Inner bend has shallow/slack water (1)
Accept: reference to specific features (river cliff, point bar) if used correctly to describe flow differences
(c) (6 marks)
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Clear explanation
• Clear explanation of meander formation showing sequence of processes
• Links between erosion, transportation and deposition explained
• Reference to both inner and outer bends
• Accurate geographical terminology used
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic explanation
• Basic explanation with limited detail
• Simple statements about erosion or deposition
• Limited sequencing of processes
• Basic geographical terminology
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Credit diagrams: Award marks for annotated diagrams showing the sequence of processes. A fully annotated diagram alone can achieve Level 2 if it shows: erosion on outer bend, deposition on inner bend, how current affects this, and how bends become more pronounced.
Indicative content:
Sequence of formation:
• Water flows faster on the outside of bends due to reduced friction/deeper channel
• Hydraulic action and abrasion/corrasion erode the outer bank
• This forms a river cliff
• Water flows slower on inside of bend due to increased friction/shallow water
• This causes deposition of sediment
• Forms a slip-off slope/point bar
• As erosion continues on outer bend and deposition on inner bend
• The bend becomes more pronounced/meander becomes larger
• Eventually neck of meander may be cut through forming an oxbow lake (not required)
Accept: appropriate use of terms such as lateral erosion, thalweg, helicoidal flow
(d) (6 marks)
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Clear explanation
• Clear explanation of how the landform has been managed
• Specific named example used with accurate detail (location named)
• Range of management strategies explained
• Link to reducing flood risk is clear
• Good use of geographical terminology
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic explanation
• Basic description of management
• Example may lack specific detail/location may be vague
• Limited range of strategies or limited explanation
• Link to flood risk may be implicit
• Basic geographical terminology
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
Possible landforms/locations:
• Floodplain (various UK rivers)
• River channel (various)
• Levées (natural or artificial)
Management strategies may include:
• Building artificial levées/embankments to contain river
• Dredging channel to increase capacity
• Straightening meanders/channel to speed flow
• Creating flood storage areas on floodplain
• Wetland restoration
• Afforestation in upper catchment
• Flood walls/barriers
• Allowing controlled flooding in certain areas
Link to flood risk:
• Prevents water overflowing onto floodplain
• Moves water away from vulnerable areas quickly
• Stores excess water temporarily
• Increases infiltration/reduces surface runoff
Expected named examples: River Severn at Shrewsbury, River Thames (various locations), Jubilee River (Maidenhead), Pickering (North Yorkshire), Banbury (River Cherwell), etc.
Accept: any appropriate UK river landform management scheme with accurate supporting detail
Question 5
(a) (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for definition that includes:
• An isolated pillar/column of rock (1)
OR
• A tall piece of rock standing in the sea (1), (separated from the cliff) (do not require bracketed element for the mark)
Accept: "detached from the cliff/headland", "surrounded by water"
Do not accept: "a rock" (insufficient detail)
(b) (3 marks)
Award 1 mark per valid landform in correct sequence (up to maximum of 3 marks):
Correct sequence:
• Crack/fault/weakness in the rock/headland (1)
• Cave (1)
• Arch (1)
Award all 3 marks for: crack → cave → arch (or equivalent terminology in correct order)
Award 2 marks for: any two of the above in correct order
Award 1 mark for: any one correct landform, or multiple landforms not in correct sequence
Accept: "joint" for crack, "gap" for weakness
Do not accept: stack or stump in the sequence (these come after, not before)
(c) (4 marks)
Award 1 mark for each valid point, up to 4 marks. Second marks available for development (d).
