Mark Scheme

Section A — Structured Questions

1. (a) (up to 2) Discharge = the volume of water flowing past a point in a river in a given time (usually measured in cumecs, cubic metres per second). [2] (b) (up to 4) A waterfall forms where a band of hard rock lies over softer rock; the softer rock is eroded faster, undercutting the hard rock; this creates a step and an overhang; the overhang eventually collapses, and the process repeats, causing the waterfall to retreat upstream (leaving a gorge). [4] (c) (up to 4) Traction — large/heavy material is rolled along the river bed by the force of the water; suspension — small, light particles are carried within the water, making it look cloudy. Process + how it moves material, each. [4]

2. (a) (up to 2) A natural hazard = a natural event or process that threatens people, property or the environment (e.g. an earthquake, flood or volcanic eruption). [2] (b) (up to 4) At plate boundaries, tectonic plates move relative to each other (towards, apart, or sliding past); friction causes them to lock and build up pressure/stress; when the pressure is suddenly released, the plates jerk and the energy travels as seismic waves, causing an earthquake. [4] (c) (up to 4) Reasons for the difference, using the data (90,000 vs 150 deaths; 60% vs 5% buildings destroyed): the low-income country has weaker/poorly-built buildings that collapse more easily; less money for preparation, warning systems and emergency services; poorer healthcare and rescue afterwards; the high-income country can afford earthquake-resistant buildings, planning and rapid response. Reference to data required. [4]

3. (a) (up to 2) An ecosystem = a community of living organisms (plants and animals) interacting with each other and with their non-living (physical) environment. [2] (b) (up to 4) Two adaptations: plants have drip-tip leaves to shed heavy rain; buttress roots to support tall trees in thin soil; lianas/climbing plants to reach the light; animals adapted to climb/camouflage in the canopy. 1 + 1 development each. [4] (c) (up to 6) Two effects developed: locally — soil erosion and loss of nutrients once trees are removed; loss of habitat and biodiversity; disruption to the water cycle; globally — trees no longer absorb carbon dioxide, and burning them releases CO₂, adding to the greenhouse effect / climate change. 3 marks per effect (statement + explanation + consequence), covering local and global. [6]

4. (a) (up to 2) Weather = the day-to-day state of the atmosphere (temperature, rain, wind) at a place; climate = the average weather conditions over a long period (usually 30+ years). [2] (b) (up to 4) Two natural factors: latitude/distance from the equator (affects how much solar energy is received); altitude (higher = cooler); distance from the sea (coasts are milder); ocean currents; volcanic activity. 1 + 1 development each. [4] (c) (up to 6) Two human causes: burning fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide; deforestation reducing CO₂ absorption; farming/livestock releasing methane (up to 4). One consequence: rising sea levels / flooding; more extreme weather; changing rainfall affecting food production; loss of habitats (up to 2). [6]

Section B — Extended Response

5. (16 marks) Levels-marked discussion referring to human and physical factors and management.

• Why impacts may be increasing: rising population and urbanisation put more people and property in hazard-prone areas; building on floodplains/coasts; possibly more frequent/intense events due to climate change; poverty increasing vulnerability.
• Physical factors: the magnitude/type of the event, geology, proximity to boundaries or rivers.
• Managing/reducing effects: prediction and monitoring; warning systems; hazard-resistant building and planning; education and preparation (drills); flood defences; aid and emergency planning.
• Level 4 (13–16): developed, balanced discussion covering human and physical factors and management, with a supported conclusion; Level 3 (9–12): several points with some development; Level 2 (5–8): limited/one-sided; Level 1 (1–4): basic. Examples strengthen the answer.

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 2(c) — Sample Answers

Grade A response. "Even though the two earthquakes were a similar magnitude, their effects were very different because of the different wealth of the two countries. In the low-income country (Earthquake X), 90,000 people died and 60% of buildings were destroyed. This is because a poorer country has less money to spend on earthquake-resistant buildings, so buildings are often weaker and collapse easily, killing more people. There is also less money for warning systems, emergency services and hospitals, so more people die afterwards from injuries. In the high-income country (Earthquake Y), only 150 died and 5% of buildings were destroyed, because it could afford strong, earthquake-resistant buildings, good planning and a fast, well-equipped emergency response."

