| Date | May 2018 | Marks available | 2 | Reference code | 18M.1.SL.TZ0.8 |
| Level | Standard Level | Paper | Paper 1 | Time zone | Time zone 0 |
| Command term | Outline | Question number | 8 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Figure 7: Ecological footprint and biocapacity* per person in Madagascar
* biocapacity: amount of biologically productive land, measured in total hectares per person
Describe the trend in the ecological footprint over the period shown in Figure 7.
Outline why the ecological footprint for the total population of Madagascar has increased during the period shown in Figure 7.
Outline one reason for the trend in biocapacity during the period shown in Figure 7.
Markscheme
ecological footprint has gradually declined / there has been a small reduction/decline in the ecological footprint;
the ecological footprint has declined from 2 hectares per person (in 1961) to about 1 hectare per person (in 2012).
figure 7 only shows individual ecological footprint / EF per person has decreased / individual/personal EF has decreased (not ecological footprint for the total population);
population increased over this period / overall ecological footprint for population increases due to growth in population;
population has increased at a greater rate than decline in individual ecological footprint.
biocapacity has declined over time due to degradation/erosion of soil;
traditional/tavy method of farming results in nutrient poor soil reducing biocapacity/biological productive land;
traditional/tavy method of farming results in soil erosion/degradation reducing biocapacity/biological productive land;
increase in population reduces biocapacity per person/per capita / increase in population reduces global hectares per person/per capita / with increasing population amount of productive land needs to be divided between more people;
increased population has resulted in more land used for houses/urbanisation reducing biocapacity/productive land.
Examiners report
Only about half of responses were correct. Some candidates did not seem to understand what was required and instead of describing the ‘overall trend’ stated each small change over time. Other common errors included suggesting the trend showed no change or an increase in ecological footprint, alternatively some responses focused on changes in biocapacity.
Few candidates understood the difference between ecological footprint per capita and ecological footprint for the country. Some recognised the increase in population caused the overall ecological footprint of the country to increase. However, many candidates incorrectly related the differences to industrialisation or decline in biocapacity.
Many candidates struggled with explaining why biocapacity declined overtime. Popular responses suggested it was because of tavy agriculture or deforestation but did not suggest how this reduced soil productivity.