Indicative content:
• Waves break at the base of the cliff (1), eroding the rock through hydraulic action and abrasion (d) (1)
• This forms a wave-cut notch (1), which is a curved indentation at the base of the cliff (d) (1)
• The notch gets bigger over time (1), making the rock above unstable (d) (1)
• Eventually the overhanging rock collapses (1), and the cliff retreats backwards (d) (1)
• Repeated erosion and collapse (1) leaves a gently sloping rocky platform at the base of the cliff (d) (1)
• The platform is only visible at low tide (1), as it extends into the sea (d) (1)
Accept: reference to specific erosion processes if used correctly (corrasion, attrition, solution)
Section B Mark Scheme
Question 6 (9 marks)
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Thorough assessment
AO1 (3 marks):
• Demonstrates thorough knowledge of effects of tectonic hazards in contrasting locations
• Uses specific named examples with accurate supporting detail
• Clear understanding of factors affecting vulnerability and response
AO2 (3 marks):
• Thorough application of knowledge and understanding to interpret Figure 6
• Makes effective links between the data and levels of development
• Analyses patterns and makes valid comparisons
AO3 (3 marks):
• Thorough assessment reaching a supported conclusion
• Considers range of factors (not just development level)
• Evaluates statement with balance and evidence
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Reasonable assessment
AO1 (2 marks):
• Demonstrates reasonable knowledge of tectonic hazard effects
• Uses some named examples with some detail
• Some understanding of factors shown
AO2 (2 marks):
• Reasonable application of knowledge to Figure 6
• Makes some links between data and development
• Some comparison attempted
AO3 (2 marks):
• Reasonable attempt at assessment
• Some consideration of factors
• Attempts evaluation with some balance
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic response
AO1 (1 mark):
• Basic knowledge of tectonic hazards
• Examples may be vague or absent
• Limited understanding shown
AO2 (1 mark):
• Basic use of Figure 6
• Limited links made to development
• Little or no comparison
AO3 (1 mark):
• Basic or descriptive response
• Limited assessment
• Little or no evaluation
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
From Figure 6:
• Nepal and Haiti (LICs) had higher death tolls (8,841 and 220,000) than Chile (HIC/NEE) with 525 deaths despite similar magnitude earthquakes
• However Japan (HIC) had nearly 16,000 deaths despite being wealthy
• Haiti's death toll was dramatically higher than Nepal's despite similar development levels
• Chile (middle income) had very low deaths relative to earthquake magnitude (8.8)
Factors to consider:
Supporting statement (worse in LICs):
• Poor building quality/lack of earthquake-resistant design
• Limited emergency services/medical facilities
• Poor infrastructure hampers rescue
• Limited monitoring/warning systems
• Lower levels of education/preparedness
• Slow/inadequate response
• Longer-term recovery more difficult
Challenging statement (not always worse in LICs):
• Population density matters (Japan highly populated)
• Specific hazards triggered matter (tsunami in Japan killed most)
• Time of day affects deaths
• Distance from epicentre
• Depth of focus
• Secondary hazards (landslides in Nepal)
• Quality of prediction/preparation even in HICs varies
Expected examples:
• Nepal earthquake 2015
• Haiti earthquake 2010
• Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011
• Chile earthquake 2010
• Others: L'Aquila (Italy) 2009, Christchurch (New Zealand) 2011, Gorkha (Nepal), etc.
Strong answers will:
• Use Figure 6 effectively to support points
• Recognise that the statement is too simplistic
• Consider multiple factors beyond development level
• Use specific evidence from named examples
• Reach a balanced conclusion (e.g. "development matters but other factors are also significant")
Question 7 (9 marks)
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Thorough evaluation
AO1 (3 marks):
• Demonstrates thorough knowledge of hard and soft engineering approaches
• Uses specific named examples with accurate supporting detail
• Clear understanding of sustainability in river management context
AO2 (3 marks):
• Thorough application of knowledge to interpret Figure 7
• Makes effective comparisons between Options A and B
• Analyses costs, benefits and sustainability of both approaches
AO3 (3 marks):
• Thorough evaluation reaching a supported conclusion
• Considers environmental, economic and social sustainability
• Weighs up short-term vs long-term effectiveness
• Uses evidence to support judgement
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Reasonable evaluation
AO1 (2 marks):
• Demonstrates reasonable knowledge of engineering approaches
• Some named examples used
• Some understanding of sustainability
AO2 (2 marks):
• Reasonable application of Figure 7
• Some comparison between options
