Explain what is meant by time–space convergence.

“Global interactions result in some form of environmental damage being experienced everywhere.” Discuss this statement.

The key idea is that of a “shrinking world” thanks to technological innovation over time. Expect some explanation of the technologies that enable this change and empirical evidence to support it (for example, time taken to circumnavigate the world etc.). This may be shown in diagrammatic form and should be credited.

Other approaches to explanation might include an analysis of the range of flows/global interactions that are enabled by different technologies (and the specific impacts they bring as aspects of the convergence, for example, cultural dilution, McDonaldization or growth of “global village”).

Good answers may recognize the uneven nature of time–space compression (not all people and places experience it to the same extent; some places have “opted-out” of globalization etc.).

At band C, answers may be descriptive of reduced times for travel (provide facts about reducing sailing times etc.) without addressing the concept of time–space convergence very explicitly, or provide a superficial account of the concept but without much real evidence to ground the explanation.

For bands D and E, answers will be focused on both dimensions of space and time (global technologies bring places/people nearer together by reducing the time taken for instantaneous interactions/flows to occur) and the explanation is well supported with examples. Band E answers may additionally show especially adroit handling of the concept or employ very good terminology.

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

Global interactions can include FDI by TNCs, information flows, migrants, and trade and commodity flows [Guide 3.1, 3.2, 3.3]. Specific activities, for example, agro-industrialization of peripheral regions or raw material extraction (including energy sources), or TNC operations in different territories are relevant activities that may have a global dimension and constitute interactions [Guide 4.1, 4.2].

In discussing “everywhere”, good answers may consider whether a geographic pattern of damage can be identified (that is, linked to trade routes, coastlines; or a developmental pattern, for example, idea of excessive impacts for LEDCs rather than MEDCs); or whether some areas manage to escape certain kinds of damage (related perhaps to the “wilderness” concept).

Themes may include:

• the pattern for individual transboundary pollution events [Guide 4.3]
• excessively damaging impacts for poorly regulated LEDCs [Guide 4.2]
• major shipping routes and pollution, for example, oil spills, and other pollution linked with global interactions, for example, Niger delta oil fields in Nigeria [Guide 4.3]
• e-waste in poor countries [Guide 4.2]
• “non-globalized”, “untouched” or wilderness regions [Guide 7.4]
• increased protection thanks to NGOs/civil society organizations, for example, Greenpeace [Guide 4.3]
• possible impacts of global tourist flows on environments [Guide 5.1].

Given that all flows have a carbon footprint – even internet use and Google searches – links may be made with climate change science and perhaps the extent of its impacts, for example, greater warming for Arctic regions. 

There may be alternate approaches and these should be credited.  For bands D and E, some range of interactions must be addressed. There should be some explicit consideration, especially at band E, of what is meant by “everywhere” (that is, argues that some places are worse affected than others, or some places have escaped from, or are protected from, the environmental harm that global interactions may bring).

Good answers to this question were often conceptually rich and encompassed closely related concepts (shrinking world, friction of distance, two-speed world, and so on) or perhaps critiqued the notion that everyone experiences time–space convergence to the same extent (an important point that geographers such as Doreen Massey have stressed). More mediocre answers, typically reaching band C, took a “general knowledge” approach and described, or listed, a string of famous aeroplanes, sailing ships, and their journey times. The best answers combined conceptual flair with strong evidence-based writing, as they should.

Competent answers suggested or implied some sort of global pattern of environmental damage, or used the idea of scale effectively, thereby tackling the command to interrogate whether environmental harm is experienced “everywhere”. Some took the view that it is not true that damage is experienced everywhere, or that it is experienced to a lesser degree in some places –  this approach could reach band D if a range of evidence was provided to substantiate the assertion. Overall, disappointingly few used scale as an explicit scaffold for their essay (for instance, an argument could be made that global consumption drives global-scale climatic and sea-level changes, and also highly localized forms of damage, such as landfill). The weakest responses took globalization to be a synonym for “humans” and recounted every environmental incident they could remember – sometimes specific (Chernobyl disaster), sometimes generic (acid rain, soil erosion). Often, it was unclear what the link with globalization might be (especially in the case of Chernobyl).