Mark Scheme

Section A — Structured Questions (36 marks)

Question 1

(a) 4°C [2]

Award:

• [2] for correct answer with working shown (e.g. 20 – 16 = 4)
• [1] for correct answer without working OR working shown but arithmetic error

(b) April [1]

Award [1] for April only.

(c) [3 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Two rainfall peaks / double maxima / bimodal pattern [1]
• Heavy rainfall in April (211mm) and November (109mm) / peak in April and secondary peak in November [1]
• Dry season in July-August / lowest rainfall in July (15mm) [1]
• Wetter from March to May / long rains in spring [1]
• Wetter in October-November / short rains in autumn [1]
• Drier in January-February and June-September [1]

Award up to [3] for any three distinct points with evidence from data.

(d) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• High altitude / located at 1795m (above sea level) [1]
• Temperature decreases with altitude / environmental lapse rate [1]
• Highland location reduces temperature [1]

Award [2] for both altitude stated AND explanation of effect. Award [1] for altitude identified OR effect of altitude on temperature.

Accept: "elevation" for altitude; "height above sea level" Reject: "it is in the mountains" without explanation; "it is near the equator"

Question 2

(a) 863178 [1]

Award [1] for correct six-figure grid reference. Reject: 8617 or 86317 or 863179

(b) 2.3 km (accept 2.2–2.4 km) [2]

Award:

• [2] for answer in range 2.2–2.4 km with working shown
• [1] for answer in range 2.2–2.4 km without working OR correct method with arithmetic error

Working should show: map distance measured (e.g. 4.6 cm) × 50,000 = real distance in cm ÷ 100,000 = km

(c) South / SE / South-east [1]

Award [1] for South, SE, or South-east. Accept: SSE Reject: East; SW

(d) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Deciduous woodland / natural environment for walking [1]
• Scenic valley landscape / attractive scenery [1]
• Footpaths / access for walking/hiking [1]
• Rural/peaceful area away from main roads [1]
• River provides scenic feature [1]

Award [1] for each valid reason with map evidence, up to [2].

Accept: specific grid references to support answer Reject: vague answers without map evidence (e.g. "nice views")

(e) [3 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Rising ground / uphill from west to east [1]
• Valley / lower land in the western part (860160) [1]
• Higher ground / hilltop in eastern part (870170) [1]
• Height increases from approximately 100m to 150m [1]
• Steep-sided valley / closely spaced contours [1]
• Change in height of 50m over 1km [1]

Award up to [3] for description with specific evidence.

Accept: "gradient" instead of "steep"; specific heights from contours Reject: "hilly" or "uneven" without supporting detail

Question 3

(a) B [1]

Award [1] for B only.

(b) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Low birth rate / narrow base / small percentage in 0-4 age group (4% male, 3.5% female) [1]
• High life expectancy / large elderly population / high percentage aged 65+ (10% male, 12% female) [1]
• Small percentage of young dependents [1]
• Population pyramid shape shows aging population typical of MEDCs [1]

Award [1] for each valid piece of evidence from the pyramid, up to [2].

Accept: figures quoted from pyramid; "fewer children" Reject: statements without evidence from Fig. 3.1

(c) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Pressure on healthcare services / elderly care / care homes needed [1]
• Increasing cost of pensions / state pension burden [1]
• Labour shortages / smaller working population [1]
• Need for increased immigration / migrant workers [1]
• Inter-generational tension / conflict over resources [1]
• Loneliness / isolation of elderly people [1]

Award [1] for each valid social problem, up to [2].

Accept: specific examples of services under pressure Reject: economic problems unless they have clear social dimension

(d) [3 marks available]

Creditable points:

• High birth rate creates large numbers of children [1]
• Leading to wide base of population pyramid [1]
• Cultural/religious reasons for high birth rate (e.g. desire for large families) [1]
• Lack of family planning / limited access to contraception [1]
• High infant mortality encourages more births [1]
• Children provide economic benefits / labour / old-age security [1]
• Each birth cohort is larger than previous generation [1]

Award up to [3] for explanation linking high birth rates to pyramid shape.

