(i) Identify and describe a landform of glacial erosion in area A on the map.

(ii) Identify and describe a landform of glacial erosion in area B on the map.

Using map evidence, suggest two reasons why the area shown on the map has a low population density.

“Mineral resources in extreme environments rarely bring benefits to the local people.” Discuss this statement.

(i) A – Glacial trough/U-shaped valley; accept truncated spurs, hanging valleys.

Award [1 mark] for the identification and [1 mark] for a brief description of shape, size or appearance. For example, a glacial trough [1 mark] shown as a deep, straight valley [1 mark].

(ii) B – Corrie/Cwm/Cirque. Accept corrie lake/tarn. Do not accept “lake”.

Award [1 mark] for the identification and [1 mark] for a brief description of shape, size or appearance of the landform. For example, a corrie lake [1 mark] which is about 1 km wide [1 mark].

Award [1 mark] for a reason, [1 mark] for map evidence and [1 mark] for some development.

Reasons may include, but are not limited to:

• steep relief/gradients/rugged [1 mark] so a challenge for economic activity/construction/settlement [1 mark] and identifies area of map using names or grid reference [1 mark]
• high relief/altitude [1 mark] leading to low temperatures/short growing season so less than optimum conditions for agriculture [1 mark] and identifies area of map using names or grid reference [1 mark]
• likely to be poor, thin soil [1 mark] due to mass wasting or gravity down slope [1 mark] and identifies area of map using names or grid reference [1 mark]
• inaccessibility/remoteness [1 mark] due to limited transportation [1 mark] and identifies area of map using names or grid reference [1 mark].

Some candidates may argue benefits are not/rarely realized due to environmental challenges. Others may focus on the inequities of who benefits. Either approach is acceptable. A range of mineral deposits offer potential wealth to people in extreme environments (eg uranium, silver, gold, rare earths etc). However, there are physical challenges to resource exploitation eg, permafrost in cold environments or lack of transport infrastructure in sparsely populated arid areas. Indigenous people may lack the technology to overcome challenges so outsiders/TNCs gain some/most benefits. However, there may still be gains for local people. Potential benefits include more employment, higher wages, investment, health care and infrastructural improvements.

Another approach might be to argue that minerals bring problems not benefits. Problems could include dependency on benefits among indigenous people, conflict with economic migrants, leakage of money overseas (remittances), possible environmental pollution, conflict over scarce resources (water and land) in arid areas. The environment and local society may no longer be sustainable as a result of mineral exploitation.

Do not credit tropical rainforests.

At band D, responses are likely to be descriptive accounts of the benefits local people could gain/do not gain. Alternatively, a simple account is given of why local people do not gain benefits.

At band E expect either a more detailed account of the mineral resources found in extreme environments and the benefits they bring/do not bring to local people/others or an evaluation of who benefits most from mineral resources (carefully weighs up the benefits for local people and TNCs, for example).

At band F, expect both.

Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.

This question was very poorly answered. Topographic map interpretation was often weak and there was little specific reference to the map. Although correctly identified, many candidates did not describe the glacial trough. There was a lack of knowledge and understanding of glacial landforms. Many candidates thought the corrie/tarn was a pingo. Even if identification was correct the subsequent description was not valid in many cases.

Many candidates did not refer to map evidence, as specified by the question. There were some good attempts at describing relief, slope, remoteness and low population density, but also some rather fanciful ideas about needing oxygen to survive.

This question elicited some excellent answers with good contrasting and well developed case studies such as Niger and Alaska. There was often good evaluation of the question and discussion of the benefits to local people. Some introduced the idea of the controlling TNCs and the environmental effects that the local people had to endure (eg in Niger).