• Some analysis of sustainability
AO3 (2 marks):
• Reasonable evaluation attempted
• Some consideration of different aspects of sustainability
• Some supported judgement
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic response
AO1 (1 mark):
• Basic knowledge of river management
• Limited or no examples
• Limited understanding of sustainability
AO2 (1 mark):
• Basic use of Figure 7
• Limited comparison
• Little analysis
AO3 (1 mark):
• Basic or descriptive response
• Limited evaluation
• Little or no judgement
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
From Figure 7:
Option A (Hard engineering):
• Higher cost (£45m vs £12m)
• Faster completion (3 years vs 5+ years)
• Protects more properties (1,200 vs 800)
• Immediate effectiveness
• Concrete structures visible
Option B (Soft engineering):
• Lower cost (£12m)
• Slower to full effectiveness (10-15 years)
• Protects fewer properties
• Works with nature
• Multiple approaches (woodland, meanders, wetlands)
Evaluation points:
Environmental sustainability:
• Soft: enhances habitats, biodiversity, natural processes, aesthetically pleasing
• Hard: visual impact, disrupts ecosystems, concrete production has carbon footprint
• Soft: requires land (80 hectares)
• Hard: engineering maintains channel artificially
Economic sustainability:
• Soft: much cheaper initial cost, lower maintenance
• Hard: expensive to build and maintain, may need replacement
• Hard: protects more properties (greater economic protection)
• Soft: slower return on investment
• Long-term costs differ significantly
Social sustainability:
• Hard: immediate protection gives certainty to residents
• Hard: may create false sense of security, failure risk catastrophic
• Soft: some properties remain at risk
• Soft: provides recreational space, improves quality of environment
• Hard: may displace flood risk downstream
Long-term effectiveness:
• Soft: becomes more effective over time, self-sustaining
• Hard: requires ongoing maintenance, can fail catastrophically
• Soft: adapts to climate change better
• Hard: fixed capacity may be overwhelmed
Expected named examples:
• River Aire (Leeds/Skipton) — various approaches
• River Pickering (North Yorkshire) — soft engineering success
• River Thames — hard engineering (barriers)
• Jubilee River — hybrid approach
• Banbury — hard defenses
• River Ouse (York) — various schemes
Strong answers will:
• Recognise "always" is too absolute
• Consider different definitions/aspects of sustainability
• Use Figure 7 data effectively to support arguments
• Balance advantages and disadvantages of both approaches
• Reach a nuanced conclusion (e.g. "soft engineering is often more sustainable environmentally and economically in the long term, but hard engineering may be more socially sustainable in urban areas where immediate protection is essential")
• Reference specific named examples to support evaluation
Question 8 (9 marks)
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Thorough assessment
AO1 (3 marks):
• Demonstrates thorough knowledge of threats to tropical rainforests
• Uses specific named examples with accurate supporting detail
• Clear understanding of causes and impacts of deforestation and climate change
AO2 (3 marks):
• Thorough application of knowledge to discuss range of threats
• Makes effective comparisons between different threats
• Analyses scale, rate and severity of different threats
AO3 (3 marks):
• Thorough assessment reaching a supported conclusion
• Evaluates relative importance of different threats
• Considers timescales (immediate vs long-term)
• Evidence-based judgement on whether climate change is "greatest threat"
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Reasonable assessment
AO1 (2 marks):
• Reasonable knowledge of threats
• Some named examples used
• Some understanding shown
AO2 (2 marks):
• Reasonable discussion of threats
• Some comparison attempted
• Some analysis
AO3 (2 marks):
• Reasonable assessment
• Some evaluation of relative importance
• Some supported judgement
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic response
AO1 (1 mark):
• Basic knowledge of threats
• Examples vague or absent
• Limited understanding
AO2 (1 mark):
• Basic description of threats
• Limited comparison
• Little analysis
AO3 (1 mark):
• Basic response
• Limited assessment
• Little or no judgement
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
Climate change as a threat:
• Rising temperatures alter growing conditions for species
• Changes in precipitation patterns (droughts more frequent/severe)
• Increased forest fires
• Species migration/extinction
• Feedback loop: deforestation contributes to climate change which then threatens remaining forest
• Long-term, accelerating threat
• Amazon "tipping point" — could become savannah
Other threats:
Deforestation (currently biggest direct threat):
• Cattle ranching (largest cause — 80% in Amazon)
• Soy cultivation/agriculture
• Logging (legal and illegal)
• Mining (gold, iron ore, etc.)