Mark: 4/4. Examiner commentary: A full-mark answer that uses the data from the table (the death tolls and the percentage of buildings destroyed) and, crucially, explains the difference rather than just describing it. The candidate links the low-income country's higher deaths to weaker buildings, less money for preparation, and poorer emergency care, and contrasts this with the high-income country's resistant buildings and rapid response. Referring explicitly to the figures and giving reasons on both sides is exactly what the question rewards.

Grade C response. "The low-income country had many more deaths and more buildings destroyed than the high-income country. This is because the high-income country is richer and better prepared."

Mark: 2/4. Examiner commentary: The candidate uses the general pattern from the data and gives a correct basic reason — that the richer country is better prepared — earning two marks. However, the explanation is undeveloped. Why does being richer reduce the impact? The answer needs specific reasons, such as being able to afford earthquake-resistant buildings, warning systems, and a well-funded emergency response, while the poorer country has weaker buildings and fewer resources. Quoting the actual figures from the table and developing the reasons would gain full marks.

Question 3(c) — Sample Answers

Grade A response. "One harmful effect of deforestation is local: once the trees are cut down, there is nothing to protect the soil, so heavy tropical rain washes it away (soil erosion) and the nutrients are lost, leaving the land infertile and hard to farm. It also destroys the habitats of countless species, reducing biodiversity. A second effect is global: rainforests act as a huge store of carbon and absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. When they are cut down and burned, this stored carbon is released as carbon dioxide, and fewer trees remain to absorb it, which increases the greenhouse effect and contributes to global climate change."

Mark: 6/6. Examiner commentary: Both effects are fully developed to the three-mark standard, and — as the question requires — one is local (soil erosion, loss of habitat) and the other global (carbon release and climate change). Each is explained through a clear chain: trees removed → soil unprotected → erosion and lost nutrients; and trees burned → stored carbon released → enhanced greenhouse effect. Distinguishing the local and global scales and developing the consequences of each is exactly what secures full marks on this type of question.

Question 5 — Sample Answers

Level 4 response (14/16). "The impact of natural hazards such as earthquakes and floods may be increasing for several reasons, involving both human and physical factors.

One key human factor is population growth and urbanisation. As the world's population rises, more people live in hazard-prone areas — on floodplains, along coasts, or near plate boundaries — often because land is cheap or work is available in cities. This means that when a hazard strikes, far more people and buildings are exposed to it, so the potential for damage is greater. In poorer countries, poverty makes this worse: people cannot afford well-built, hazard-resistant homes, so the same event causes more deaths and destruction.

Physical factors also matter. The magnitude and type of the event, and how close people are to a plate boundary or a large river, all affect the damage. Some scientists argue that climate change is making some hazards, such as floods and storms, more frequent or intense, which would increase their impact.

However, the effects of hazards can be reduced through management. Prediction and monitoring, along with early-warning systems, can give people time to evacuate before floods or storms. Buildings can be designed to resist earthquakes, and flood defences such as levees and barriers can protect towns. Education and regular drills prepare people to respond, and planning restricts building in the most dangerous areas.

In conclusion, the impact of natural hazards does seem to be increasing, mainly because more people are living in vulnerable places, but this is not inevitable: good prediction, planning and preparation can greatly reduce the damage, which is why richer, better-prepared countries often suffer far fewer deaths than poorer ones from events of the same size."

Mark: 14/16. Examiner commentary: A Level 4 answer that does exactly what the question asks — it covers both human factors (population growth, urbanisation, poverty) and physical factors (magnitude, proximity, climate change) as reasons the impact may be rising, and then discusses a genuine range of management strategies (prediction, warning, resistant building, defences, education, planning). The conclusion is balanced and justified, making the strong point that increasing impact is not inevitable and linking back to why wealth affects outcomes. To reach full marks it could have named a specific real hazard example, but the coverage and reasoning are thorough throughout.