“Rapid population growth is the main cause of soil degradation and reduced biodiversity.” Discuss this statement.

Responses should show some understanding of what is meant by rapid population growth and should be able to explain what is meant by soil degradation and reduced biodiversity. The main focus of the response should then be on discussing the extent to which both of these environmental issues are the outcome of increased population growth. The scale of discussion will depend on the examples chosen.

It is expected that responses will tend to give a balanced view:

• explaining how both soil degradation and biodiversity are caused by population growth: loss of habitat, deforestation to make way for human settlements, infrastructure, agricultural land to feed more people, growth of urban areas in both number and size
• explaining how factors other than population growth are contributing to the loss of biodiversity and soil degradation: increased standard of living, increased consumption, oil dependence, climate change, potential physical factors.

Responses that are generalized, with few or no examples, are unlikely to advance beyond band D.

Responses presenting accurate, specific and well detailed knowledge on the causes of reduced biodiversity and soil degradation and discussing the extent to which population growth is the main cause are likely to reach band E or F if the answer makes use of effective examples.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This question was answered by a large number of candidates. There were a number of good responses that recognized the impact of rapid population growth and gave a balanced approach which addressed both elements well. The better answers were able to expand on the link by outlining how population growth led to degradation and reduced biodiversity. There were some excellent responses that recognized that population was a factor not only in its size but also in the increased affluence of many countries and the desire for Western diets. Other candidates recognized that growth was not simply a matter of the amount of food required but also space and commented upon urban growth and its impacts on biodiversity. Many also highlighted that growth produced increased resource consumption such as oil and linked this to climate change, with its associated impact on soils and biodiversity. In addition, candidates made the point that natural processes could lead to both elements. In the weaker responses the main problem was often the lack of precise case study material, drawing on examples from “in Africa” or “in the Amazon rainforest”. Some failed to link the ideas of soil degradation and reduced biodiversity to rapid population growth. These weaker scripts were characterized by sweeping generalizations and marginal and superficial content.