A Level H2 Geography Practice Paper 4

Answer Key & Marking Scheme - Geography H2 (Version 4)

Section A: Structured Questions

Question 1 (a) Comparative Analysis [5 marks]

• 1 mark for identifying the highest/lowest performing city overall.
• 2 marks for using comparative language (e.g., "Bangkok's Environmental score of X is significantly higher than Jakarta's Y").
• 2 marks for comparing across dimensions (e.g., "While Manila excels in Economic Viability, it lags in Social Equity compared to Ho Chi Minh City").

(b) Environmental Degradation Processes [7 marks]

• Identification of processes: Rapid land conversion, uncontrolled urban sprawl, inadequate waste management.
• Explanation: Link to pollution (air/water), loss of urban green spaces, heat island effect.
• Context: Reference to Southeast Asian urban contexts (e.g., river pollution in Jakarta).

(c) Social Equity vs Economic Viability [8 marks]

• Argument for dependence: Economic growth provides the tax base for social services, healthcare, and affordable housing.
• Argument against: "Trickle-down" failure; economic growth can increase inequality (gentrification).
• Synthesis: High viability is a prerequisite but not a guarantee of equity; governance is the mediating factor.

Question 2 (a) Vegetation Structure [3 marks]

• 1 mark for mentioning vertical layers (Emergent, Canopy, Understory, Ground).
• 1 mark for describing density/height (e.g., "dense continuous canopy").
• 1 mark for stating mean biomass (referencing Resource 3 data).

(b) Change in Structure [7 marks]

• Process: Deforestation $\rightarrow$ Fragmentation $\rightarrow$ Monoculture plantation.
• Explanation: Removal of emergent/canopy layers $\rightarrow$ loss of biodiversity $\rightarrow$ simplified structure of oil palms (single layer).
• Impact: Reduced biomass, altered nutrient cycling.

(c) Sustainability Assessment [10 marks]

• Pros: Economic revenue, employment, export growth.
• Cons: Loss of carbon sinks, biodiversity collapse, soil erosion, indigenous displacement.
• Evaluation: Short-term economic gain vs long-term ecological bankruptcy.

Question 3 (a) Identification [2 marks]

• Correct identification of minerals (e.g., Cobalt, Coltan) from Resource 4.

(b) GDP vs HDI [6 marks]

• Analysis of Resource 5: Note the gap between GDP growth and HDI improvement.
• Explanation: Resource rents often benefit a small elite (corruption); lack of investment in education/health.

(c) Blessing vs Curse [10 marks]

• Blessing: Potential for infrastructure, funding for development (e.g., Botswana).
• Curse: "Resource Curse" / Dutch Disease, conflict over mineral rights (e.g., DRC), volatility of global commodity prices.
• Conclusion: Management and institutional strength determine the outcome.

---

Section B: Essays (Marking Framework)

General Descriptor for 20-mark Essays:

• 16-20 marks: Comprehensive analysis, balanced argument, detailed case study evidence, nuanced conclusion.
• 11-15 marks: Good understanding, some balance, case studies used but may lack specific data.
• 6-10 marks: Descriptive, one-sided, or lacks geographical depth.

Question 4 (Sustainable Urban Development)

• Agreement: Necessity due to climate change, resource scarcity, and social unrest in slums.
• Counter-argument: Immediate priorities in LDCs (e.g., basic sanitation, food security) may override long-term sustainability.
• Case Studies: Singapore (integrated water/greenery), Curitiba (BRT), or Mumbai (slum challenges).

Question 5 (Foreign Aid)

• Agreement: Financial gaps in LDCs, need for technology transfer (e.g., desalination, renewable energy).
• Counter-argument: Aid dependency, corruption, success of self-reliant models (e.g., Vietnam's Doi Moi).
• Synthesis: Aid is a catalyst, but domestic governance is the primary driver.

Question 6 (Water Management)

• Tech side: Desalination, NEWater, smart irrigation, wastewater recycling.
• Political side: Transboundary water treaties, pricing policies, legislation against pollution, equitable distribution.
• Evaluation: Tech provides the means, but politics provides the will and framework for implementation.