Level 3 (3 marks): Clear explanation with developed chain of reasoning Level 2 (2 marks): Sound explanation but less developed Level 1 (1 mark): Basic statement with limited explanation

Question 4

(a) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Positive correlation / positive relationship [1]
• As GDP per capita increases, energy consumption per capita increases [1]
• Strong/close relationship [1]
• Generally linear relationship [1]

Award [2] for description of relationship with qualification (e.g. positive and strong). Award [1] for basic identification of positive relationship.

Accept: "proportional"; "the richer the country, the more energy used" Reject: "all rich countries use more energy" (too absolute)

(b) [2 marks available]

Country: Award [1] for identification of anomaly (accept any labeled point that deviates significantly from line of best fit, OR any country mentioned if candidate explains why it is anomalous).

Possible answers: Accept well-reasoned identification of any anomaly.

Reason: Award [1] for plausible explanation, such as:

• Different energy sources / high proportion of renewable energy [1]
• Different climate affecting energy needs [1]
• Different economic structure (e.g. less industrial, more service-based) [1]
• Energy efficiency / conservation measures [1]

Accept: specific country contexts if accurately applied Reject: reasons that don't explain why country doesn't fit pattern

(c) 3,200–3,800 kg oil equivalent (accept range) [2]

Award:

• [2] for answer in range 3,200–3,800 with reference to line of best fit
• [1] for attempt to use line of best fit OR answer within wider range 3,000–4,000

Accept: reading from graph; interpolation shown Reject: answers outside range without justification

Question 5

(a) [2 marks available]

Creditable points from Fig. 5.1:

• Water is flowing rapidly / fast-flowing [1]
• Water is approximately 30cm deep on road [1]
• Water is brown/murky/dirty [1]
• Water contains debris / litter / plastic bottles [1]
• Water has reached 40cm up building walls [1]
• Drains are overflowing [1]

Award [1] for each feature with evidence from photograph, up to [2].

Accept: observations directly visible in photo Reject: causes or effects (e.g. "causing damage") rather than features

(b) [4 marks available]

Creditable points:

• Impermeable surfaces / concrete / tarmac / paving [1]
• Prevents infiltration / water cannot soak into ground [1]
• Increases surface runoff / water flows quickly over surfaces [1]
• Drains become overwhelmed / drainage systems cannot cope [1]
• Lack of vegetation / trees to intercept rainfall [1]
• Buildings / roofs channel water rapidly to ground [1]
• Urban areas have channelized rivers / cannot cope with high discharge [1]
• Comparison: rural areas have more vegetation / permeable surfaces / soil to absorb water [1]

Award up to [4] marks:

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Clear explanation with developed reasoning showing how urban features lead to flooding Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic statements about urban features or flooding with limited connection

Accept: specific processes (e.g. "interception", "percolation") Reject: "there are more drains" (incorrect reasoning)

Section B — Extended Response (24 marks)

Question 6

(a) 360% [2]

Working: (69 – 15) ÷ 15 × 100 = 54 ÷ 15 × 100 = 360%

Award:

• [2] for 360% with working shown
• [1] for 360% without working OR correct method with arithmetic error

Accept: 3.6 times increase if converted correctly Reject: 54% or 54 (showing increase but not percentage calculation)

(b) [2 marks available]

Creditable points:

• COVID-19 pandemic / coronavirus [1]
• Travel restrictions / lockdowns / border closures [1]
• Fear of disease / health concerns [1]
• Economic recession / reduced disposable income [1]
• Airlines reduced routes / flight cancellations [1]

Award [1] for each valid reason, up to [2].

