State which two regions had the most sustainable ecological footprint in 1975.

Explain the pattern of regional ecological footprints in 2010.

Explain the anti-Malthusian view of the relationship between population and resources.

Africa [1] and Asia Pacific [1].

Award [1] for stating a pattern of some kind. For example: “Economically developed regions (eg Oceania, North America, Western Europe) have higher footprints”.

Award [1] for each valid point made that explains why footprints may be high or low in different regions. Ideally responses should refer to both resource consumption and waste generation but this is not essential for full marks.

For example:

High Income nations that have high standards of living [1] tend to consume vast quantities of non-renewable energy [1] and generate lots of greenhouse gases [1] hence the high ecological footprint.

Possibilities include:

• quality of life/affluence
• sources of energy
• levels of energy consumption
• dominant economic activities/degree of industrialization
• levels of development
• diet, for example of ecological footprint of meat
• levels of recycling/re-use.

Accept alternative valid explanations.

Responses referring to population size should not be credited.

Responses should describe the anti-Malthusian view (it could be implied within the explanation) [1].

For example: Resources will keep pace with population growth. Carrying capacity will increase as human population increases.

Responses should explain TWO arguments used by anti-Malthusians [2+2]. 

Award [1] for each basic explanation, with an additional [1] for extension or exemplification.

Possibilities include:

• the use of technological fixes, eg in agriculture to achieve higher yields
• resource substitution overcomes resource depletion
• recycling allows conservation of existing resources.

This was well done but there were still errors by some candidates.

If the question was read correctly this was a very accessible 4 marks for most candidates. Unfortunately a large number did not read the question properly and simply described the pattern with no explanations OR examined the changes between 1975 and 2010.

This was well done with sound knowledge and understanding of the anti-Malthusian view but explanation and exemplification were often thin. Many responses felt the need to outline the Malthusian view as well which was a waste of time and writing space. Most went for improvement in food supply by technology but there were some good responses that dealt with shift to alternatives, conservation and population control.