Describe the relationship shown in the graph.

Suggest one reason for a recent change in the diets of people in middle-income countries.

Explain one way in which ecological footprint measures an individual’s resource consumption.

Explain two ways in which different resources are developed to support Boserup’s optimistic view.

Way 1:

Way 2:

Award [1] for each valid point.
A negative relationship / the more one spends on food per capita per annum the less the share of total income spent on food [1] exemplification or development of pattern [1].

Some quantification required for full marks.

Award [1] for identification of a valid reason, and [1] for further development of dietary change.

For example: Rising incomes [1] so people have more money to spend on processed foods [1].

Other possibilities include:

• increased urbanization – greater choice of foods/access to technology such as refrigerators/different social profile/proximity to supermarkets
• influence of TNCs/globalization
• increased awareness of health issues
• lifestyle changes and growth of fast-food consumption
• liberalized markets – removing tariffs allows import of different foods
• FDI – increased finance to invest in factories that process food
• food marketing that encourages consumption of specific foods/targeting of younger age groups which continues habits into old age.

Award up to [1] for identification of a valid way (reference to land, water or waste), and [1] for development/exemplification [1].

It determines the amount of the environment necessary [1] to produce the goods and services necessary to support a particular lifestyle [1].

In each case, award [1] for a valid and distinctive way and [1] for further development or exemplification.

For example: Improved technology through the use of mechanization [1] to increase yields of food [1].

Other possibilities include:

• substitution (renewable energy)
• desalination
• vertical farming
• multicropping
• land reclamation
• circular economy
• second green revolution/GM.

Many candidates were well prepared for this and described the negative correlation between the two variables shown on the graph. Development was accomplished by illustration of the extremes using data from selected identified countries, thus giving quantification. Other responses did not focus on the relationship between the two variables but used the resource to categorize the characteristics of the countries shown. In this approach credit could only be awarded if the answer addressed the relationship unintentionally.

Most candidates were able to identify dietary changes and link them to a valid reason. This was most frequently expressed as an increase in disposable income resulting in the consumption of more meat and dairy produce, but a significant number of answers referred to the impacts of globalization and awareness of health issues.

Candidates were generally secure in their understanding of the elements of the ecological footprint and frequently made reference to land, water and waste. The better answers were able to develop this in the context of the individual, examining aspects such as lifestyle, age and volume of consumption. However, many answers did not explore this context and thus did not gain full credit as they focused solely on a definition of the measure. A minority of candidates failed to address the question, examining other measures such as carbon footprint.

In general candidates were well prepared in this aspect of the syllabus and the basic principles behind Boserup's optimistic view were understood. Good answers identified ways such as vertical farming, genetic modification, use of renewable energy and elements of the circular economy and linked these to the optimistic view of the relationship between population and resources. Some answers however lacked precision and detail and gave vague statements concerning technological development without outlining what these were which limited the credit given to such responses. Credit was also limited where answers gave detail on valid technological developments but did not link them to the thesis outlined by Boserup.