Referring to photographic evidence, identify and briefly describe two natural features of the river valley floor clearly shown in the photograph.

Suggest three ways in which humans might modify the floodplain shown in the photograph to reduce flood risk.

“Wetland management strategies are never a complete success.” Discuss this statement, with reference to one named major wetland.

Award [1 mark] for each valid, clearly visible feature that is identified. Award [1 mark] for each brief description using photographic evidence.

Possible features could include: meandering river, braided channel, floodplain, delta entering the lake, river cliff (lower left). For example:

• there is a meander bend [1 mark] where the river is shown to be curving around an area of high relief [1 mark]
• there is braiding [1 mark] the photograph shows the river is split into three or four channels by deposition [1 mark].

Do not credit suggestions that are not clearly visible.

Award [1 mark] for the identification of each valid method and [1 mark] for further development through explanation or applied use of an example.

• construction of levees [1 mark] to increase channel storage [1 mark]
• land-use zoning [1 mark] to ensure buildings are kept away from high risk flood locations [1 mark]
• channel engineering/straightening [1 mark] to increase velocity and remove excess water quickly [1 mark]
• flood relief channels [1 mark] to divert water away from high-risk/high-value property [1 mark]
• storage basins and dams [1 mark] to reduce river discharge [1 mark].

Credit other valid suggestions and developments.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

Responses should clearly name, describe and locate one relevant major wetland. If more than one wetland is referred to, credit only the first.

Major wetlands include, for example, the Kissimee, the Mississippi Delta, the Norfolk Broads, but not small-scale ponds (award up to [6 marks] for an inappropriate scale of study if the discussion is good).

Strategies (there should be at least two included) should be clearly outlined with respect to why they were needed and what their aims were. Strategies can then be evaluated in terms of how successful they have been (or not). Good answers may approach the strategies from different perspectives (eg biodiversity, human water security, tourism, etc).

Answers that do not refer to a specific wetland should not proceed further than band C.

At band D, responses should describe one or more strategies for a major named wetland, and may assert success/failure.

For band E, there should be either greater detail of the strengths and weaknesses of a range of (at least two) strategies, or a more sophisticated discussion of the veracity of statement (but with less factual support).

At band F, expect both elements.

Although many were able to recognize discernible features, for example, braided river channel, meanders, delta, very few were able to relate the features to the photograph, or identified features that were not present, such as oxbow lakes.

Generally done well with valid modifications.

Wetlands are obviously being studied comprehensively, with the Kissimee and the Murray Basin being the most commonly read case studies. However, at least two strategies had to be discussed in order to reach the higher markbands. A number of responses could not elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies adopted.