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.

Examine the relationship between plate margin type and the character of volcanic activity.

Examine how geophysical factors were responsible for the differing impacts of two earthquake hazard events.

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

Most volcanic activity occurs along plate margins, although some is related to hotspots (e.g. Hawaii). Volcanoes occur along both destructive (convergent) and constructive (divergent) boundaries but are generally absent along strike-slip boundaries such as the San Andreas Fault. There is a relationship between the type of plate margin and the character of volcanic activity and resultant landforms.

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

• Most volcanic activity occurs along plate margins, and there is a close relationship between the type of plate margin and character of activity.
• Destructive (convergent) plate margins are associated with violent, explosive, andesitic eruptions, formed in relation to subduction processes. These form large strato-volcanoes, ash cones, ash falls, pyroclastic flows and lahars.
• Constructive plate margins are associated with less violent basaltic eruptions, forming large shield volcanoes, fissure vents, and basaltic lava plains. They often form on the ocean floors and mid-oceanic ridges, such as Iceland.
• Volcanic eruptions also occur away from plate margins, such as on “hot-spots” like Hawaii.
• Passive, strike-slip plate margins, such as the San Andreas Fault are not normally associated with volcanic activity.

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 complex relationship between volcanic activity and processes operating at different types of plate margin. The relationship is sometimes complicated because in some places volcanic activity occurs away from plate margins. There may also be temporal change with changing characteristics at the same plate margin. Another approach might be to look at the varying scale of volcanic activity.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of one or more plate margin types and the characteristics of volcanic activity.

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

• either an evidenced explanation of the relationship(s) between two types of plate margin and varying characteristics of volcanic activity
• 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 focus of the question is on the relationship between geophysical factors and their differing impacts. Earthquake hazard events are associated with the impact of ground shaking and rupture, landslides, tsunamis, and liquefaction. The geophysical characteristics of an area will have a major influence on the severity of impacts of an earthquake event. The impacts may be physical, human, or a combination of the two.

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

• The type of plate boundary affects the impact of earthquakes: convergent/destructive boundaries often produce stronger (higher magnitude) earthquakes than divergent (constructive) plate margins.
• The severity of the impact will vary with the intensity and depth of the earthquake event, and the nature/frequency of aftershocks. Shallow focus earthquakes have greater impact than deep earthquakes.
• Type of plate movement is important – vertical movement between plates (as on a convergent plate boundary) may cause more impact than horizontal (strike-slip) movement (as on a destructive plate margin).
• Other geophysical factors may include geology/rock type/sediments – which influence intensity of shaking, and possible liquefaction.
• Relief/slope steepness, and coastal topography may affect the incidence of landslides, and coastal flooding due to tsunamis.
• Time of day may also be considered as a geophysical factor.
• Impacts of earthquakes include ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and tsunamis, as well as coastal flooding, collapsed buildings and damage to infrastructure.

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 complex relationship between the nature of earthquake activity and resultant impacts. Good answers will have a wider variety of physical factors and associated processes. Another approach is to look at the interactions between physical factors and systems. There may be a clear contrast in the power and scale of examples used.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of geophysical factors affecting one or more earthquake hazard events/impacts.

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

• either an evidenced explanation of how geophysical factors led to differing impacts for two earthquake hazard events (do not expect balance)
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

There were some very good responses which linked the types of plate margin, processes, and the character of volcanic activity — these were detailed and well exemplified. On the other hand, there were many descriptive responses which ignored the presence of hot-spots and/or used examples that were not contemporary.

Some struggled to understand the meaning of geophysical factors (depth of focus, location of epicentre and wave types), and how this affects earthquake impacts, preferring to describe socio-economic factors or everything they knew about their case studies whether it was relevant or not. However, there were some very detailed and appropriate responses that provided clear evidence and perspectives.

Identify the altitude range within which the majority of mass movements occur.

Estimate the number of mass movements occurring above the altitude of 3500m.

Outline one physical factor affecting the speed of a mass movement.

Explain two possible strategies to reduce human vulnerability to rapid mass movement hazards in a mountainous area such as this.

2000–2999 (m not needed).

11 (allow 10–12).

Award [1] for physical factor and [1] for development.

For example: Gradient/slope [1] influences the effect of gravity on how fast material moves [1].

Other possible factors include:

• water content
• sediment size
• vegetation
• rainfall amount.

In each case, award [1] for outlining the strategy and up to [2] for the explanation and development/exemplification of how the strategy reduces human vulnerability.