Accept: specific country/region examples Reject: reasons not applicable to 2019-2022 period

(c) [8 marks available]

Level 4 (7-8 marks):

• Comprehensive assessment considering both positive and negative impacts
• Uses evidence from both Fig. 6.1 and Fig. 6.2 effectively
• Considers both economic and social impacts as required
• Reaches a balanced, justified conclusion about extent of positive impacts
• Uses appropriate geographical terminology throughout
• Well-structured argument with clear linkage between points

Level 3 (5-6 marks):

• Sound assessment considering positive and negative impacts
• Uses evidence from resources
• Considers economic and social impacts but may be unbalanced
• Attempts conclusion but may lack full justification
• Generally appropriate terminology
• Structured response but may lack sophistication

Level 2 (3-4 marks):

• Basic assessment, may focus predominantly on one side
• Limited use of evidence from resources
• May focus on economic OR social impacts only
• Limited or no conclusion
• Some geographical terminology
• List-like structure or limited development

Level 1 (1-2 marks):

• Simple statements about tourism impacts
• Minimal or no use of evidence
• Does not distinguish between economic and social impacts
• No conclusion
• Limited geographical terminology
• Poorly structured

[0 marks]: No creditable content

Indicative content:

Positive economic impacts:

• Creates employment in hotels, restaurants, transport
• Foreign exchange earnings
• Multiplier effect benefits local economy
• Infrastructure development (airports, roads) benefits residents
• Growth shown in Fig. 6.1 (e.g., Asia-Pacific from 56m to 360m) shows economic importance

Negative economic impacts:

• Seasonal unemployment
• Leakage of profits to foreign companies
• Overdependence on tourism makes economy vulnerable
• 2019-2022 decline shows vulnerability

Positive social impacts:

• Cultural exchange / understanding between tourists and locals
• Preservation of cultural sites and traditions (economic incentive)
• Improved services (healthcare, education) from tourism revenue

Negative social impacts:

• Loss of cultural identity (Fig. 6.2)
• Social tension between tourists and residents
• Displacement of local communities
• Butler model shows destinations can reach stagnation/decline

Environmental impacts (may be credited if linked to economic/social):

• Environmental degradation (Fig. 6.2) affects quality of life (social)
• Sustainable tourism needed to protect resources for future economic benefit

Conclusion should assess extent:

• "largely positive" OR "mixed" OR "increasingly negative"
• Must be justified by evidence presented

Question 7

(a) [3 marks available]

Level 2 (3 marks):

• Clear comparison with quantified evidence from Fig. 7.1
• Identifies both similarities and differences
• Uses data accurately

Level 1 (1-2 marks):

• Basic comparison with limited use of data
• May describe rather than compare
• May contain inaccuracies

Indicative content (must compare, not just describe):

Similarities:

• Both have residential as largest land use (42% vs 58%)
• Industrial land use similar (12% vs 9%)

Differences:

• City Y has much higher residential percentage (58% vs 42%)
• City X has more transport infrastructure (18% vs 6%)
• City X has more green space (15% vs 4%)
• City Y has informal settlements (15%) while City X has none (0%)
• City X has higher commercial/retail (8% vs 5%)

Must make comparisons (use "whereas", "while", "compared to") not separate descriptions.

Accept: calculations of differences; "more than double" Reject: statements about one city without comparison

(b) [9 marks available]

Level 4 (8-9 marks):

• Thorough discussion addressing both sides of statement
• Effectively uses evidence from Fig. 7.1 and Fig. 7.2
• Considers consequences of each priority
• Makes developed arguments with clear reasoning
• Reaches a justified, evidence-based conclusion
• Sophisticated use of geographical terminology
• Very well structured and coherent

Level 3 (6-7 marks):

• Good discussion addressing both sides
• Uses evidence from resources appropriately
• Considers some consequences of priorities
• Developed arguments with sound reasoning
• Attempts justified conclusion
• Good use of geographical terminology
• Well structured

Level 2 (3-5 marks):

• Adequate discussion but may be one-sided or unbalanced
• Some use of evidence but may be limited
• Limited consideration of consequences
• Some reasoning but may be underdeveloped
• Weak or missing conclusion
• Some geographical terminology
• Basic structure

