2025 OCR AS Level Geography - H081 Practice Paper with Answers

A is a detached pillar of rock separated from the cliff line, so it is a stack (formed after an arch collapses). B is a flat expanse of rock between cliff base and low tide mark, so it is a shore platform (wave-cut platform), left as the cliff retreats through wave erosion. C is an opening at the cliff foot narrowing inwards, so it is a cave, formed by hydraulic action and abrasion exploiting a weakness.

1 mark for each correct landform (3 marks in total).

A: stack. Do not accept stump (it would be low and submerged at high tide) or arch.
B: shore platform. Allow wave-cut platform, rock platform, wave-cut bench.
C: cave. Allow sea cave. Do not accept geo or arch.

Award the mark for the label matching the correct letter only. If a letter has two alternative answers, do not credit it.

Sites A and B have the same weak geology, so the difference in retreat (1.3 m per year against 0.4 m per year) cannot be caused by rock type. The clear difference is beach width: 4 m at A against 38 m at B. A wide beach acts as a buffer. Waves break and lose energy crossing the beach, so little energy reaches the cliff base. This reduces hydraulic action, abrasion and undercutting, so less cliff-foot notching and fewer rockfalls or slumps occur. At A the narrow beach gives little protection, so waves attack the cliff foot directly and retreat is faster. A further valid point is that beach material at the cliff foot can protect it, but the same material can also be used as tools for abrasion when waves are powerful.

4 marks: one developed point, up to 1 mark for the point and up to 3 marks for development, with at least 1 mark for use of evidence from Fig. 3.

Answers may include:
- Wide beach absorbs or dissipates wave energy (1), so less energy reaches the cliff foot (1), reducing erosion by hydraulic action or abrasion and undercutting (1).
- Evidence (1): Site B has a 38 m beach and 0.4 m per year retreat, compared with Site A, which has a 4 m beach and 1.3 m per year retreat. Both sites have the same rock type, so the beach is the likely cause (1).
- Narrow beach gives little protection, so waves reach the cliff foot and cause notching, leading to collapse (up to 2).
- Beach acts as a store of sediment in the sediment budget, protecting the cliff (1).

Allow comparison of A and B as the best evidence. Allow a calculation, such as retreat being about three times faster at A (1.3 / 0.4, approximately 3.3).
Do not accept answers based only on rock type, or on Site C, with no link to the beach.
Do not accept 'the beach stops waves' with no reference to energy.
Max 3 marks if Fig. 3 data is not used.
Credit any other valid response.

Stage 1 - Initiation: snow accumulates in a pre-existing hollow on a shaded, sheltered slope (aspect away from the sun and prevailing wind). Nivation (freeze-thaw weathering and meltwater removal beneath the snow patch) enlarges the hollow.

Stage 2 - Ice formation: repeated accumulation, compression and recrystallisation turn snow to firn and then glacial ice. Accumulation exceeds ablation so the ice thickens.

Stage 3 - Movement and erosion: once thick enough, the ice moves by rotational flow (rotational slip) under gravity. Plucking at the backwall and abrasion by rock debris embedded in the base of the ice deepen the floor into a concave basin. Freeze-thaw weathering above the ice surface (and meltwater entering the bergschrund) supplies debris and steepens the headwall.

Stage 4 - Lip formation: erosion is weaker at the outlet where the ice is thinner, so a rock threshold (lip) forms, sometimes with moraine deposited on it.

Stage 5 - Deglaciation: when the ice melts the armchair-shaped hollow with steep backwall, over-deepened floor and lip remains, often holding a tarn. Two arretes may form where adjacent corries meet.

Best-fit use of the levels: stronger answers sequence the process and link each process to a change in form.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 4 marks, AO2 (application/analysis) 4 marks. Levels of response, best-fit then refine within the level.

