Outline four different ways in which the value of named resources have changed over time.

The use of renewable resources is not always sustainable due to the activities involved in their production.

Justify this statement for a named source of renewable energy.

Increasing concern for energy security is likely to lead to more sustainable energy choices.

Discuss the validity of this statement, with reference to named countries.

cultural influence eg rising environmental awareness led to value of straw as building material;
social influence eg animal rights leading to devaluing of animal furs in fashion;
economic influence eg increased investment in industrial processes led to higher value of fossil fuels;
technological influences eg progress in nuclear technology led to higher value of uranium;
political influences eg increasing concern for energy security in US has led to devaluing of oil / increased value of tar sands;
ecological influences eg greater understanding of ecosystems/ecology has led to high value attached to biodiversity.

NB As question does not specify further, and syllabus makes reference to marketable value (price), responses made in such terms should be credited.
Award [1 max] if four influences are identified without examples.
Award [1] for each correct reason identified, up to [4 max].
Valid influences/reasons may not be categorized in precisely the same way as above, but examples need to demonstrate different kinds of influence to gain separate credit.

eg hydropower (accept other valid examples of renewable energy):
hydropower is renewable because the water flow is replenished by the water cycle;
building the dam will inhibit migration of fish reducing their populations;
involve the flooding/destruction of terrestrial ecosystems;
cause sedimentation that will lead to more flooding upstream;
involve use of non-renewable building materials;
construction/maintenance involves heavy use of fossil fuels/GHG production;
reduced downstream flow threatening riverine populations/species;
(reduced downstream flow threatening) associated terrestrial systems dependent on water flow eg floodplains/wetlands;
building of access roads/growth of recreational activity may lead to damage of terrestrial/riparian systems;
may increase water loss/scarcity through increased evaporation rates;
impacts of dam may reduce sustainability of local populations through eg reduced fishing/breeding ground for parasites/loss of agricultural land.

eg solar energy:
solar energy is renewable because of continuous input/insolation;
energy for panel construction/extraction of silicon involves use of fossil fuels/GHG production;
production utilizes plastics derived from (non-renewable) fossil fuels;
manufacture results in plastic waste that is non-biodegradable;
require metals/elements that are non-renewable resources;
(metals/elements) extracted through mining that damages habitats/ecosystems;
manufacture involves use/production of many industrial toxins/hazardous waste;
manufacture/operation requires considerable water supply (for cooling etc);
transport of materials for manufacture/installation impacts environment;
limited life span/decommissioning will lead to further waste;
solar farms can take up/displace large areas of natural ecosystems.

Award [3 max] if example of energy source is non-renewable or unnamed.
Award [1] for each correct answer given above or for any other points of equivalent relevance, validity and significance, up to [7 max].
If candidate addresses more than one valid resource, limit total credit to highest scoring one.

The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria given in each of the markbands (although “ESS terminology” has been conflated with “Understanding concepts”). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band.

Answers may include:

• understanding concepts & terminology of energy security; renewable/ non-renewable energy; sustainability; fossil fuels; nuclear; solar, biomass, hydropower, wind, wave, tidal or geothermal energy; emissions; etc
• breadth in addressing and linking different countries’ issues of energy security with their energy choices and the relative sustainability of renewable/ non-renewable energy sources; etc
• examples of renewable/non-renewable energy sources; countries’ energy choices; issues of energy security; impacts of exploiting energy resources; etc
• balanced analysis of whether energy choices driven by concern for energy security are more or less sustainable; acknowledging relevant counter-arguments/alternative viewpoints;
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by analysis and examples given eg although more sustainable renewable energy choices will usually provide energy security, in some countries, because of local availability of non-renewable sources, the concern for security has been met by less sustainable sources eg US exploitation of tar sands. NB This is only an example of a possible conclusion. Candidates’ conclusions do not have to agree.

Refer to paper 2 markbands, available under the "your tests" tab > supplemental materials

Q7 (a) Question 7 was the most popular choice. In part (a) most candidates could identify the influence of two or three factors on the value of a named resource. Some responses were more limited in their range of influences and gave multiple examples of a similar influence on different resources.

Most candidates clearly grasped the essence of the question and many scored well. Weaker responses, however, were too generalised/non-specific to again extensive credit. For example, simply claiming that a dam would “alter water flow” rather than specifying how the flow is altered upstream and downstream and the likely impacts of that alteration. While majority of candidates addressed hydropower as an example, candidates addressing solar or wind power, for example, scored similarly.

Most candidates had some grasp of energy security although their grasp was sometimes quite vague. Furthermore, most candidates could give a range of national energy choices as examples and so scored effectively within the 4–6 markband. Only the better candidates were able to effectively and clearly link these energy choices to issues of security as such, and then explore counter examples to produce the balanced analysis/argument necessary for the 7–9 markband.