Level 1 (1-2 marks):

• Simple statements about housing or transport
• Minimal use of evidence
• Very limited reasoning
• No real conclusion
• Limited terminology
• Poor structure

[0 marks]: No creditable content

Indicative content:

Arguments for prioritising housing:

From Fig. 7.1:

• 15% living in informal settlements (City Y) – urgent humanitarian need
• High residential land use (58%) shows existing pressure

From Fig. 7.2:

• 30-60% in informal settlements lack adequate water, sanitation, electricity
• Rapid urbanisation (3%+ growth) creates housing crisis
• Basic human need / right to shelter

Consequences:

• Improved health and wellbeing
• Social stability
• Dignity for residents
• May reduce crime associated with slum areas

Arguments for prioritising transport:

From Fig. 7.1:

• City Y has only 6% transport infrastructure vs City X's 18%
• Three times less transport provision than MEDC city

From Fig. 7.2:

• Traffic congestion is critical challenge
• Air pollution from traffic affects health
• Infrastructure needed for economic development
• Population growth requires transport to function

Consequences:

• Economic growth enables future housing investment
• Access to employment
• Reduced pollution improves health
• Connects informal settlements to services

Synthesis points:

• Both are interdependent (housing needs transport access; transport needs destinations)
• Integrated planning needed
• Sequencing may matter (which first?)
• Resource constraints mean prioritisation necessary

Possible conclusions (any justified conclusion acceptable):

• Housing should be prioritised because it addresses immediate humanitarian crisis
• Transport should be prioritised because economic growth funds housing
• False choice – integrated approach needed
• Depends on specific context of city

Conclusion must be justified by arguments presented.

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 6(c) — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

The development of international tourism has had significant positive impacts on receiving countries, but these must be balanced against negative consequences, and the overall effect varies by stage of development.

Economically, tourism has brought substantial benefits. Figure 6.1 shows massive growth in tourist arrivals to Africa (from 15 million in 1990 to 69 million in 2019), which represents increased foreign exchange earnings for these countries. Tourism creates direct employment in hotels, restaurants and transport, as well as indirect employment through the multiplier effect as tourism income circulates through the economy. Figure 6.2 notes that Southeast Asian destinations are experiencing "rapid development, with new airports, hotels, and attractions being built," demonstrating how tourism stimulates infrastructure investment that can benefit local residents beyond just serving tourists.

However, the economic impacts are not entirely positive. Figure 6.2 highlights that rapid growth brings "seasonal unemployment," meaning workers may only have jobs during peak tourist seasons. Additionally, in many destinations, profits leak out to foreign-owned hotel chains and tour operators, reducing the benefit to the local economy. The dramatic decrease in arrivals between 2019 and 2022 shown in Figure 6.1 (Europe dropped from 744 to 594 million) demonstrates how overdependence on tourism makes economies vulnerable to external shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Socially, tourism can facilitate cultural exchange and understanding between visitors and hosts, which is a positive impact. Tourism can also provide economic incentives to preserve cultural heritage sites and traditions. However, Figure 6.2 explicitly states that rapid tourism growth leads to "loss of cultural identity," suggesting that the commercialization of culture for tourist consumption can damage authentic traditions. The Butler model referenced in Figure 6.2 shows that destinations can reach "stagnation or decline phase" with "aging infrastructure," indicating that initial positive impacts may diminish over time as destinations become over-developed and less attractive.

Environmental degradation mentioned in Figure 6.2 also has social consequences, as it reduces the quality of life for local residents who must live with pollution, overcrowding, and damaged ecosystems. This is particularly problematic in fragile environments that attract tourists precisely because of their natural beauty.

Figure 6.2 mentions that "sustainable tourism strategies attempt to balance economic benefits with environmental and social costs," acknowledging that unmanaged tourism growth is problematic. The extent of positive impacts therefore depends on whether receiving countries implement effective planning and management.