Level 4 (7-8 marks, Comprehensive): thorough, accurate and logically sequenced explanation of formation, linking several processes (nivation, freeze-thaw, plucking, abrasion, rotational flow) to the resulting features (armchair shape, steep backwall, over-deepened floor, lip). Clear understanding of the conditions required. Well-developed use of terminology.
Level 3 (5-6 marks, Thorough): good explanation of most stages with some development and linkage; may be slightly unbalanced or lack sequencing.
Level 2 (3-4 marks, Reasonable): some explanation of one or two processes with partial linkage to landform features; mostly descriptive.
Level 1 (1-2 marks, Basic): simple, isolated statements; little or no explanation. Mark 0: no creditworthy response.

Answers may include:
- Favourable conditions: shaded aspect (north or east-facing in northern hemisphere), sheltered from wind, pre-existing hollow, snow accumulation exceeding ablation.
- Nivation enlarges the hollow through freeze-thaw and meltwater.
- Snow compresses to firn then ice.
- Rotational movement of ice under gravity.
- Plucking of the backwall and abrasion of the floor produce an over-deepened basin.
- Freeze-thaw weathering above the ice steepens the backwall; bergschrund.
- Rock lip/threshold because thinner ice at outlet erodes less; moraine may add to it.
- After melting, a tarn may form; arete or pyramidal peak where corries back onto each other.
Accept: cirque, cwm, armchair-shaped hollow. Allow: annotated sequence in diagram form if linked to text. Do not accept: confusing a corrie with a U-shaped valley, or explanations based on river erosion.
Credit any other valid response. Credit valid case study examples.

Plan for a strong answer:
1. Introduce the named place, its setting (geology, wave energy, sediment cell, land use at risk) and the management strategies used (e.g. sea walls, rock armour, groynes, beach nourishment, managed realignment, or 'do nothing').
2. Benefits (solving problems): protects homes, farmland, roads and tourism assets; groynes and nourishment hold beach material, which dissipates wave energy; cost-benefit appraisal can justify protection of high-value areas; soft engineering is more sustainable and keeps natural processes working.
3. Problems created: interrupting longshore drift so that sediment is trapped updrift and downdrift sections are starved and erode faster (using place-specific detail); reflected waves from sea walls scouring beach material; high capital and maintenance costs; unprotected areas become losers (compensation disputes, blight); visual and ecological damage; encourages development in risk areas; nourished material is lost and needs repeating.
4. Evaluation: compare by scale (local versus wider cell), time (short-term gains versus long-term costs), and stakeholder (landowners, residents, councils, conservation groups). Consider whether integrated approaches such as Shoreline Management Plans reduce problems.
5. Conclusion: a judgement on 'usually' and 'as many', supported by evidence, e.g. problems often matched or outweighed in hard-engineered stretches but fewer with soft or adaptive strategies.

14 marks: AO1 = 4, AO2 = 6, AO3 = 4. Levels of response; use a best-fit approach, then refine within the level. Quality of extended response is assessed.

Level 4 (Comprehensive) 11-14 marks: Detailed, accurate knowledge and understanding of coastal management and its effects (AO1). Applies knowledge to a named place with accurate, specific, relevant place detail (AO2). Balanced, well-evidenced evaluation of benefits against problems, with a clear, supported judgement addressing 'usually' and 'as many' (AO3). Clear, logical, well-structured argument.
Level 3 (Thorough) 8-10 marks: Good knowledge and understanding with mostly accurate place detail. Applies to the place with some depth. Evaluation of both sides, with a judgement that is reasoned but may be only partly supported or unbalanced. Mostly clear structure.
Level 2 (Reasonable) 5-7 marks: Some knowledge with some inaccuracy; place detail is general or only partly relevant. Some attempt to consider both benefits and problems but mainly descriptive; judgement is simple or asserted.
Level 1 (Basic) 1-4 marks: Limited, isolated knowledge; place is vague or absent. Little or no evaluation; generic statements. Limited structure.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Answers may include:
- Named place and its management strategy (hard engineering: sea walls, rock armour, groynes, revetments; soft: beach nourishment, dune stabilisation; managed realignment; hold the line, no active intervention).
- Benefits: protection of property, infrastructure and economic activity; stabilised beaches; reduced erosion rates locally; cost-benefit justification; soft engineering working with natural processes.
- Problems: disrupted sediment budget and longshore drift, terminal groyne syndrome, downdrift erosion; scouring by reflected waves; high cost and maintenance; visual and ecological impact; conflict between winners and losers; encouraging development in risky areas; short life of nourishment.
- Evaluation: scale (local versus wider sediment cell), time, strategy type and stakeholder viewpoint; role of Shoreline Management Plans.
- Judgement on 'usually' and 'as many' supported by evidence.
Accept any valid managed coastal landscape in the UK or beyond. Do not accept a response with no named place above Level 2. Do not credit descriptions of landforms not linked to management.
Credit any other valid response.
Credit valid case study examples.