For example: Land-use zoning keeps people away from dangerous areas [1]. This could be at the base of rock faces where debris might fall/slide [1]. This prevents loss of life/economic loss [1].

Other possible strategies include:

• insurance
• slope stabilization, e.g. netting, rock armour, revetments, snow fences
• excavation and infilling of slopes to realign them
• improving groundwater drainage / diverting water
• diverting roads/infrastructure from known areas
• evacuation warnings / education
• banning logging on hillsides
• controlled explosions
• housing design, to withstand impact of mass movement.

(a)(i) and (ii) Straightforward questions which were answered well.

(a)(i) and (ii) Straightforward questions which were answered well.

Most were able to get at least 1 mark but failed to develop the factor affecting the speed.

There were a lot of good responses for this question as many candidates had solid knowledge and understanding of possible strategies. Most had at least one strategy but struggled with a second so ended up with something generic. Also, many did not explain how the strategy reduced human vulnerability.

Identify the location of the earthquake event with the highest magnitude.

State the number of deaths caused by the earthquake event in the USA.

Outline one reason why high-magnitude earthquake events do not occur very often.

Explain how the risk to a community from earthquake events such as these might be affected by the age structure of its population.

Explain how the risk to a community from earthquake events such as these might be affected by political factors (governance of the country).

Indian Ocean

Accept answers between 130–160

Award [1] a valid reason and [1] for development.

For example, it takes a long time for sufficient tension to build between plates [1] in order to generate the higher amounts of energy to be released in a high-magnitude earthquake event [1].

Award [1] for a basic link between a valid population factor and some aspect of vulnerability/risk (such as preparedness, resilience, response) and up to [2] for further development/exemplification.

For example, a population with a higher proportion of elderly people has greater vulnerability [1] as earthquakes /tsunamis are sudden events with little warning time [1] with insufficient time for people with limited mobility to reach higher ground (tsunami) [1].

It is acceptable that different aspects of the age structure (elderly / youthful) can be discussed rather than focusing on just one segment of the population.

Other factors include:

• vulnerable to injury e.g. falling masonry
• vulnerability to secondary hazards e.g. spread if disease
• older population may have greater perception of the hazard and are better prepared e.g. survival kits
• very young / old are more likely to be at home.

Award [1] for a basic link between a valid political factor and some aspect of vulnerability/risk (such as preparedness, resilience, response) and up to [2] for further development/exemplification.

For example, governments have put in place effective communications to warn their people about earthquake risks [1] for example, United States Geological Survey (USGS) providing information to the Californian people about the San Andreas fault [1] thereby prompting citizens to take steps to increase their resilience [1].

Other factors include legislation for:

• land zoning
• education
• building controls
• availability and readiness of emergency personnel.

No problem.

Misunderstanding of the logarithmic scale led to many incorrect answers.

Mixed results with most gaining at least one mark, but lacking sufficient development for a second mark.

Generally well done. It was good to see an understanding of the relevance of population structure.

Again largely well done, with most using Haiti as a case study.

Briefly outline two long-term impacts of infrastructure damage that could be included in Box A.

Outline how one characteristic of a community’s population structure can affect its vulnerability to earthquakes.

Explain three strategies that could increase the personal resilience of community members to an earthquake event such as the one shown in the diagram.

Award [1] for each valid long-term impact on society (defined as persisting beyond the initial event, eg power supply disruptions lasting for weeks, or loss of schools harming education for many years).

Possibilities include:

• lack of schools/education for community children
• widespread mortality from long-term lack of hospitals / disease
• persistence of polluted water supplies
• homelessness due to destroyed buildings.

Award [1] for two impacts whose long term or community aspect cannot be inferred. For example “roads closed” and “no electricity” would together be worth [1] only.

Award [1] for a valid characteristic and [1] for outlining the effect on vulnerability.

For example: An elderly population structure [1] could mean larger numbers of people would be likely to suffer serious injuries due to their limited mobility [1].

Other possibilities include:

• Large proportion of children – could heighten vulnerability if a school is destroyed.
• High dependency ratio means that the population has disproportionately large number of young and elderly who would be less able to respond appropriately.

Resilience describes the ability to recover/resume normal operations following a hazard event. This can be achieved in various ways, before, during and immediately after the event.

In each case, award [1] for a strategy and [1] for the explanation of how resilience is increased.