In conclusion, while international tourism has brought important economic benefits, particularly foreign exchange and employment for developing regions shown in Figure 6.1's growth data, the positive impacts are significantly qualified by negative economic (seasonal unemployment, vulnerability), social (cultural loss), and environmental consequences. The overall impact is mixed rather than overwhelmingly positive, and receiving countries must manage tourism carefully to maximize benefits and minimize costs. The answer to "what extent" is therefore "to a moderate extent" – positive impacts exist but are substantially undermined by negative consequences.

Mark: 8/8

Examiner commentary: This is an exemplary response that secures all 8 marks by meeting every Level 4 criterion. The answer comprehensively addresses both positive and negative impacts, effectively uses evidence from both figures throughout (with specific data quoted), considers both economic and social dimensions as required, and reaches a balanced, nuanced conclusion that directly addresses "to what extent." The response demonstrates sophisticated understanding through references to concepts like the multiplier effect and profit leakage, uses the Butler model appropriately, and maintains a clear evaluative structure throughout. The conclusion explicitly answers the assessment question with qualification ("to a moderate extent") and justification.

Grade C (pass) answer

Tourism has positive impacts on receiving countries but also some negative impacts.

The main positive economic impact is that tourism creates jobs. Figure 6.1 shows that tourist arrivals have increased in all regions between 1990 and 2019, so this means more jobs have been created. For example, Asia and the Pacific went from 56 million to 360 million tourists, so lots more hotels and restaurants are needed, creating employment. Tourism also brings money into the country from foreign tourists spending money.

Another positive impact is that tourism leads to better infrastructure. Figure 6.2 says that Southeast Asian destinations have "new airports, hotels, and attractions being built." This infrastructure can also help local people, not just tourists.

However, there are negative impacts too. Figure 6.2 mentions "seasonal unemployment," which means people only have jobs for part of the year when tourists visit. This is a problem because they don't have steady income. Also, tourism can cause environmental degradation according to Figure 6.2, which damages the environment.

Socially, there can be loss of cultural identity as mentioned in Figure 6.2. This means local culture gets changed or lost because of tourism, which is negative. But tourism can also help people learn about other cultures, which is positive.

The Butler model in Figure 6.2 shows that destinations can decline, with aging infrastructure and competition from other places. This shows that the positive impacts might not last forever.

In conclusion, tourism has both positive and negative impacts. The positive impacts include jobs and infrastructure, while negative impacts include environmental damage and cultural loss. Overall I think the impacts are quite positive because of the economic benefits, but countries need to be careful.

Mark: 5/8

Examiner commentary: This response achieves a mid-Level 2 mark. It addresses both sides of the argument and uses some evidence from the resources, but lacks the development and sophistication required for higher levels. Strengths include: identifies relevant points from both figures, attempts to consider economic and social impacts, and reaches a conclusion. However, weaknesses prevent higher marks: the analysis is relatively superficial (e.g., "tourism creates jobs" without explaining multiplier effects or profit leakage), the use of evidence is sometimes illustrative rather than evaluative, the discussion of "extent" is weak (doesn't really assess how positive the impacts are), and some points are asserted rather than developed (e.g., cultural exchange mentioned but not explained). The conclusion restates points rather than synthesizing them into a clear assessment of extent. To reach Level 3, this answer needed more developed chains of reasoning and better use of evidence to evaluate rather than just describe impacts.

Grade E (near miss) answer

Tourism is good for countries because it brings money and jobs.

Figure 6.1 shows that tourism has increased a lot. Europe had 265 million tourists in 1990 but 744 million in 2019. This is good because tourists spend money in the country on hotels and food and souvenirs. This helps the economy.

Tourism creates jobs for local people in hotels and as tour guides. This means people can earn money to support their families. Figure 6.2 says new airports and hotels are being built, which also creates construction jobs.

Tourism helps countries develop their infrastructure like roads and airports. This is a positive impact because it improves the country.