Choose two distinct indicators from the categories of housing, healthcare, education, employment or access to services. For each, state what is measured (1 mark) and then explain how it reveals inequality when compared between the two places (1 mark).

Example: Measure 1 - the unemployment rate (1). A much higher rate in one place than in the other shows that residents there have less access to secure income, which leads to lower spending power and greater deprivation (1).
Measure 2 - life expectancy at birth (1). A gap of several years between the places shows unequal access to healthcare, healthy housing and diet, which reflects wider social inequality (1).

Up to 2 marks for each measure, maximum 4 marks. For each measure: 1 mark for identifying a valid measure or index of social inequality; 1 mark for development, explaining how comparing it between the two places shows inequality (e.g. through 'because' or 'which leads to').

Answers may include:
- Employment: unemployment rate, long-term worklessness, proportion in low-paid or insecure work, median household income.
- Education: proportion achieving benchmark qualifications, school attendance, proportion with no qualifications.
- Housing: overcrowding, house price to income ratio, proportion of households in social or substandard housing, housing quality.
- Healthcare: life expectancy, infant mortality, limiting long-term illness, distance to GP or hospital.
- Access to services: distance to shops, banks, public transport frequency, broadband coverage.
- Composite indices that combine several of these indicators (e.g. an index of multiple deprivation) may be credited as one measure if the component indicators are explained.

Accept: any reasonable quantitative indicator of inequality in life chances or living standards.
Do not accept: purely descriptive statements with no measure (e.g. 'one place is poorer'); two measures from the same indicator (e.g. unemployment and long-term unemployment) as separate measures; development without an identified measure gains no marks for that measure.
Credit any other valid response. Credit valid case study examples.

The demographic indicators in Fig. 3 are age structure (residents aged 65 and over) and place of birth (residents born outside the UK). Either can be contrasted. Age: 27% in Elmfield against 11% in Harbourside, so Elmfield has an older population (difference 16 percentage points). Birthplace: 34% in Harbourside against 6% in Elmfield, so Harbourside is more ethnically and culturally diverse (difference 28 percentage points). Renting and employment are housing and socio-economic indicators, not demographic ones.

1 mark for one valid demographic contrast that uses data from Fig. 3 and makes the comparison clear.

Answers may include:
- Elmfield has a higher percentage of residents aged 65 and over (27% compared with 11%) or Harbourside has a younger population.
- Harbourside has a higher percentage of residents born outside the UK (34% compared with 6%).

Accept: comparative statements with both figures, or with the correct difference (16 or 28 percentage points).
Allow: 'about a quarter' for 27% and 'about a third' for 34%.
Do not accept: statements with no data or no comparison (e.g. 'Elmfield has more old people'); a figure for only one neighbourhood; contrasts on private renting or full-time work, as these are housing and socio-economic indicators rather than demographic.
Credit any other valid response that is supported by data from Fig. 3.

Identify a contrast in the data, then explain the process or cause behind it, linking to flows of people, money and economic change.

Reason 1 (service-sector regeneration): Harbourside has 38% of adults in finance, creative and digital services compared with 12% in Millfield Park. Investment and new service jobs have attracted a young, mobile population (median age 29, 61% renting privately), and demand from higher earners has raised house prices to 285 thousand pounds.

Reason 2 (industrial heritage and stability): Millfield Park retains a manufacturing base (24% against 5%), reflecting its industrial past, and has a settled, older population (median age 47) with 63% living at the same address for 10+ years and mostly owner-occupied homes (only 14% renting). Lower inward migration and less investment mean lower house prices (172 thousand).