• Road building (opens up forest)
• Hydroelectric dams
• Current rates: 10,000km² per year
• Immediate and measurable impact
Population pressure:
• Subsistence farming
• Settlement expansion
• Indigenous lands under pressure
Commercial exploitation:
• Timber extraction
• Palm oil plantations
• Biofuel crops
Evaluation factors:
Climate change as greatest threat — arguments for:
• Affects all remaining rainforest globally
• Irreversible at certain point
• Accelerating problem
• Difficult to mitigate
• Global issue requiring international cooperation
Other threats more significant — arguments for:
• Deforestation has immediate, direct impact
• Removes forest faster than climate change currently
• More forest lost to direct clearance than climate impacts currently
• Can be stopped/reversed with political will
• Economic drivers are current main cause
Expected named locations:
• Amazon rainforest (Brazil, Peru, Colombia, etc.)
• Malaysian rainforest (Borneo)
• Indonesian rainforest (Sumatra, Papua)
• Congo Basin
• Specific: Rondônia (Brazil), Sarawak (Malaysia), etc.
Strong answers will:
• Discuss multiple threats in detail
• Use specific data and examples
• Compare scale and rate of different threats
• Consider timescales (immediate vs future)
• Recognise interconnections between threats
• Reach a balanced conclusion with evidence (e.g. "While climate change poses a severe long-term existential threat, current deforestation rates mean direct human clearance remains the immediate greatest threat, though this may change")
Question 9 (8 marks)
Level 3 (6–8 marks): Thorough assessment
AO1 (2–3 marks):
• Demonstrates thorough knowledge of a specific extreme weather event
• Accurate detail: specific location(s), date, and statistics
• Clear understanding of nature of the event
AO2 (2–3 marks):
• Thorough application of knowledge to assess impacts
• Detailed social impacts discussed
• Detailed economic impacts discussed
• Clear links made between event and impacts
AO3 (2 marks):
• Thorough assessment with clear focus on "assess"
• Weighs significance of impacts with evidence
• Makes judgements about severity/scale
Level 2 (3–5 marks): Reasonable assessment
AO1 (1–2 marks):
• Reasonable knowledge of event
• Some specific detail (may lack precision)
• Some understanding of event
AO2 (1–2 marks):
• Reasonable discussion of impacts
• Social or economic impacts discussed (may be imbalanced)
• Some links to event
AO3 (1 mark):
• Some assessment attempted
• Some judgement of impacts
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic response
AO1 (1 mark):
• Basic knowledge, vague or lacking detail
• Limited accuracy
AO2 (0–1 marks):
• Basic description of impacts
• May list impacts without detail
AO3 (0 marks):
• Descriptive
• No assessment
0 marks: Nothing worthy of credit
Indicative content:
Expected events:
• Beast from the East (February/March 2018)
• Storm Desmond (December 2015)
• Heatwave (Summer 2018)
• Floods (various: 2007, 2013/14, 2015/16)
• Storm Ciara (February 2020)
• Any other appropriate named UK extreme weather event
Example: Storm Desmond, December 2015
Description:
• Storm hit Cumbria and Lancashire, 5-6 December 2015
• Record rainfall: 341mm in 24 hours at Honister Pass
• Rivers Greta, Derwent, Caldew burst banks
• Affected Carlisle, Keswick, Appleby and surrounding areas
Social impacts:
• 5,200 homes flooded across Cumbria and Lancashire
• 61 severe flood warnings issued
• One death (in London, not Cumbria)
• 4,000 homes without power for several days
• Schools closed
• Transport disruption — roads closed, railway lines damaged
• Evacuations — people housed in emergency shelters
• Health impacts — stress, mental health issues
• Community disruption — Christmas period
• Some residents unable to return for months
Economic impacts:
• Total damages estimated at £500 million
• Insurance claims exceeded £100 million in Cumbria alone
• Businesses flooded — unable to trade
• Agricultural losses — livestock, crops
• Tourism industry affected (Lake District major tourism area)
• Infrastructure damage: bridges destroyed/damaged (e.g. Pooley Bridge)
• Cost of repairs to flood defenses
• Loss of income for businesses during closure
• Emergency services costs
• Network Rail: railway repairs cost millions
Assessment points:
• Scale of flooding unprecedented (worse than 2009 floods)
• Economic costs enormous but insurable for most
• Social impacts severe but community response strong
• Long-term impacts on some households (unable to get insurance, property value decline)
• Some positive outcomes (improved flood defenses subsequently)
Accept any appropriate UK extreme weather event with accurate supporting detail
Strong answers will:
• Name specific event with date and location
• Include statistics and data
• Discuss both social and economic impacts in detail
• Make assessment judgements (e.g., comparing severity, identifying most significant impacts)
• Show understanding that impacts vary by location/affected groups
Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary
Question 6 — Sample Answers
Grade 9 (top of Higher) answer
I partially agree that effects are always worse in LICs, but the data shows this is too simplistic.