For example: Some individuals have fitted their houses with automatic shutdown switches [1], which reduces their vulnerability/increases their resilience to the secondary hazard of fires [1].

Personal resilience is achieved through:

• increased preparedness (for example personal emergency kits, adaptations to homes)
• use of insurance
• adoption of new technologies (for example smartphone apps related to advance warning)
• education in use of bamboo to strengthen building design.

This was generally well answered, although sometimes the impacts were insufficiently developed to gain full marks.

This question caused a problem for the many candidates who did not understand the term "population structure", often writing about poverty or population density. There were some good responses relating to high dependency ratios, or large numbers of elderly/children in a population.

Many good responses, but some did not develop each point adequately or consider "personal resilience" in their answers.

Examine how social and economic strategies may reduce people’s vulnerability to earthquake hazard events.

Evaluate pre-event strategies and post-event strategies for the management of mass movement hazards.

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

The vulnerability of people to an earthquake hazard varies spatially. Mitigating measures to reduce vulnerability to injury, disease and death include a variety of social and economic strategies. Levels of wealth, and planning by local and national authorities, will influence their effectiveness.

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

• Levels of vulnerability vary spatially, between and within communities.
• Reduction in vulnerability concerns both individuals and communities.
• Social strategies include increasing perception of the hazard risk, knowledge and degree of preparedness.
• Reduction in vulnerability might involve risk reduction through measures such as education, drills, increasing awareness.
• Increasing individual, family and community preparedness includes storing food and water for emergencies, emergency kits.
• Special preparation strategies may be needed for disabled, elderly and young children.
• Economic strategies / wealth – making buildings and infrastructure more resilient; improved communications (warnings); media.
• There is a relationship between social and economic strategies, at different scales.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) that examines how vulnerability may be reduced at different spatial scales (individual, family, community), and the role and power of different stakeholders. Another approach might be to critically examine the interaction between social and economic factors at different scales.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of some social and/or economic strategies to reduce human vulnerability.

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

• either an evidenced explanation of a variety of social and economic strategies (do not expect balance) to reduce human vulnerability
• 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).

Mass movements pose a considerable risk to people and infrastructure, especially in upland areas with steep slopes and high rainfall. The potential risk may increase due to human activity modifying the slopes through the building of settlements and roads and changing the vegetation cover on vulnerable slopes. Hazard risk and vulnerability may be the result of different types of mass movement, from slow (soil creep, solifluction) to rapid (landslides, rockfalls).

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

• Pre-event strategies include:
  • identifying areas at risk (geological surveys and mapping)
  • GIS
  • slope stabilization, drainage
  • vegetating slopes/afforestation/grass
  • terracing, re-shaping
  • use of gabions and netting.
• Also, mitigating factors such as:
  • planning and land-use zoning
  • increasing levels of awareness; education.
• Post-event strategies (varying with type of mass movement and different time scales) include:
  • reducing injury/loss of life (search and rescue; medical aid; securing water supplies)
  • reconstruction
  • re-location of vulnerable settlements
  • modifications to infrastructure.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3), comparing the relative importance/success of strategies, or different scale examples. They may compare successes and failures for different places (of different stages of development). Another approach might be to systematically evaluate strategies for different mass movement processes, eg rapid to slow mass movement.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of pre- and/or post-event strategies.

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

• either an evidenced explanation of pre- and post-event strategies (do not expect balance) for managing mass movement hazard(s)
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

Award up to a maximum of [4] if a tectonic process is used instead of mass movement but has some valid pre-/post-event strategies.

There was a good use of case studies (Haiti, Japan, Christchurch) in these responses with a wide range of social and economic strategies examined.

Some weaker answers missed 'social and economic strategies' and gave generic advantages and disadvantages or just regurgitated their case study and did not effectively link the strategies to reducing vulnerability.

Mass movement is still a commonly misunderstood term with most candidates discussing earthquakes and volcanoes. The very few who correctly wrote about the different types of mass movement hazards were able to provide a well-balanced explanation of both pre- and post-event strategies, evidenced by strong case studies.

Determine the difference in height between the spot heights at A and B.

Estimate the distance in kilometres between A and B on the map.

Outline how one piece of map evidence indicates that this is a volcanic area.

Explain how volcanic hazard vulnerability in an area such as this could be reduced using GPS crater monitoring.

Explain how volcanic hazard vulnerability in an area such as this could be reduced using lava diversions.