Other valid pairings are acceptable, e.g. gentrification and migration of young people into Harbourside; ageing in place in Millfield Park.

4 marks: two reasons, each worth up to 2 marks (1 mark for a reason supported by evidence from Fig. 3, 1 mark for development/explanation using 'because', 'which leads to' etc.).

Answers may include:
- Regeneration/growth of the service economy in Harbourside (38% vs 12%) attracting young workers, hence younger population and higher house prices (up to 2).
- Younger, transient population in Harbourside due to in-migration and private renting (61% vs 14%; median age 29) (up to 2).
- Legacy of manufacturing and de-industrialisation in Millfield Park (24% vs 5%) so fewer new service jobs and lower incomes/house prices (up to 2).
- Settled, ageing community in Millfield Park (63% resident 10+ years; median age 47) with low population turnover and strong attachment (up to 2).
- Differences in investment, housing demand or affordability leading to different house prices (285 vs 172) (up to 2).

Accept: gentrification, flows of people, money and investment, place identity linked to past industry.
Do not accept: a simple description of the data with no reason (max 1 mark in total for two descriptions only); the same reason repeated for both neighbourhoods counts once; unsupported assertion with no reference to Fig. 3 is capped at 1 mark per reason.
No marks for quoting figures without a reason.
Credit any other valid response.

Structural economic change is a long-term shift in the make-up of an economy, here from primary/secondary industry to services. Evidence of decline: the disused colliery, spoil heaps and dismantled branch railway show that coal mining and its freight infrastructure have closed, so jobs and the supporting flows of resources have been lost. The dense terraces beside the colliery were built for workers, showing the former dependence on one industry. Evidence of new activity: the Business Park and Retail Park by the dual carriageway junction show tertiary-sector employment, locating where road access suits car-borne workers and customers rather than where the coal seams and rail were. The Parkway station on the eastern edge suggests commuter flows to larger centres. The Visitor Centre, Museum and Marina on the canal show reimaging through heritage and leisure, reusing the industrial canal for tourism. The golf course and low-density cul-de-sac housing in the north suggest in-migration of higher-income commuters and a changed socio-economic profile. Overall the map shows the economy shifting from extraction to services, with the built environment altered and new flows of money, people and investment.

6 marks, levels of response (AO2 interpret map evidence 3, AO1 understanding of structural change 3). Must use evidence from Fig. 3; best-fit then refine.

Level 3 (5-6 marks, Thorough): Clear, developed explanation using several accurate pieces of map evidence for both decline of industry and growth of services/new uses, linked explicitly to the idea of structural change (e.g. loss of primary jobs, rise of tertiary, changing flows). Coherent and well supported.
Level 2 (3-4 marks, Reasonable): Some explanation using map evidence, but one side (decline or growth) is less developed, or links to structural change are partial.
Level 1 (1-2 marks, Basic): Simple identification of features from the map with little or no explanation.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content, answers may include:
- Disused colliery, spoil heaps, dismantled railway = de-industrialisation, loss of primary/secondary jobs and freight flows.
- Dense terraced housing near the colliery = former workforce housing tied to one industry.
- Business Park and Retail Park at dual carriageway junction = growth of tertiary employment, road-based accessibility.
- Parkway station = commuting flows, connection to wider regional economy.
- Visitor Centre, Museum, Marina on the canal = heritage tourism, reimaging, reuse of industrial landscape.
- Golf Course and cul-de-sac estates = new, more affluent residents, changed demographic and socio-economic profile.
Accept any valid inference from grid features. Do not accept description of features with no link to economic change. Do not credit cyclical change as the explanation unless linked to a long-term shift. Credit any other valid response. Credit valid case study examples.

