| Date | November 2019 | Marks available | 1 | Reference code | 19N.2.SL.TZ0.4 |
| Level | Standard Level | Paper | Paper 2 | Time zone | Time zone 0 |
| Command term | Identify | Question number | 4 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Figure 4: A measure of the sustainability of individual countries from a comparison of their ecological footprint and their standard of living
[Source: adapted from Travelplanner/Wikimedia. File licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. Data sourced from Global
Footprint Network 2008 report (2005 data) and UN Human Development Index 2007/08]
Using Figure 4, identify the country that is above the threshold for high human development and below the Earth’s biocapacity.
Outline the relationship between carrying capacity and ecological footprint.
To meet the minimum criteria for sustainability, a country needs to raise its human welfare above the threshold of high human development and have an ecological footprint below the Earth’s biocapacity.
Evaluate two strategies a country can implement to achieve the minimum criteria for sustainability.
Markscheme
Cuba.
ecological footprint (EF) is the reciprocal/inverse of carrying capacity (CC);
populations with high per capita EF will have low CC / a population with a low EF would be less limited by CC in a given area (and vice versa) / EF determines whether a population is living within limits of CC;
EF identifies area needed (to satisfy the needs of a designated population) whereas CC identifies maximum population for sustainability (a designated area may sustain);
EF is easier to calculate but has clear implications for CC;
both EF and CC depend upon rate of resource consumption/waste produced;
both EF and CC depend upon local environmental resources/waste processing ability;
both EF and CC facilitate a quantitative assessment of sustainability;
local EF may increase by import of goods produced elsewhere, whereas CC is dependent only to local productivity / CC may decrease through export of goods;
EF is not applied to non-human populations (whereas CC is difficult to apply to human populations).
There is a huge range of potentially creditable responses/strategies for sustainability so do credit responses not listed below but of equivalent relevance and detail.
Strategy: reducing consumption of resources by change in lifestyle/reduced population growth/improved efficiency/imposing sustainable limits/ etc;
Advantage: addresses problem at the source / may simultaneously solve multiple problems / etc;
Disadvantage: may be unpopular / depends upon uncertain technological advance / may reduce economic development in LEDCs / etc;
Strategy: reducing pollution through reducing consumption / limiting/regulating emissions / cleaning-up/restoring polluted ecosystems / finding cleaner resources/alternatives / etc;
Advantage: some levels are more effective as they attack root of problem / helps to preserve biodiversity / reduces ecological footprint / etc;
Disadvantage: clean-up may be expensive/ineffective / regulations may hinder development / production / technological advances may not be forthcoming / etc.
Strategy: improving conservation/protection of species through conservation areas/CITES/ex-situ institutions/public campaigns/ etc;
Advantage: biodiversity is maintained improving resilience/increasing stability /potential human resources are preserved / local populations may be educated/involved / etc;
Disadvantage: ex-situ conservation does not provide full range of habitat resources/genetic diversity / conservation areas may conflict with local population needs / policing/monitoring may be ineffective / etc.
Award [3 max] if the response gives either no advantages or no disadvantages.
Award [2 max] if the response gives neither advantages nor disadvantages.
Award [0] if no strategies are identified