However, there are some negative impacts. Figure 6.2 mentions environmental degradation, which means the environment is damaged. Also, there was a decrease in tourism between 2019 and 2022 in Figure 6.1, which shows that tourism can go down as well as up.

The Butler model shows that tourist areas go through stages and can decline. Mediterranean resorts have "aging infrastructure" according to Figure 6.2.

In conclusion, tourism has positive impacts because it brings economic benefits like jobs and money. There are some negative impacts like environmental damage, but overall tourism is beneficial for receiving countries.

Mark: 3/8

Examiner commentary: This answer achieves low Level 2, demonstrating a common Grade E profile: basic relevant content but insufficient development and limited evaluation. The response shows fundamental understanding (tourism creates jobs and brings money) and attempts to use the figures, but falls short in several ways. Key weaknesses: treats the question as "describe impacts" rather than "assess the extent"; makes assertions without explaining mechanisms (doesn't explain how tourist spending helps the economy or why infrastructure development is positive); uses Figure 6.1 data but only descriptively, not evaluatively; mentions both economic and social impacts but doesn't distinguish between them or develop the social dimension; conclusion doesn't really address "to what extent" – simply asserts tourism is "beneficial" without qualifying this judgment or acknowledging the complexity shown in the sources. The answer also shows the common misconception that identifying any negative impacts is sufficient for balance, without actually weighing the positives against the negatives. To improve to Grade C, this candidate needed to: develop points with explanation (e.g., multiplier effect, profit leakage), explicitly evaluate extent rather than just list impacts, use evidence more purposefully to support assessment, and reach a qualified conclusion that genuinely addresses "to what extent."

Question 7(b) — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

While both housing and transport infrastructure are essential for functioning cities, the most effective approach for urban planning in LEDCs is an integrated strategy rather than a simple prioritisation of one over the other, though the humanitarian urgency of the housing crisis means this may need immediate attention.

The case for prioritising housing is compelling. Figure 7.1 shows that 15% of City Y's land use consists of informal/squatter settlements, which Figure 7.2 indicates house 30-60% of the population in many LEDC cities. These settlements lack "adequate water supply, sanitation, and electricity," creating severe health risks and denying basic human dignity to millions of people. With rapid urbanisation producing population growth rates "often exceeding 3% per year," the housing crisis is worsening, and failure to address this creates social instability and public health emergencies. From a humanitarian perspective, shelter is a fundamental human need and right, making housing the most urgent priority. Furthermore, improved formal housing with proper services would reduce disease transmission, improve educational outcomes (children have space to study), and enhance social cohesion, creating positive multiplier effects throughout society.

However, prioritising transport infrastructure has strong justifications. Figure 7.1 reveals that City Y has only 6% of land devoted to transport infrastructure compared to City X's 18% – effectively one-third of the provision in a developed city. This deficiency directly contributes to the "critical challenges" of "traffic congestion" and "air pollution" identified in Figure 7.2. Inadequate transport infrastructure constrains economic development by limiting labor mobility (workers cannot reach jobs), restricting movement of goods, and deterring investment. Without economic growth, the government cannot generate tax revenue to fund housing programs, creating a vicious cycle of poverty. Air pollution from congested traffic also causes respiratory disease, so transport improvements have significant public health benefits. Moreover, transport infrastructure enables access to services like healthcare and education, and can connect informal settlements to employment opportunities, making it foundational for addressing other urban problems including housing.

The interdependence of these priorities is crucial. Housing developments without transport access become isolated "bedroom communities" where residents cannot reach employment, defeating the purpose of providing homes. Conversely, transport infrastructure without housing merely moves people through areas where they cannot afford to live. Figure 7.2 notes that planning in MEDC cities focuses on "urban regeneration" and "sustainable transport," suggesting an integrated approach rather than stark either/or choices.

