A Level H1 Geography Practice Paper 1

TuitionGoWhere Exam Practice (AI) - Geography H1 A-Level

Marking Scheme & Answer Key (Version 1)

Subject: Geography H1
Paper: Practice Paper 1 (Version 1 of 5)
Total Marks: 60

Section A: Source-Based Case Study (30 Marks)

Question 1: Describe the spatial distribution of the Makoko settlement as shown in Resource 1. [4]

• Marking Guidance: Award 1 mark for each valid descriptive point supported by evidence from the map. Maximum 4 marks.
• Expected Answer Points:
  1. Location: Located on the Lagos Lagoon / water body (1).
  2. Structure: Built on stilts / over water, indicating adaptation to the aquatic environment (1).
  3. Proximity: Situated close to the Third Mainland Bridge / major transport infrastructure, yet physically separated by water (1).
  4. Density/Pattern: High density of structures clustered together with narrow water channels acting as streets (1).
  5. Context: Adjacent to industrial zones or the mainland, highlighting the contrast between formal and informal land use (1).

Question 2: Account for the changes in access to clean water and electricity in Lagos informal settlements between 2010 and 2020 as shown in Resource 2. [5]

• Marking Guidance: Award marks for identifying the trend (1-2 marks) and providing causal explanations (3-4 marks). Must reference the data.
• Expected Answer Points:
  1. Trend Identification: Clean water access increased significantly from 30% to 55%, while electricity rose more moderately from 25% to 40% (1).
  2. Explanation (Water): Improvement likely due to state-led infrastructure projects (e.g., pipe extensions) or NGO interventions targeting health outcomes (1).
  3. Explanation (Electricity): Slower growth may reflect the high cost of grid connection or reliance on informal/private generators which are not captured as "grid access" (1).
  4. Comparison: Water is often prioritized by governments as a basic human right/health necessity, leading to faster improvement than electricity which is economically driven (1).
  5. Data Reference: Explicit use of figures from Resource 2 to support the explanation (1).

Question 3: With reference to Resource 3 and Resource 4, explain the characteristics of community-led responses to urban sustainability challenges in Makoko. [6]

• Marking Guidance: Award marks for identifying characteristics from the resources and explaining their significance.
• Expected Answer Points:
  1. Self-Help/Initiative: Resource 3 shows residents organizing waste collection themselves, indicating a gap in state provision and community resilience (1).
  2. Environmental Focus: The initiative targets lagoon pollution, showing awareness of environmental sustainability and health risks (1).
  3. Limitations/Scale: Resource 3 shows small-scale, localized action (bags of plastic), suggesting limited capacity compared to city-wide municipal systems (1).
  4. Tenure Insecurity: Resource 4 highlights that despite community efforts, the threat of eviction persists, undermining long-term sustainability planning (1).
  5. Complementary Role: Community actions (R3) fill gaps left by state projects (R4 mentions healthcare/jetties), showing a hybrid model of urban management (1).
  6. Social Cohesion: The collective action in R3 demonstrates strong social capital, which is a key characteristic of informal settlements' survival strategies (1).

Question 4: Evaluate the usefulness of Resource 2 and Resource 4 in helping to understand the success of state-led efforts to improve urban liveability in Lagos. [8]

• Marking Guidance:
  • Level 3 (7-8 marks): Balanced evaluation of both resources, weighing strengths and limitations, with a clear judgment on their combined usefulness.
  • Level 2 (4-6 marks): Describes strengths/weaknesses of one or both resources but lacks deep evaluation or comparison.
  • Level 1 (1-3 marks): Simple description of resource content.
• Expected Answer Points:
  • Usefulness of Resource 2 (Quantitative):
    • Strength: Provides objective, longitudinal data (2010-2020) allowing for trend analysis of service provision (water/electricity) (1).
    • Limitation: Only covers two services; ignores other liveability factors like safety, tenure, or employment. Flat waste collection line suggests failure in one area, but doesn't explain why (1).
  • Usefulness of Resource 4 (Qualitative/Policy):
    • Strength: Offers insight into government intent and specific interventions (healthcare, jetties) and highlights the critical issue of tenure security which quantitative data misses (1).
    • Limitation: May be biased as a government report; claims of "improvement" may not reflect resident perception. Lacks statistical evidence of impact (1).
  • Synthesis/Evaluation:
    • Together, they provide a more complete picture: R2 shows what changed (services), R4 explains how (policy) and what is missing (security) (1).
    • However, both lack the resident's voice/perception of "liveability." R2 is aggregate data; R4 is policy narrative. Neither fully captures the lived experience (1).
    • Judgment: They are moderately useful for understanding infrastructure outcomes but limited in assessing social well-being and sustainability without additional qualitative data (1).
    • Clear conclusion on overall usefulness (1).