Figure 6 shows that Haiti (LIC, GNI $760) suffered 220,000 deaths from a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in 2010, which was dramatically worse than Chile's 525 deaths from an 8.8 magnitude event the same year, even though Chile's earthquake was much more powerful. This supports the statement, as does Nepal (LIC) having 8,841 deaths. Both LICs had higher death tolls than Chile partly because buildings were poorly constructed — in Haiti, many structures were not earthquake-resistant and built on unstable slopes, leading to widespread collapse. LICs also have limited emergency services, so rescue operations took longer and survival rates were lower. In Nepal, mountainous terrain made access difficult and most rural buildings were traditional stone which collapsed easily.
However, Japan (HIC, GNI $38,550) suffered 15,894 deaths despite being wealthy and well-prepared. This challenges the statement. Although Japan has strict building codes, earthquake-resistant structures and excellent early warning systems, the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in 2011 triggered a tsunami which caused most of the deaths. This shows that even HICs are vulnerable when secondary hazards occur, and that magnitude and location matter as much as development. The Fukushima nuclear disaster that followed also created long-term economic and social effects costing over $200 billion.
Chile demonstrates that middle-income countries can have very effective responses — only 525 deaths from an 8.8 earthquake shows excellent building standards and emergency planning. The government had learned from previous earthquakes and invested in preparedness.
Long-term effects also vary. Haiti still hasn't fully recovered over a decade later — 1.5 million were made homeless and many still live in temporary shelter. The cholera outbreak that followed killed thousands more. In contrast, Japan's strong economy meant reconstruction was faster, though some areas near Fukushima remain evacuated. This suggests wealth does affect recovery, supporting the statement for long-term impacts.
In conclusion, I agree that LICs generally suffer worse effects, especially for recovery, but the statement uses "always" which is too absolute. Other factors like population density (Japan), secondary hazards (tsunami), magnitude, building quality, and specific government responses also determine severity of effects. Development level is the most important factor but not the only one.
Mark: 9/9
Examiner commentary: This is an exemplary Level 3 response demonstrating thorough assessment across all three Assessment Objectives. AO1: Excellent use of specific named examples with accurate statistics and supporting detail (Haiti's building problems, Nepal's terrain, Japan's tsunami, Fukushima costs). AO2: Sophisticated use of Figure 6, making effective comparisons and noting that Chile (middle income) challenges simple HIC/LIC division. AO3: Thorough, balanced evaluation that considers multiple factors, challenges the "always" in the statement, and reaches a nuanced, evidence-based conclusion. Geographical terminology is used precisely throughout (secondary hazards, magnitude, building codes).
Grade 6 (solid pass) answer
I agree with this statement to some extent, but there are exceptions.
Looking at Figure 6, Haiti had 220,000 deaths which was much more than Japan's 15,894 deaths or Chile's 525 deaths. Nepal also had a lot of deaths (8,841). This shows that LICs like Haiti and Nepal suffered worse effects than HICs. This is because LICs have poor quality buildings that collapse easily in earthquakes. In Haiti, many buildings were not built properly and fell down, killing and injuring thousands of people. They also don't have as many emergency services like ambulances and rescue teams, so it took longer to help people.
However, Japan is a HIC and still had nearly 16,000 deaths, which shows that even rich countries can have bad effects. Japan had a very big earthquake (9.0 magnitude) which was bigger than the others in the table. It also caused a tsunami which killed most people and damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant. So even though Japan had good preparation and strong buildings, the earthquake was so big that lots of people died anyway.
LICs also have worse long-term effects. In Haiti, people are still living in temporary shelters years later because the country is too poor to rebuild properly. They had a disease outbreak (cholera) which killed more people. In HICs like Japan, they can afford to rebuild quicker.
