A Level H2 Geography Practice Paper 2

Answer Key & Marking Scheme - Geography H2 (Resources & Sustainability)

Paper Version: 2 of 5

Section A

Question 1 (a) Comparison of Scores [5 marks]

• Method: Use comparative language.
• Points:
  • Bangkok has the highest scores across all three dimensions (Env: 55, Soc: 62, Econ: 74).
  • Manila has the lowest scores across all three dimensions (Env: 38, Soc: 48, Econ: 61).
  • All cities show a consistent pattern where Economic Viability is the highest scoring dimension, while Environmental Quality is the lowest.
  • Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta show similar mid-range scores, though HCMC slightly outperforms Jakarta in all categories.

(b) Economic vs Environmental Disparity [7 marks]

• Analysis: The gap indicates "growth at the expense of the environment."
• Points:
  • High economic scores suggest rapid industrialization/urban growth.
  • Low environmental scores suggest that pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity are externalities of this growth.
  • This reflects the "Development-Environment Trade-off" where immediate economic gains are prioritized over long-term ecological health.
  • Mention specific urban challenges: air pollution from factories, water contamination from untreated sewage in rapidly growing cities.

(c) Social Equity as Critical Requirement [8 marks]

• Evaluation: Balanced argument.
• Agree: Without social equity, sustainability is unstable. Slums, poverty, and inequality lead to social unrest, which undermines economic and environmental efforts.
• Disagree/Nuance: Sustainability is a "triple bottom line." High social equity without economic viability leads to stagnation; without environmental quality, the city becomes uninhabitable (e.g., sinking cities like Jakarta).
• Conclusion: Social equity is a pillar, but not the sole critical requirement; the synergy of all three is essential.

Question 2 (a) Vegetation Structure & Biomass [3 marks]

• Structure: Multi-layered (emergent, continuous canopy, understory, ground layer). High vertical complexity.
• Biomass: State 320 tonnes/ha.
• Description: Dense, high-leaf-area index, high carbon sequestration capacity.

(b) Processes of Reduction [7 marks]

• Processes:
  • Deforestation/Clear-cutting: Removal of emergent and canopy layers.
  • Soil degradation: Loss of nutrients and organic matter.
  • Monoculture planting: Replacing diverse species with a single species (oil palm), reducing structural complexity to a single layer.
  • Biomass loss: Reduction from 320 to 85 tonnes/ha due to loss of massive hardwood trees and complex undergrowth.

(c) Economic Development vs Sustainability [10 marks]

• Argument For: In LDCs, the need for immediate poverty alleviation often leads to "extractive" economies (logging, mining) which destroy ecosystems.
• Argument Against: "Green Growth" or "Sustainable Intensification." Examples of eco-tourism or sustainable forestry certifications (FSC).
• Synthesis: It is not always necessary, but the incentive structure often favors short-term gain. The transition to sustainable development requires institutional change and international support.

Question 3 (a) Identification [2 marks]

• Cobalt, Copper, Diamonds, Gold (depending on Resource 4 specifics).

(b) Resource Curse - Governance/Stability [8 marks]

• Mechanisms:
  • "Rent-seeking" behavior: Elite capture of resource wealth.
  • Conflict: Armed groups fighting for control of mines (e.g., cobalt mines in DRC).
  • Corruption: Lack of transparency in revenue management.
  • Weakening of other sectors: Over-reliance on minerals leads to neglect of agriculture/manufacturing (Dutch Disease).

(c) Inevitability of Resource Curse [10 marks]

• Inevitability: High in states with weak institutions and high ethnic fragmentation.
• Counter-examples: Botswana (diamonds) used wealth for education and infrastructure due to strong governance. Norway (oil) used a sovereign wealth fund.
• Conclusion: Not inevitable; depends on the quality of governance and institutional strength.

---

Section B (Essay Frameworks)

Question 4: Sustainable Urban Development Priority [20 marks]

• Introduction: Define sustainable urban development (SUD).
• Agreement: Environmental urgency (climate change, sea-level rise in coastal cities), Social urgency (slum growth, health crises), Economic long-termism.
• Counter-argument: In LDCs, "survival" (food, basic health) may take precedence over "sustainability" (green buildings). Cost of implementation.
• Synthesis: Priority must be integrated, not sequential. SUD is the only way to ensure long-term viability.
• Case Studies: Singapore (Green Plan), Curitiba (BRT system).

Question 5: Foreign Aid and SUD [20 marks]

• Introduction: Define foreign aid (ODA) and SUD.
• Agreement: Financial gaps in LDCs, need for technology transfer (renewable energy), capacity building for urban planners.
• Disagreement: Aid dependency, corruption/leakage, success of self-reliant models (e.g., Vietnam's industrialization). Importance of domestic resource mobilization (taxation).
• Synthesis: Aid is a catalyst, but domestic governance is the engine. Aid is necessary but not sufficient.

Question 6: Political Will vs Technology [20 marks]

• Introduction: Define the tension between technical solutions and policy implementation.
• Technology Side: Renewables, Carbon Capture, GIS for urban planning, desalination.
• Political Will Side: Policy enforcement, banning single-use plastics, zoning laws, international treaties (Paris Agreement), taxing carbon.
• Synthesis: Technology provides the tools, but political will provides the direction. Without will, technology is underutilized.

Question 7: Slum Development Comparison [20 marks]

• Developing Regions: Rapid rural-to-urban migration, lack of formal housing, weak land tenure, poverty. (e.g., Dharavi, Mumbai).
• Developed Regions: Deindustrialization (Rust Belt), gentrification, systemic poverty/marginalization, failure of social housing. (e.g., Detroit).
• Comparison:
  • Similarities: Poverty, lack of services, social exclusion.
  • Differences: Scale (millions vs thousands), cause (growth-driven vs decay-driven).
• Conclusion: Fundamentally different drivers (growth vs decline) but similar outcomes of marginalization.