Question 5: A group of A-Level students wants to investigate the impact of urban flooding on the liveability of residents in informal settlements. Suggest two appropriate data collection methods they could use and explain why each is suitable for this investigation. [7]

• Marking Guidance: 2 marks for each method (identification + suitability explanation) + 1 mark for overall coherence/safety/ethical consideration.
• Expected Answer Points:
  1. Method 1: Structured Questionnaire/Survey.
     • Suitability: Allows collection of quantitative data from a large sample size regarding frequency of flooding, damage costs, and perceived stress levels. Enables statistical analysis of the correlation between flood frequency and liveability scores (2).
  2. Method 2: Semi-structured Interviews.
     • Suitability: Provides qualitative depth. Residents can explain how flooding affects their daily lives (e.g., loss of livelihood, health issues) in their own words. Captures nuances that surveys miss, such as fear or community coping mechanisms (2).
  3. Alternative Method: Environmental Quality Survey (EQS) / Field Sketches.
     • Suitability: Objective recording of physical evidence (water marks, debris, damaged infrastructure) to correlate with resident reports. Validates subjective data with physical observations (2).
  4. Safety/Ethics/Practicality:
     • Mention of working in pairs, obtaining consent, avoiding hazardous areas during active flooding, or using local guides. This ensures the investigation is feasible and ethical (1).

Section B: Essay Question (30 Marks)

Question 6: "Slums are the greatest impediment confronting cities in achieving sustainable urban development." How far do you agree with this statement? Use specific case studies to support your answer. [30]

• Marking Guidance:

  • Level 4 (25-30 marks): Comprehensive, well-structured argument. Detailed case studies. Critical evaluation of the statement. Acknowledges complexity (slums as both problem and solution). Clear conclusion.
  • Level 3 (19-24 marks): Good understanding. Relevant case studies. Balanced argument but may lack depth in evaluation or specific detail.
  • Level 2 (13-18 marks): Descriptive. Limited case study detail. One-sided argument (either all bad or all good).
  • Level 1 (1-12 marks): Basic knowledge. Little relevance to sustainability. No clear argument.

• Indicative Content:

  Introduction:

  • Define "slums" (informal settlements, lack of tenure, poor services) and "sustainable urban development" (economic, social, environmental balance).
  • Thesis: While slums present significant challenges to sustainability (environmental health, social equity), labeling them the "greatest impediment" ignores their role in providing affordable housing and labor, and shifts blame from systemic planning failures.

  Argument For: Slums as an Impediment (Challenges to Sustainability)

  • Environmental: Poor sanitation and waste management lead to pollution of water bodies (e.g., Lagos Lagoon, Mumbai creeks). Health hazards (cholera, typhoid) undermine social sustainability.
    • Case Study: Makoko, Lagos – waste dumping in lagoon affects fisheries and water quality.
  • Social: Overcrowding, lack of security, and crime reduce liveability. Lack of tenure prevents investment in home improvement.
    • Case Study: Kibera, Nairobi – high density, fire hazards, lack of formal address limits access to services.
  • Economic: Informal economy means low tax revenue for cities, limiting funds for infrastructure.

  Argument Against: Slums as a Solution/Not the Greatest Impediment

  • Housing Affordability: Slums provide essential low-cost housing for the urban poor, enabling urbanization and economic growth. Without them, cities would face a massive housing crisis.
    • Case Study: Dharavi, Mumbai – vibrant informal economy, recycling industry, affordable housing for migrant workers.
  • Community Resilience: Strong social networks and self-help initiatives (as seen in Section A) demonstrate adaptive capacity.
  • Systemic Failures: The "greatest impediment" is often poor urban planning, corruption, or lack of political will, not the slums themselves. Slums are a symptom of rapid urbanization outpacing infrastructure.
    • Case Study: Singapore’s historical kampongs vs. current HDB success – shows that state-led planning, not just removing slums, is key.

  Evaluation/Synthesis:

  • "Greatest" is subjective. Climate change or economic inequality might be bigger impediments.
  • Slums are dynamic. Upgrading (in-situ) is more sustainable than eviction.
  • Success depends on approach: Participatory upgrading (e.g., Baan Mankong, Thailand) vs. forced eviction (e.g., past Lagos policies).

  Conclusion:

  • Slums pose serious challenges to environmental and social sustainability.
  • However, they are not the "greatest impediment" but rather a manifestation of broader urban management failures.
  • Sustainable development requires integrating slums into the formal city through upgrading, tenure security, and service provision, rather than viewing them solely as obstacles to be removed.
  • Final judgment: Disagree with the absolute nature of the statement; slums are a challenge but also a resource.