Plan: (1) Name and locate one rebranded place and the type of rebranding (reimaging such as marketing, events, flagship architecture, and regeneration such as new housing, transport, retail or leisure). (2) Benefits: job creation in services, improved built environment, new infrastructure, higher investment and property values, improved external perception, reduced crime or dereliction, new cultural facilities. (3) Limits and costs: gentrification and rising housing costs, displacement of lower-income or older residents, jobs that do not match local skills or are low-paid, loss of heritage and cultural identity, place attachment weakened, differing perceptions by age, role or length of residence, and gaps between the promoted image and the lived reality. (4) Players: local and national government, private developers, planners and architects, and community groups may have different aims, so outcomes differ. (5) Evidence such as census or deprivation indices, employment, rents, and informal representations (media, blogs, graffiti) can show uneven outcomes. (6) Conclusion: a balanced judgement, e.g. benefits are real but unevenly distributed, so 'all' is too strong; it depends on how far the community was involved and on timescale.

14 marks: AO1 (knowledge and understanding of rebranding, reimaging, regeneration, players and place) 4 marks; AO2 (application to the chosen place, analysis of who benefits and who does not) 6 marks; AO3 (evaluation, use of evidence and a supported conclusion) 4 marks. Quality of extended response is assessed.

Level 4 (Comprehensive) 12-14 marks: Thorough, accurate knowledge applied precisely to a named place with specific detail (places, dates, figures, projects). Well-developed analysis of different groups and perceptions. Balanced evaluation leading to a fully supported, nuanced judgement about the proposition. Clear, logical, well-structured argument.
Level 3 (Thorough) 9-11 marks: Good knowledge applied to a place with some specific detail. Developed points on both benefits and costs, with some evaluation and a conclusion that is mostly supported.
Level 2 (Reasonable) 5-8 marks: Some relevant knowledge with limited or generic place detail. Mostly descriptive or one-sided; limited evaluation; conclusion partial or asserted.
Level 1 (Basic) 1-4 marks: Few simple points, little or no place-specific evidence, no real evaluation or conclusion. Unstructured.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Use best fit, then refine within the level using the strength of place-specific evidence and the conclusion.

Answers may include: improved built environment and infrastructure; new jobs in services, retail, leisure and creative industries; increased inward investment and improved external image; rising property values and rents leading to gentrification and displacement; jobs not matching local skills or being low-paid; loss of heritage, identity and place attachment; different perceptions by age, role, income or length of residence; contrasts between formal statistics and informal representations; roles of government, developers, planners and community groups; the extent of community consultation.
Credit any other valid response. Credit valid case study examples. Do not credit answers with no rebranded place, or a place that is not rebranded, beyond generic AO1 (max Level 2).

Step 1: Choose a question that is specific, measurable and answerable in the map area, with a clear variable and location. Example: 'How does channel cross-sectional area change with distance downstream between the footpath bridge and the town bridge?'
Step 2: Justify it by linking to the map: tributaries join the main river, so discharge is expected to increase downstream (1 mark). The contour spacing widens towards the town, so the gradient decreases and the channel is expected to widen and deepen as it carries more water (1 mark). Safe access is available at the footpath network, bridge and car park, so measurements can be taken at several evenly spaced sites and the data can be compared (1 mark).
An alternative human question would also be valid, e.g. 'How does pedestrian footfall vary with distance from the car park towards the town centre?', justified by the car park position, the bridge as a bottleneck and the clustering of buildings in the centre.

Total 4 marks.
AO3 (question) and AO2 (justification).

Question: 1 mark for a clear, focused and testable research question that is relevant to the area in Fig. 1. Do not accept a vague title or topic only (e.g. 'Rivers' or 'Study the town'). Do not accept a question that cannot be answered with fieldwork in the area shown. Allow a hypothesis phrased as a statement to be credited as the question.

Justification: up to 3 marks. One mark for each valid, developed reason, e.g. 'because' or 'which leads to':
- link to map evidence (tributaries, contour spacing, building density, car park, bridge, footpaths);
- link to a geographical concept or process (Bradshaw-style downstream change is not required; accept discharge, gradient, load, friction, flows of people, accessibility, land use change);
- practical reason that the data can be collected at several sites, that access is safe, or that comparison is possible.
Max 2 marks for justification if the point has no link to Fig. 1.