However, resource constraints in LEDCs mean that genuine prioritisation decisions must be made. The statement reflects this reality. Given that constraint, housing deserves priority for three reasons. First, informal settlements represent an immediate humanitarian crisis affecting up to 60% of urban populations, while poor transport infrastructure, though problematic, does not threaten basic survival. Second, housing improvements can be achieved incrementally through site-and-service schemes that provide basic infrastructure to existing informal areas, requiring less capital investment than comprehensive transport systems. Third, the rapid urbanisation rate (3%+ annually) means that delaying housing investment will exponentially worsen the crisis, as each year adds more slum dwellers.

That said, this is not an absolute prioritisation. Some transport investment must occur simultaneously, particularly connecting new or upgraded housing areas to employment centers and services. The reference to "sustainable transport" in Figure 7.2 suggests that MEDC experience shows that planning must be holistic. Additionally, different cities may face different contexts – a city with relatively manageable housing but gridlocked transport might reasonably prioritise differently.

In conclusion, I largely agree with the statement that urban planning in LEDCs should prioritise housing over transport infrastructure, primarily because the humanitarian crisis of informal settlements housing up to 60% of the population (Figure 7.2) demands immediate attention, and because the 3%+ annual population growth makes delay catastrophic. However, this is a qualified agreement: "prioritise" should mean greater resource allocation and urgency, not exclusive focus, as some transport investment is essential to make housing functional. The most effective approach integrates both, but within resource constraints, housing addresses the most urgent human needs and therefore deserves priority in planning and budget allocation.

Mark: 9/9

Examiner commentary: This outstanding response achieves full marks by demonstrating all Level 4 characteristics. The answer thoroughly discusses both sides of the statement, uses evidence from both figures effectively and precisely throughout (specific data quoted and applied), considers multiple dimensions (humanitarian, economic, social, health), and develops sophisticated chains of reasoning (e.g., the interdependence argument, the economic growth→taxation→housing funding sequence). The response shows excellent geographical understanding through references to concepts like site-and-service schemes, labor mobility, multiplier effects, and integrated planning. Particularly strong is the explicit engagement with the word "prioritise" – acknowledging resource constraints while distinguishing priority from exclusivity. The conclusion directly answers the discussion question with clear qualification ("largely agree" with justification), demonstrates synthesis of the arguments presented, and shows mature judgment by acknowledging context-dependency. The structure is very clear with each paragraph developing a distinct aspect of the argument.

Grade C (pass) answer

Urban planning in LEDCs faces difficult choices between housing and transport infrastructure. Both are important but I think housing should be the priority.

Housing should be prioritised because Figure 7.1 shows that 15% of land in City Y is informal/squatter settlements. Figure 7.2 says that 30-60% of the population lives in these settlements without adequate water supply, sanitation, and electricity. This is a serious problem because it affects people's health and quality of life. People have a right to proper housing, so this should be the main priority for urban planners. If the government provides better housing, it will improve living conditions for a large proportion of the population.

Also, Figure 7.2 states that population growth rates exceed 3% per year, which means the housing problem is getting worse. If urban planners don't prioritise housing now, the problem will become even bigger in the future with more people living in slums.

However, transport infrastructure is also important. Figure 7.1 shows City Y only has 6% transport infrastructure compared to City X with 18%. This means there is not enough roads and public transport. Figure 7.2 mentions that traffic congestion and air pollution are critical challenges in LEDC cities. Poor transport infrastructure makes it hard for people to get to work and causes pollution which is bad for health. Transport infrastructure is also important for economic development because businesses need good transport to operate effectively.

Despite the importance of transport, I think housing should still be the priority because it is a basic human need. The situation in informal settlements is very poor with no proper services, so this affects more people directly than transport problems. Transport problems are serious but people can still manage even if transport is poor, whereas living without water and sanitation is a more serious problem.

However, urban planners should not completely ignore transport. They should focus mainly on housing but also do some transport improvements. Figure 7.2 mentions that MEDC cities focus on "sustainable transport" and other planning issues, which shows that cities need to consider different aspects of planning.