1446–125 = 1321 m (units not required)

9.1 km (accept 8.5–9.5). (unit not required)

Award [1] for relevant evidence and [1] for development linked to volcanic activity. There should be some specific reference to an area/place on the map to gain [1].

For example: Snaefellsjokull [1] is a large dome/cone-shaped volcano as seen from circular contour lines [1].

Other possibilities include:

• lava block field along the coast / NW of the area indicating lava flows from a volcano
• crater(s) – on named volcano – indicates volcanic activity.

Allow [1] for demonstrating an understanding of the term and [1] for each further development point explaining how vulnerability is reduced, up to a maximum of [3].

For example: GPS monitoring means that transmitters/receivers are placed around the volcano [1] allowing scientists to monitor and record data about the volcano's activity and changes [1] thus allowing for a timely evacuation of the populations affected by potential volcanic eruptions [1].

Allow [1] for demonstrating an understanding of the term and [1] for each further development point explaining how vulnerability is reduced, up to a maximum of [3].

For example: Lava diversions can be building walls or incorporating lava tubes [1] as is used for volcanic eruptions on Mount Etna [1] which have helped divert the lava from the more populous areas and so saving lives and property [1].

Most had no difficulty here although there were some very unrealistic distances given.

Most had no difficulty here although there were some very unrealistic distances given.

Many could identify a sign of volcanic activity but failed to give map evidence for location and to justify the volcanic activity

Responses were generally okay although at times a little superficial and candidates needed to explain how vulnerability could be reduced in a way more clearly linked to the term.

Responses were generally okay although at times a little superficial and candidates needed to explain how vulnerability could be reduced in a way more clearly linked to the term.

Identify the land use with the largest area.

Estimate the distance, in metres, between A and B of the landslide on the map.

Outline one physical factor that increases the speed of onset in a mass movement event.

Suggest how two pre-event management strategies could reduce the negative impact of mass movement in an area such as this.

Tea

850 (accept 820 to 900)

Award [1] for cause and [1] for development.

For example: Prolonged rainfall [1] will saturate the soil and accelerate soil movement on a slope [1].

Other possibilities include:

• relief/gradient
• soil structure
• geology.

In each case, award [1] for a valid strategy and up to [2] for development, explanation or exemplification. (If strategy and/or development is not specific to mass movement hazard then maximum [2].)

For example: Increasing slope stability by terracing [1] therefore reducing the slope angle [1] and preventing damage to settlement / farmland [1].

Other strategies include, but are not limited to:

• land use zoning – infrastructure and buildings
• banning logging on steep slopes / Plant trees
• improving drainage/diverting surface water
• restraining structures e.g. gabions/walls
• netting/rock traps.

These were done with no problems.

These were done with no problems.

This was generally well answered with slope/gradient and rainfall being the most popular answers.

Many were able to give two pre-event management strategies with some explanation. However, they were unable to link this to an impact in a meaningful way. Strategies were often too general or did not relate to mass movement.

Estimate the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) moving to Artibonite.

Estimate the furthest distance, in km, from Port-au-Prince at which very strong earthquake intensity was experienced.

Outline how the distance from the epicentre of an earthquake can determine the severity of two associated secondary hazards.

Explain two reasons why internally displaced persons may have to wait a long time to return home after a major earthquake event such as this.

125 000 persons (accept 100 000–150 000).

80 (allow 70–90).

In each case, award [1] for recognizing a valid secondary hazard, and [1] for further development showing applied knowledge of geophysical hazards.

For example: The further from the epicentre, the fewer landslides [1]. This is because shaking is less severe, which can cause instability of slopes [1].

Do not double credit less severe / more severe shaking

Other possibilities include:

• tsunamis
• liquefaction
• fires
• collapse of infrastructure
• disease.

In each case, award [1] for a valid reason and [1] for further development showing applied knowledge of geophysical hazards.

For example: Large scale of devastation [1] means an enormous cost/undertaking to reconstruct housing/infrastructure [1].

Other possibilities include:

• aftershocks
• infrastructure destroyed
• weak government
• lack of funding
• pollution (atmospheric or terrestrial)
• lack of insurance
• wealth/poverty levels
• lack of resources/materials/workers/aid for reconstruction
• fear of returning.

Examine pre-event management strategies designed to reduce human vulnerability to mass movement hazards.