Answers may include:
- river channel width, depth, velocity or cross-sectional area downstream;
- sediment size or roundness with distance downstream;
- pedestrian counts, land use or environmental quality with distance from the town centre or car park;
- visitor pressure or footpath erosion near the car park.
Credit any other valid response.

Each difficulty is awarded one mark for a clear, relevant point about primary data collection in a busy urban setting. Examples: counts taken at different times are not comparable because flows change through the day; the observer may miscount in dense crowds; a questionnaire sample may be biased or small because passers-by refuse or the surveyor chooses approachable people; perceptions of safety are subjective and may be affected by the time of day or by the weather; safety concerns for the student when surveying in quieter streets.

2 marks: 1 mark for each of two different difficulties outlined (AO3).

Answers may include:
- Pedestrian flows change with time of day, day of week or weather, so counts at different sites are not directly comparable (unless done at the same time).
- Counting errors in busy streets, with people moving in both directions or in groups, so the data are inaccurate.
- Low response rate or refusals to the questionnaire, giving a small sample.
- Sampling bias, e.g. the surveyor approaches only some types of people, so results are not representative of all users.
- Perception of safety is subjective, so answers are hard to compare or quantify; respondents may give socially desirable answers.
- Limited time or a small team means too few sites or repeat counts, reducing reliability.
- Personal safety or ethical issues when approaching strangers or surveying in quieter streets.

Allow: a difficulty with brief development; the second mark is for a second, separate difficulty, not for development of the first.
Do not accept: vague statements such as 'it takes a long time' or 'it is hard' with no link to the data collection; the same difficulty stated twice in different words; advantages of the methods.
Credit any other valid response.

Advantage 1 (3 marks): Census data cover the whole population of every neighbourhood (1), so the student does not have to rely on a small sample taken in a few streets (1), which makes patterns of deprivation more representative and reliable and reduces sampling bias (1).

Advantage 2 (3 marks): Using existing data saves collection time and cost (1), so the student can compare many indicators, such as housing, employment and education, across the whole town within a limited fieldwork period (1), and has more time for analysis and for checking results with fieldwork observations (1).

Other valid advantages: standardised, professionally collected data allow comparison between areas and over time; GIS lets data be mapped, layered and queried quickly, revealing spatial patterns and anomalies; access to areas or information that would be unsafe, impractical or intrusive to survey directly.

6 marks: two advantages, each worth up to 3 marks. Award 1 mark for identifying a valid advantage, and up to 2 further marks for development or application to the investigation (look for 'because', 'so', 'which means', 'which leads to'). Maximum 3 per advantage; do not award more than 3 for one advantage even if heavily developed. If the two advantages are not distinct, credit only the first.

Answers may include:
- Large sample covering whole population or all neighbourhoods, so more representative/reliable than a small primary sample, reducing sampling bias.
- Saves time and cost, so more variables or a wider area can be investigated in limited fieldwork time.
- Collected by trained professionals with standardised methods, so reliable, accurate and comparable between areas or over time.
- GIS allows quick mapping, layering and querying of data, so spatial patterns and anomalies are easy to identify.
- Gives information that would be impractical, intrusive or unsafe to collect directly (e.g. household income, health).

Accept: 'free'/'easily available' if developed. Allow: reference to repeating the analysis or comparing with earlier censuses.
Do not accept: simply 'it is more accurate' or 'it is quicker' with no development or link to the investigation; advantages of primary data; disadvantages.
Credit any other valid response.

Levels guide if marking holistically: 1-2 marks Basic (generic, undeveloped statements); 3-4 Reasonable (one developed advantage or two partly developed); 5-6 Thorough (two distinct, developed advantages linked to the investigation).