Chile only had 525 deaths even though it had a magnitude 8.8 earthquake, which is quite big. This might be because Chile had learned from previous earthquakes and had better buildings, even though it's not as rich as Japan.
In conclusion, I think the effects are usually worse in LICs because they have poor buildings and not enough money for emergency services and rebuilding. But sometimes HICs can have bad effects too if the earthquake is very powerful or causes other hazards like tsunamis.
Mark: 6/9
Examiner commentary: This is a solid Level 2 response showing reasonable assessment. AO1: Good knowledge demonstrated with appropriate named examples, though Nepal lacks specific detail beyond death toll (2 marks). AO2: Reasonable use of Figure 6 with valid comparisons made, though Chile analysis is underdeveloped (2 marks). AO3: Some evaluation present with consideration of both supporting and challenging evidence, but conclusion is somewhat simplistic and doesn't fully weigh the factors or challenge "always" explicitly (2 marks). To reach Level 3, this answer needed more specific detail (dates, locations within countries, more statistics), more sophisticated analysis of Chile's position, and a more nuanced conclusion that directly addresses the "always" in the statement.
Grade 3 (near miss) answer
I agree with this statement because LICs are poorer and have worse effects.
Haiti had 220,000 deaths which is the most in the table. This is because Haiti is very poor and their buildings are not very good quality so they fall down easily in earthquakes. They also don't have enough doctors and hospitals to help injured people. Japan is a HIC and had less deaths (15,894) so this shows that HICs have less bad effects.
In LICs people don't know what to do in an earthquake because they haven't been taught about it in school. In HICs they have education about earthquakes so people know to get under tables and protect themselves. LICs also don't have the technology to predict earthquakes so they can't warn people.
Another reason is that LICs don't have enough money to rebuild after the earthquake. In Haiti many people lost their homes and are still homeless now. HICs have more money so they can rebuild faster and help people more quickly.
Nepal also had a lot of deaths (8,841) because it is also a LIC. The buildings there are old and not safe. Chile had less deaths because it is richer than Nepal and Haiti.
In conclusion, the effects of earthquakes are always worse in LICs because they are poor and don't have good buildings, education, or money to help people and rebuild. HICs have all of these things so less people die and they recover faster.
Mark: 3/9
Examiner commentary: This response sits at the top of Level 1. AO1: Basic knowledge shown with vague use of examples — Haiti and Nepal mentioned but only Haiti has any detail beyond deaths; no dates, locations, or specific evidence (1 mark). AO2: Uses Figure 6 in a basic way, noting death tolls but making errors (claims Japan had "less deaths" because it's a HIC, ignoring that Japan actually had more deaths than Nepal) and missing key patterns (1 mark). AO3: Descriptive rather than evaluative; accepts statement without meaningful challenge despite Japan data contradicting it; no consideration of factors beyond wealth; conclusion simply restates opening without evidence-based assessment (1 mark). Major misconceptions: assumes earthquakes can be predicted, incorrectly interprets Japan data, oversimplifies relationship between wealth and deaths. To improve: needed to engage with Japan anomaly, consider magnitude differences, question "always," use specific evidence, and recognize that factors beyond development affect impacts.
Question 7 — Sample Answers
Grade 9 (top of Higher) answer
I disagree that soft engineering is always more sustainable than hard engineering, as sustainability depends on context and timescale.
Soft engineering is clearly more environmentally sustainable. Figure 7's Option B creates 80 hectares of woodland and wetland storage areas which provide biodiversity benefits, wildlife habitats and improve water quality through natural filtration. Restoring natural meanders allows the river to function naturally, creating varied habitats. In contrast, Option A involves 3.5m concrete flood walls which have visual impacts, disrupt ecosystems and have a carbon footprint from concrete production. The Pickering scheme in North Yorkshire used soft engineering (tree planting, woody dams, wetland creation) which enhanced the environment while reducing flood risk, showing this approach can successfully work with nature rather than against it.
Economically, soft engineering often proves more sustainable long-term. Option B costs £12 million compared to Option A's £45 million — less than a third of the cost. Soft engineering also has lower maintenance costs as natural systems are self-sustaining once established. However, there are trade-offs: Option B only protects 800 properties compared to 1,200 for hard engineering, meaning 400 additional properties remain at risk. Given the 2015 floods caused £150 million damage, failing to protect these properties has economic consequences. Hard engineering can also be cost-effective when considering the value of protection — the Jubilee River (hard-engineered channel) protects Maidenhead and has prevented flooding costing hundreds of millions. Long-term, though, hard engineering requires expensive maintenance and eventual replacement.