Examine the relative importance of economic and social factors in the vulnerability of local communities to geophysical hazards.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The focus of the response should be on management strategies that might be implemented to reduce vulnerability prior to a mass movement hazard event. Vulnerability includes economic and social factors, such as damage to buildings and infrastructure, loss of life and injury, and decline of living standards. Mass movement hazards are often the product of other hazard events, such as tectonic activity and storms.

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

• Understanding of physical and human causes of mass movement, eg tectonic activity, storms, deforestation, construction of infrastructure.
• Geophysical surveys, hazard prediction, records of type, frequency and location of past large-scale mass movement events.
• Hazard risk-mapping of hazard-prone areas; government planning and land-use zoning.
• Slope stabilization measures, including terracing, re-vegetation, slope drainage, gabions, etc.
• Need for decision making at various scales: local, national and international.

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the effectiveness and cost of management strategies in relation to different places and at varying spatial scales, and the different perspectives on how the risks should be managed.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of some pre-event management strategies.

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

• either evidenced explanation of a range of management strategies to reduce human vulnerability
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The vulnerability of people to geophysical hazards is affected by a variety of economic and social factors, including variations in wealth and education, past experience, personal knowledge and the perception of hazard risk. These will vary between and within different communities.

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

• Geophysical hazards represent a significant threat to many communities around the world; many large cities are located on plate margins, close to active volcanoes and earthquake zones.
• Vulnerability is a product of the likelihood/probability of a hazardous event occurring and the consequences in terms of injury, death and destruction.
• Economic factors affecting vulnerability include wealth and infrastructure and communications; planning.
• Social factors include perception of the risk, population characteristics, education and literacy levels.
• Perception of the hazard will affect management and levels of preparedness to reduce risk from future events.

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) that examines the statement in a way that shows understanding of how economic and social factors affect vulnerability of people in different communities/countries.

Accept discussion beyond local scale to communities within countries.

For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly evidenced outlining of some social and economic factors that might affect vulnerability of communities.

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

• either evidenced explanation of how a variety of economic and social factors affect vulnerability in different communities
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

Examine the severity of the impacts of different types of mass movement on human well-being.

Examine the effectiveness of technology and planning strategies in reducing human vulnerability to volcanic hazards.

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

Human well-being is a broad concept, which can be measured in a variety of different ways. It includes social factors, morbidity and mortality rates, health, education, human rights, access to resources (food, shelter, water) and employment, and quality of life. Different types of mass movement include fast/slow, solid/loose: such as landslides, rockslides, debris or mud flows.

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

• Human well-being is a broad concept, including social factors, such as health, education, access to resources and quality of life, economic and political factors.
• Different types of mass movement include: landslides, rockslides, debris or mud flows.
• Mass movement can have significant economic, social and health impacts, including — morbidity and mortality rates, deaths and injuries.
• The severity of the impact on human well-being will partly depend on the type of mass movement and will vary spatially between different places.
• The severity may be considered in terms of long and short-term impacts.

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that reaches an evidenced judgment regarding the importance of different types and processes of mass movement in affecting human well-being in different places. Another approach might be to examine the severity of the impacts in terms of different time scales (long and short term).

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly-evidenced outlining of the impact of at least one type of mass movement on human well-being.

For 7–8 marks, expect a well-structured account that includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of the severity of impacts of two or more types of mass movement on human well-being
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, perhaps considering severity at different time scales.

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).

Increasing numbers of people are living in areas of hazardous volcanic activity, especially near destructive plate margins associated with violent, explosive volcanoes. People may be especially vulnerable to the destructive effects of rapid flows of lava and pyroclastics, and large-scale ash falls. Management strategies involving the use of planning and technology might contribute to the reduction of human vulnerability to volcanic hazards.

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

• Technologies might be used to predict future volcanic eruptions, including monitoring of volcanic activity, seismic and crater monitoring surveys; GPS surveys to measure changes in shape of volcanoes, and monitoring of movements in the magma chamber.
• Other technological strategies might include: improving telecommunications (SMS messages) to give warnings of possible eruptions.
• Planning strategies could include mapping of volcanic areas to produce hazard-zone maps; land use zoning.
• Education and drills to warn and inform people what to do in case of an eruption; evacuation plans.
• Planning and technologies to locate and rescue survivors, and rehabilitation plans for the aftermath of an eruption.
• The effectiveness of these strategies will depend partly on levels of economic development, and on the perception of the hazard by local people and other stakeholders.

