Examine the reasons why earthquakes vary in magnitude and frequency between different places.

Examine how different human factors can affect community vulnerability to one or more geophysical hazards.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

Earthquake activity is caused both by geophysical processes operating at plate margins, and also by human activities. The distribution, frequency and magnitude of earthquakes are chiefly related to different types of plate margin. Shallow earthquakes, of low magnitude and high frequency, are often associated with divergent plates, while high magnitude, deep earthquakes of lower frequency are associated with destructive plate margins. Human activity may also trigger low magnitude earthquakes.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Different places are affected by varying types of earthquake activity. Some areas are more prone than others to earthquake activity.
• Earthquake activity occurs at constructive, destructive and transverse plate margins. High magnitude, deep-focus earthquakes occur at destructive margins. Shallow, low magnitude events characterize constructive and transverse margins. The latter are also associated with volcanic activity at hot spots, away from plate margins.
• Human activity, such as dam building and resource extraction, may also trigger low magnitude, shallow earthquakes.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that examines the relationship between physical processes and earthquake frequency and magnitude. Another approach would be to examine earthquake characteristics at different places such as types of plate margin.

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly evidenced outlining of reasons why earthquakes vary in magnitude and/or frequency.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of processes of earthquake formation and associated magnitude and frequency at different places
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The vulnerability of communities to geophysical hazards is influenced by various economic, social and demographic factors. These include levels of wealth and poverty, economic development and access to technology; population characteristics, education levels and degrees of awareness and perception. Vulnerability varies spatially, between different places, and at different scales from international to local.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

• Economic factors include levels of wealth and poverty, building types, communications and access to technology, insurance.
• Demographic factors include population characteristics (age and gender) and population densities; migration.
• Social factors include levels perception and awareness, prior experience, and education level.
• These factors will also influence disaster pre- event management strategies designed to minimize vulnerability.
• The vulnerability of communities varies between different places and local contexts, and at different scales from international to local.
• Vulnerability may also vary between different types of geophysical hazard.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that shows understanding of the relationship between various human factors and geophysical processes that affect vulnerability. Another approach would be to examine vulnerability to communities at different places and scales.

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly evidenced outlining of human factors affecting vulnerability to a geophysical hazard.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of a range of human factors affecting vulnerability of communities to one or more geophysical hazards
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

The less popular choice, with stronger candidates being able to show a good level of knowledge and understanding and relating to a variety of different places. Weaker responses were confused about the processes operating at different types of plate boundaries.

Many had very good answers with a variety of economic, social and demographic factors being discussed and explained. Most focused on earthquakes with good use of examples, comparing Haiti to Japan or Christchurch. The concept of community vulnerability was well understood.