Social sustainability is where hard engineering may be superior in urban contexts. Option A provides immediate protection (3 years) giving residents certainty and peace of mind. After the 2015 floods caused 2 deaths and flooded 600 homes, affected residents need rapid, reliable protection. Option B takes 10-15 years for full effectiveness, leaving people vulnerable for over a decade. Hard engineering's ability to protect 1,200 properties versus 800 is socially significant. However, hard defenses can create false security and if they fail, consequences are catastrophic (as seen in Carlisle 2005 when defenses were overtopped). Soft engineering provides more gradual protection but can enhance quality of life through improved landscapes and recreational opportunities.
The key issue is that hard engineering has fixed capacity while soft engineering adapts. Option A's flood walls can be overtopped if extreme events exceed design capacity, particularly as climate change increases rainfall intensity. Option B becomes more effective over time as trees mature and wetlands establish, and the natural systems adapt to changing conditions, making it more resilient long-term.
Context is crucial. In urban areas like the proposed scheme (protecting 1,200 properties suggests urban location), hard engineering may be necessary for immediate protection, even if less sustainable environmentally. In rural locations, soft engineering is more appropriate. The River Aire scheme in Yorkshire uses both approaches — hard defenses in Leeds city centre where space is limited, and soft engineering (washlands, wetland creation) in rural areas upstream. This hybrid approach is often most sustainable overall.
In conclusion, soft engineering is generally more sustainable environmentally and economically in the long term, and adapts better to climate change. However, the word "always" is incorrect — in densely populated urban areas requiring immediate protection, hard engineering may be more socially sustainable despite environmental and economic drawbacks. The most sustainable approach is often a combination tailored to specific locations.
Mark: 9/9
Examiner commentary: Outstanding Level 3 response demonstrating sophisticated evaluation across all Assessment Objectives. AO1: Thorough knowledge of both approaches with multiple specific named examples used effectively (Pickering, Jubilee River, Carlisle, River Aire), showing detailed understanding of sustainability dimensions (3 marks). AO2: Excellent use of Figure 7 throughout, making precise comparisons between options and extracting relevant data (cost differential, properties protected, timescales) to support analysis (3 marks). AO3: Exemplary evaluation that considers environmental, economic and social sustainability separately, weighs short vs long-term effectiveness, challenges "always," considers context, and reaches a sophisticated, evidence-based conclusion that hybrid approaches are often best (3 marks). Answer demonstrates maturity in recognizing that different stakeholders (residents, environmentalists, council) prioritize different aspects of sustainability.
Grade 6 (solid pass) answer
I think soft engineering is more sustainable than hard engineering in most ways, but not always.
Soft engineering is more sustainable for the environment. Option B in Figure 7 includes planting woodland and creating wetlands, which is good for wildlife and biodiversity. It also looks more natural and attractive than concrete walls. Option A uses concrete which has to be manufactured and this produces CO2 emissions, contributing to climate change. When soft engineering is used it works with natural processes instead of trying to control the river artificially. For example, restoring meanders lets the river flow naturally.
Soft engineering is also more sustainable economically because it costs less. Option B costs £12 million but Option A costs £45 million, which is much more expensive. Soft engineering also doesn't need as much maintenance because once the trees and wetlands are established, they look after themselves. Hard engineering like flood walls needs to be maintained and eventually replaced, which costs more money over time.
However, hard engineering protects more properties. Option A protects 1,200 properties but Option B only protects 800, so 400 homes are still at risk with soft engineering. This is a problem because people need to be protected from floods. The previous flood in 2015 caused £150 million damage and killed 2 people, so protecting people is important. Hard engineering also works immediately when it's finished (3 years) but soft engineering takes 10-15 years to be fully effective, which is a long time for people to wait.
One problem with hard engineering is that if the flood is bigger than expected, the walls can be overwhelmed and the flooding might be even worse. Soft engineering is more flexible because it can adapt if flood levels change, especially with climate change making floods worse.
A named example is the River