Explain why it might be hard to observe and measure some types of global interaction.

“Global interactions have brought only negative impacts to human landscapes and physical environments everywhere.” Discuss this statement.

The focus should be the challenge of collecting the data, rather than querying whether it should be included/used as a legitimate measure of global interactions/globalization. Many candidates, even at the band C/D border, may provide a general critique of the KOF/Kearney index, much of which is of marginal relevance to this particular question. These will need reading carefully for
references to the difficulties in collecting/measuring/observing global interactions. 

Expect candidates to show some familiarity with the Kearney and/or the KOF multi strand indexes of globalization. These compartmentalize globalization in terms of personal, economic, political aspects, etc. Some may correctly answer this question by focusing on those strands of Kearney/KOF that are hard/subjective to observe, or monitor – for instance, KOF’s “cultural proximity” measure.

The focus should be on explaining why it is hard observe some movements (such as the diffusion of cultural traits) and/or measuring/quantifying them. Possible themes:

• informal remittances from legal and illegal migrants are hidden
• unknown content of private information/data exchange
• criminal/illegal flows (trafficking of people and drugs) are not recorded
• TNCs may hide the movement of profits through tax havens (transfer pricing)
• complexities of tracking economic data/trade figures hence possible inaccuracy
• people may be watching “local” or “global” TV and other media, it is hard to tell.

Band C answers should describe difficulties associated with the collection of data for at least two types of global interaction (eg data flows, migration).

At band D, expect either a wider, more detailed range of data collection difficulties or some explicit analysis of the distinction between observation and measurement.

For band E, expect both.

Some candidates may discuss “the positive and negative impacts of human activity for physical and human geography” (ie a far broader focus than the given title). Whilst benefit of doubt should be given where deserved, note that some impacts, are
not necessarily a product of global interactions (Chernobyl), nor are all impacts of farming. Good candidates will stress the global dimensions of the case studies they use. Human impacts should relate to the landscape (so impacts such as “poverty alleviation” ideally need some link with a landscape change, such as housing improvement). Changes in ethnicity/language are perfectly valid as they form part of the cultural landscape. Accounts of global warming should be judged on their merits.

Possible themes for discussion in agreement with the statement:

• there has been some homogenization of urban landscapes (uniform appearances, common activities, styles of construction, skyscrapers) [Guide 4]
• there are many physical themes that could be addressed, including degradation of the rainforest due to global demand eg, for soya, soil degradation (should be linked with global agribusiness), climate change (should be linked with international consumption of resources), transboundary pollution [Guide 4].

Possible themes for discussion in disagreement with the statement:

• global/local efforts for the protection of cultural landscapes eg, UNESCO sites or the resurgence of nationalism in relation to the protection of the built environment [Guide 6, Guide 7]
• global civil society organizations/NGOs have fostered environmental awareness [Guide 4].

A more critical, thoughtful or nuanced response might take the view that:

• not all countries participate in global interactions to the same extent so effects are highly variable in any case [Guide 1]
• different perspectives exist on what constitutes “negative” in relation to cultural landscapes (though there will be broader agreement on what constitutes a negative or positive impact on the physical environment).

For band C, some impacts to human landscapes and physical environments should be described (do not expect balance) and linked with global interactions.

Band D should either provide a wider, evidenced discussion of both impacts (do not expect perfect balance) or offer a more critical discussion of the statement, perhaps querying what is meant by “everywhere” or “negative”.

At band E, expect both.

In a previous exam paper, candidates were asked to explain how global interactions are measured. It was therefore appropriate to ask for a different approach to be taken with this latest question. Candidates were asked to focus their thoughts on why attempts at quantifying global interactions might not be successful. A helpful steer was given with the words “observe” and “measure”, which provided two avenues for candidates to explore. Good answers thoughtfully considered how hard it might be to record certain types of illegal and legal global flows. Some candidates recognized that many types of data might be inaccurate and hard to measure reliably. A few thoughtful responses even focused on whether it is possible to track the transmission of ideas, trends or beliefs as they spread around the planet. Sadly, too many candidates reproduced a prepared response to a slightly different kind of critique and focused instead on the legitimacy of investigating certain types of global interaction. In such cases, one popular theme was a country’s involvement with UN peacekeeping missions. Certainly, the legitimacy of using this as a proxy indictor of a country’s level of globalization is open to question. However, it was not appropriate to do so as part of an answer to this particular question, given that peacekeeping missions can be observed and counted.

Good answers were seen which offered a synthetic range of both physical and human transformations, some negative but others positive. The best answers demonstrated good technique, by balancing the four corners of their answer well (physical – positive; physical – negative; human – positive; human – negative). A few even queried whether human changes could be categorized as positive or negative given that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (especially in relation to the global spread of eye-catching modernist architecture). Weaker answers typically failed to provide balance, or did not focus very well on the role of global interactions. Instead, such candidates wrote a much broader, unfocused answer that looked at the impacts of different societies on the environment.