In conclusion, I agree with the statement that urban planning in LEDCs should prioritise housing over transport infrastructure. The evidence from Figure 7.1 and 7.2 shows that the housing crisis is very serious with many people living in poor conditions, and this needs to be addressed first. Transport is important but housing affects basic human needs more directly, so it should be the priority.

Mark: 6/9

Examiner commentary: This response achieves a solid Level 3 mark, demonstrating the characteristics of a competent Grade C answer. Strengths include: addresses both sides of the statement, uses evidence from both figures appropriately, makes relevant points linking to the question, attempts to reach a justified conclusion, and shows generally sound understanding. However, several features prevent this reaching Level 4. The discussion, while balanced, lacks sophistication – points are made but not fully developed (e.g., states housing affects health but doesn't explain mechanisms; mentions economic development needs transport but doesn't develop how this creates resources for housing). The use of evidence is competent but somewhat mechanical (evidence is cited to support points rather than being woven into analysis). The answer doesn't fully explore the complexity of "prioritise" – treating it as an either/or choice rather than considering resource allocation, sequencing, or integration. Some assertions need more support (e.g., "people can still manage even if transport is poor" is debatable and unsupported). The conclusion restates the position clearly but doesn't synthesize the arguments or acknowledge the qualified nature of prioritisation discussed earlier. To reach Level 4, this candidate needed to develop chains of reasoning more fully, engage more critically with the complexity of prioritisation, and demonstrate more sophisticated synthesis in the conclusion.

Grade E (near miss) answer

I think housing should be prioritised over transport infrastructure in LEDCs.

The main reason is that many people in LEDC cities live in slums. Figure 7.1 shows that 15% of City Y is informal settlements. These are very poor quality houses without proper services. This is bad for people's health and living conditions. The government should build proper houses for these people because everyone deserves a decent place to live.

Figure 7.2 says the population is growing at 3% per year, so more housing is needed. If the government doesn't build houses, more slums will develop and the problem will get worse.

Transport infrastructure is needed too because Figure 7.1 shows City Y only has 6% for transport compared to 18% in City X. Traffic congestion is a problem in Figure 7.2. But housing is more important because it is a basic need.

In MEDC cities, Figure 7.2 says planning focuses on urban regeneration and sustainable transport. This shows that transport is important in developed cities. But LEDCs are different because they have bigger problems with housing.

Also, if people have better housing they will be healthier and happier. They can live better lives. Transport problems are annoying but bad housing is worse because it affects your everyday life all the time.

Another point is that City Y already has more residential land use than City X (58% compared to 42% in Figure 7.1), so there is already a lot of housing, but some of it is poor quality. This shows that improving housing quality should be the focus.

In conclusion, urban planning in LEDCs should prioritise housing over transport because housing is a basic human need and many people live in poor conditions. Transport is also needed but housing is more important and urgent.

Mark: 4/9

Examiner commentary: This answer achieves Level 2, characteristic of a Grade E (near-miss) response. It shows basic understanding and attempts to use the figures, but lacks the development and critical engagement required for higher levels. Key issues include: predominantly one-sided discussion (the transport paragraph is very brief and not genuinely developed), limited development of points (states housing is important but doesn't explain impacts or consider opportunity costs), uncritical assertions ("everyone deserves a decent place to live" is a value statement without geographical analysis), superficial use of evidence (quotes data but doesn't analyze implications), and a significant misconception in paragraph 6 (interprets 58% residential as meaning housing is already adequate, missing that this includes the 15% informal settlements – showing misunderstanding of the data). The answer doesn't really engage with what "prioritise" means in resource-constrained contexts, treating the question as simply "which is more important?" The conclusion is present but merely restates the introduction without synthesis. Common Grade E issues evident here include: treating discussion questions as "give your opinion" rather than "evaluate using evidence," making assertions without developed support, and missing the complexity embedded in the question. To reach Grade C, this candidate needed to: develop both sides of the argument more fully, explain why and how (not just that) housing/transport matter, engage with the complexities and trade-offs involved in prioritisation, and interpret data more carefully to avoid misconceptions.