Describe the trends shown by the graph.

State one example of resource substitution.

Explain one benefit of the resource substitution you have chosen in (b)(i).

Referring to examples, distinguish between waste recycling and waste reduction.

Any three of the following statements for [1 mark] each:

• solid waste produced is rising over time
• levels off/declines a little after 2005
• landfill/incineration always much larger than recycled
• recycled not taking off until 1980s
• recycling increasing as a proportion of solid waste.

One of statements must refer to data values for the final [1 mark].

Example must name both the old resource and the new resource [1 mark].
Possibilities such as:

• fibre-optics replacing copper
• cotton bags replacing plastic bags
• biofuel replacing petroleum.

Depending on the resources chosen, potential benefits include reduced costs, faster production, less pollution, less waste, replacement of non-renewable resource by renewable resource, etc. Benefits may be to people/the environment/industry, etc.

Award [1 mark] for explaining why the resource substitution chosen in (b)(i) is beneficial (eg cheaper/less pollution). Award [1 mark] for development and/or exemplification.

Waste recycling describes the re-processing of waste to produce a new product [1 mark] eg plastic bottles are recycled to produce new plastic products such as park benches or new bottles [1 mark].

Waste reduction describes a broader range of methods that reduces the amount of waste produced [1 mark] eg re-using materials, repairing broken goods, lower consumption, reduced packaging [1 mark]. This strategy could include recycling.

Straightforward description was required to demonstrate the various trends in the data. Some candidates struggled to effectively understand the complexities of a compound bar graph, others went too far with attempts at explanation of the data presented instead of a description of trends.

A wide range of examples was seen. Some candidates failed to name both the old and new resource.

Most candidates could demonstrate why the resource substitution chosen in (b)(i) was beneficial (for example, more abundant/economical or less harm to the environment) but weaker scripts failed to gain the extra mark for development and/or exemplification.

The majority of candidates had no problems distinguishing between these two terms and providing relevant examples such as recycling plastic bottles into furniture, or reducing packaging for waste reduction. There were a few candidates who confused recycling with reusing.