Outline the pattern and trend shown in the figure.

Explain three factors that influence the location of squatter settlements in urban areas.

“The rapid city growth caused by in-migration can never be controlled.” Discuss this statement, referring to one or more examples.

Award up to [2 marks] for pattern, and up to [2 marks] for trend.

• all regions show moderate to very high proportions in the slums (pattern)
• with Sub-Saharan Africa worst affected (pattern)
• most areas show improvements taking place (trend)
• only Western Asia shows deterioration over time (trend).

Credit other significant points not covered by the markscheme. The actual words “pattern” and “trend” do not need to be used.

Award [1 mark] for each factor and a further [1 mark] for the development or exemplification.

Possible factors include: unoccupied land (at the city edge); transport routes such as roads, transport hubs such as bus stations/railway stations/airports; poor quality marginal land; proximity to work opportunities, (such as factories or higher class
residential areas), refuse/waste tips, derelict sites, cheap land value. Accept other valid factors. For example:

• “Location near transport routes [1 mark] allows access to job opportunities in city centre [1 mark].”
• “Land at the edges of the city has nothing there so people build their own homes there [1 mark]. There may be less risk of clearances by bulldozers if no-one else wants to use the land [1 mark].”

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

Answers can discuss city-wide policies (such as migration restrictions through permits eg China’s migrant labour system, or policy refusal to expand the city eg green belt legislation, or tougher controls on squatter settlements at edges). This can be linked with the continuing challenge of in-migration/pressures on rural dwellers to leave their land and move to a city.

A discussion might compare the effectiveness of different controls in a single city, or controls adopted by two different cities. Either approach is fine when considering the veracity of the statement. A distinction might also be made between spatial
growth (urban sprawl) and population growth (numbers). This could be the basis for a more thoughtful discussion.

Examples could include Shanghai, Mumbai, Mexico City, Cairo – most cities experiencing rapid in-migration are in NICs and LEDCs. Inappropriate examples (such as London) will need to be marked on their individual merit (an inappropriate case study may still be the basis for a creditable evaluation, perhaps band D).

For band D, candidates must describe in-migration/city growth and an attempt at migration control with some reference to one or more examples (balance between these elements is not expected at this level).

Band E should either provide greater exemplified detail of city growth/in-migration and the effectiveness of control measures or offer a more thoughtful discussion of the veracity of the statement (but with less factual support).

At band F, expect both elements.

This was often not well done. It appeared candidates are not clear about the difference between pattern and trend.

Factors influencing location of squatter settlements were satisfactory but development or exemplification was less so. Some confused the term with squatting in disused buildings.

This caused difficulty for candidates as very few fully understood the question. The question was about controlling in-migration and not about controlling the effects of rapid city growth. The example of Curitiba was used, inappropriately, to show how rapid city growth could be managed in a sustainable manner. Others used migration controls into specific countries.