(i) Describe the location of dead zones. 

(ii) Outline how chemical waste may result in a dead zone.

Briefly explain the formation of:

(i) one coastal landform resulting mainly from erosion;

(ii) one coastal landform resulting mainly from deposition.

“Management strategies for coastlines are generally ineffective.” Discuss this statement with reference to one named coastline you have studied.

(i) Possible statements may include:

• more dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico / along the coast at 30° N / around Caribbean
• they are mainly located on the east coast (of the USA)
• there are none at high latitudes
• there are only two on the west coast.

Award [1 mark] for each valid statement.

(ii) Award [1 mark] for establishing a link with mortality/reproduction impairment for marine life and [1 mark] for a suggestion of how this leads to a dead zone/larger scale of mortality. For example:

“Chemicals entering the water are toxic to fish [1 mark] with wider impacts due to food chain transmission [1 mark].”

(i) Erosional features are likely to include cliffs, arches, stacks.

Award [1 mark] for a clearly identified coastal landform linked to a process and a further [1 mark] for each valid explanatory statement.

For example: “A cliff [1 mark] formed when hydraulic action creates a wavecut notch [1 mark] which leads to the collapse of the rock above [1 mark].”

(ii) Depositional features may be linked to constructive waves and wind. Likely features could include beaches and bars, spits, tombolos, sand dunes, salt marsh, etc.

Award [1 mark] for a clearly identified coastal landform linked to a process and a further [1 mark] for each valid explanatory statement. 

For example: “A spit [1 mark] is formed by longshore drift moving beach material sideways [1 mark] when the wind drives the waves at an oblique angle to the shoreline [1 mark].”

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

An area of coastline should be named and located. If more than one coastline is referred to, credit only the first.

In order to judge how effective actions have been, the (conflicting) pressures on the coastline should be identified in order to establish why management was needed. Possible content might include: hard and soft coastal defences, ecosystem restoration, managed retreat, ecotourism, etc.

Better responses may discuss what is meant by “ineffective” (eg compares different user groups along the same coastline, or takes short and long term view or another cost-benefit approach).

Answers that do not refer to a specific stretch of coastline should not proceed further than band C.

At band D, responses should describe some strategies for a named coastline, and may assert they were effective/ineffective.

For band E, there should be either greater detail of the strengths and weaknesses of a range of (at least two) strategies, or a narrower but more sophisticated discussion of the veracity of statement (eg good account of how a strategy can be effective for some users, but damaging for others).

At band F, expect both elements.

(i) Correct locations were described.

(ii) Dead zones could be attributed to toxicity/mortality but few were able to link this to the wider implication of affecting the food chain.

Both parts to this were generally done well, with some excellent supporting diagrams, referring to an example. A concerning number of candidates were unable to identify and explain either an erosional or a depositional coastal landform; consideration of processes was often weak.

A straightforward question that was reasonably well answered. Most were able to describe management strategies and comment on their effectiveness. Again, the best responses included an annotated sketch map, and there were some good examples from the Australian coastline.