Good answers may be well-structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that reaches an evidenced judgment regarding the effectiveness of different strategies, and the power of different stakeholders in reducing vulnerability. Another approach might be to consider effectiveness in terms of the scale of hazard events in different places.

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly-evidenced outlining of technological and/or planning strategies.

For 7–8 marks, expect a well-structured account that includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of the effectiveness of technology and planning strategies in reducing human vulnerability
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, discussing the relative effectiveness of strategies.

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

It was disturbing that so many candidates appeared to be unaware of the meaning of the term mass movement and this essay was generally poorly answered. Many related the term to earthquakes or even population migration. There were, however, some excellent answers which were well structured and exemplified.

This question was popular and generally well answered, with both terms technology and planning understood and good use of case studies. In some there was limited understanding of what different methods of technology eg tiltmeter, actually measured. Weaker answers were very general with no examples and very basic content and many giving historic examples eg Vesuvius. There was often a lack of discussion regarding effectiveness of strategies and writing everything they knew about their case study.

Examine how physical processes affect the level of volcanic hazard risk in different places.

Examine why mass movement hazard risk in some places could change in the future.

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

Hazard risk is a function of the interaction between human and physical factors. Physical processes include both the primary hazards resulting from the characteristics of volcanic activity and the associated secondary hazards. The risk from volcanic activity varies between different places (which may be rural or urban, or at different scales, or with varying levels of wealth). Hotspots are relatively localized, and the risk will be over a small area, while activity on a plate margin presents risk over a much wider area.

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

• The characteristics of volcanoes, including:

• magnitude and frequency of eruption / active or dormant volcanoes
• the type of eruption, eg destructive plate margins are associated with violent, explosive volcanic activity
• the type of lava – explosive, andesitic or basaltic
• secondary hazards: pyroclastic flows, lahars, landslides, tsunamis.

• The degree of risk is a function of the relationship between the nature of the volcanic hazard and human factors.
• The risk also varies between different rural and urban places.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which examines the statement in a way that shows understanding of the relationship between multiple physical processes, including magnitude and type of volcanic activity, and associated secondary hazards. Another approach would be to examine risks to places at different locations and scales (“hotspots” as opposed to plate margins).

For 5–6 marks, expect some outlining of risk(s) resulting from volcanic activity. The response is partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

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

• either a well-evidenced explanation of a range of volcanic processes and associated risks
• or an ongoing evaluation (or discursive conclusion) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

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

Refer to Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The risk from mass movement hazards is a product of economic factors, such as levels of development and technology; demographic and social factors, such as population density and education; and political factors. The question refers to “some places” – in other words, the risk might not increase in all places; in some it might decrease over time. Some places might be more at risk than others.

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

The risk from mass movement hazards might increase because of:

• increased population pressure due to growth of population / urbanization in hazardous areas; eg shanty towns on mountain slopes
• increase in frequency and magnitude of hazard – “trigger actions” due to climate change, such as more storms, deforestation of hillslopes.

In other areas, the hazard risk might decrease due to:

• management practices and mitigation techniques, including slope stabilization,land-use zoning, personal resilience (preparedness, insurance)
• changes in hazard perception.

The nature of the risk may also depend on type of mass movement and local contexts (eg, will high magnitude events increase more than slow types of movement, such as solifluction and creep in thawing periglacial regions).

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which examines the varying degree of risk attached to different mass movement processes. Another approach might be to examine how future risks vary between places and may increase over different time scales.

For 5–6 marks, expect some outlining of mass movement hazard risks. The response is partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

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

• either a well-evidenced explanation of the varying reasons for future changes in mass movement hazards risks in 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.

Some very good responses, with a detailed examination of varied physical processes and volcanic characteristics at different types of plate margin in different places, including variations in explosivity, lava types and secondary hazards such as lahars. It was pleasing to see some valid diagrams supporting their examples. Weaker candidates described volcanoes in general terms, and some examples were rather dated, such as Mt St Helens (1980). Contemporary examples of volcanic activity should be used wherever possible.

This was a less popular question. There were some good responses, examining changing levels of risk in terms of human pressures, such as deforestation, settlement, and possible climate change, as well as mitigating factors, such as slope stabilization schemes, monitoring and land-use zoning, using pertinent examples. Weaker candidates gave descriptive accounts of mass movements that had occurred, rather than how risk might change in the future. Some, unfortunately, showed a complete lack of understanding and wrote about earthquakes, or population migration - suggesting that the new topic of mass movement had not been taught.