Date | May 2015 | Marks available | 10 | Reference code | 15M.2.hl.6 |
Level | HL only | Paper | 2 | Time zone | |
Command term | Examine | Question number | 6 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
(i) State and locate one example of mineral extraction in an extreme environment.
(ii) Outline one economic reason why the mineral identified in (a)(i) is extracted in this extreme environment.
Explain two physical challenges for resource development posed by extreme environments.
Examine why desertification has become a problem in some parts of the world.
Markscheme
(i) Award [1] for identification of a mineral and [1] for valid location.
Possibilities include: oil in Alaska/gas in Siberia/uranium mining in Niger/copper mining in the Atacama desert/oil in Saudi Arabia.
(ii) Award [1] for identifying a reason, eg market value or local job creation and [1] for further outlining.
For example: “Declining world reserves of oil [1] have made prices very high [1]”, or “extreme environments lack many employment opportunities [1] due to low density population [1]”.
In each case award [1] for identifying the challenge and [2] for development.
One or more extreme environments may be used (no penalty for using only one). Both periglacial and hot, arid environments are acceptable.
Responses may focus on mining and/or associated settlement and communications. Challenges include climatic factors, other physical characteristics, remoteness, inaccessibility, inhospitable living conditions, specific characteristics for area or example chosen.
Desertification is an environmental issue resulting from pressure on resources.
Candidates should show knowledge of the causes of desertification: social, political, economic, and climatic factors (infrequent or irregular rainfall, overgrazing, over-cultivation, deforestation, poor irrigation, over-population etc).
The problems/consequences could be environmental, economic, or social (for example, poor vegetation growth, damaged soils, vulnerability to soil erosion, reduced land available for crops and pasture, expanding sand dunes, reduced income, increased rural poverty, reliance on food aid, forced migration).
There is opportunity to discuss strategies to prevent desertification (managing land use and livestock, managing water usage, afforestation, population control, availability of capital).
Good answers may examine reasons why some parts rather than others have been affected despite similar climatic conditions regions (may examine different degrees of problem or challenge and/or include the uneven success of management). Another approach might be to carefully structure an answer to highlight different types of problem, or different groups/stakeholders/perspectives who are adversely affected (or not). Another approach might be to examine/synthesize how a range of factors combine to trigger desertification.
For band D, expect some description of some problems/causes associated with desertification (may assert the problem is getting worse).
At band E, expect either more detailed explanation of the causes of desertification in particular places or a structured examination of different kinds of problem/places.
At band F expect both of these elements.
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Examiners report
(i) No problems.
(ii) Answers were sometimes unable to develop beyond the obvious and some failed to focus on economic reasons.
Some answers failed to focus on physical challenges. Many answers gave relevant points but these were often not developed; some gave several brief ideas rather than two developed physical challenges.
Some responses were well done with effective use of case studies. Weaker answers sometimes focused on issues related to water supply in general and not to desertification. Other weak answers discussed the general challenges of living in arid areas. The understanding of “desertification” was not clear in these cases. Some candidates referred to desertification in areas that were not extreme environments, such as the tropical rainforest, which was not acceptable. Some answers were strong on causes or strong on examination of impacts but few did both.