Model approach: (1) Name the investigation, location and question, e.g. how pebble size changes with distance along a beach, or how perceptions of a high street vary with distance from the centre. (2) Describe 2-3 techniques used: measures of central tendency and spread (mean, median, range, interquartile range, standard deviation); scatter graph with line of best fit showing correlation; kite diagram, proportional symbols or GIS map; coding of qualitative responses. (3) Evaluate each: the mean was distorted by outliers so the median/IQR was more representative; a line of best fit showed a trend but a small sample (e.g. 10 sites) limited confidence and correlation does not prove cause; a GIS or map showed spatial pattern but depended on accurate GPS and sample spacing; standard deviation showed consistency but is hard to interpret with few values. (4) Consider measurement error, sampling bias (random vs systematic vs stratified), and a single-day snapshot. (5) Overall judgement: the techniques gave a partly secure conclusion because ... ; improvement would be larger sample, repeat measurements, extra sites or a second day. Formal inferential tests (Spearman's rank etc.) are not required at AS Level.

12 marks, levels of response (AO3 mainly, with AO2). Best-fit then refine within level.

Level 4 (10-12 marks) Comprehensive: Named investigation with precise detail. Several techniques accurately described and evaluated using the candidate's own data or results. Evaluation is balanced (strengths and limitations) and explicitly linked to how secure the conclusion is. Supported overall judgement. Well-structured, accurate geographical terminology.

Level 3 (7-9 marks) Thorough: Clear investigation context. At least two techniques evaluated with some use of own data. Some balance. Judgement present but may be partly supported.

Level 2 (4-6 marks) Reasonable: Some detail of the investigation. Techniques described with limited evaluation, or evaluation generic. Little link to the conclusion.

Level 1 (1-3 marks) Basic: Isolated or generic statements about techniques or data collection. No clear link to own investigation.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Answers may include: use of mean, median, mode, range, interquartile range, standard deviation (anomalies, small samples); scatter graphs with line of best fit and correlation (shows trend, not causation); maps/GIS, choropleth, proportional symbols (spatial pattern, scale and location accuracy); coding of qualitative data, bias, subjectivity; sampling method and sample size; measurement error; reliability, validity and representativeness of conclusions; improvements (larger sample, repeats, more sites, different times/days).

Do not accept: formal inferential tests (Chi-squared, Spearman's rank, Mann-Whitney U, T-test) as required content, though credit them if used accurately in the candidate's own work. Do not credit data collection methods alone with no link to analysis/presentation.

Credit any other valid response. Credit valid fieldwork examples.

Way 1: Each year a tree adds one ring. Ring width varies with temperature and precipitation, because favourable conditions allow more growth. Wide rings therefore indicate warmer or wetter years, and narrow rings indicate cold or drought years. Way 2: Rings can be counted to give an annual, precisely dated record. By matching overlapping patterns from living trees and preserved dead wood, the record can be extended back several thousand years, allowing past climate to be compared with recent warming.

Award up to 2 marks for each of two different ways (max 4). One mark for identifying a way; one further mark for development/explanation (e.g. 'because', 'which means').

Answers may include:
- Ring width indicates growth conditions (1): wide rings show warm/wet years with a longer growing season, narrow rings show cold or drought years (1).
- Annual rings allow precise dating (1): each ring is one year so counting gives an exact year-by-year record (1).
- Cross-dating/overlapping samples from living trees and old timber extends the record back centuries or millennia (1) so long-term trends can be compared with the present (1).
- Ring density or scarring (e.g. frost rings) indicates unusually cold events or extreme years (1) with a link to the climate cause (1).

Accept: other valid climate variable inferred from rings (temperature, rainfall, drought).
Do not accept: simple statements such as 'trees grow more when it is warm' with no link to ring evidence; two answers that are the same way reworded.
Credit any other valid response.

A strong answer identifies natural forcings and explains the mechanism and timescale of each. Milankovitch cycles: changes in orbital eccentricity (c. 100,000 years), axial tilt (c. 41,000 years) and precession (c. 23,000 years) alter the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar radiation; cool northern summers allow winter snow to persist, ice sheets grow and the ice-albedo positive feedback amplifies cooling, driving glacial and interglacial cycles. Solar output: sunspot cycles (c. 11 years) and longer-term changes in solar luminosity alter incoming energy; lower activity (e.g. a prolonged minimum) is linked to cooler periods, but the effect on global mean temperature is small relative to other forcings. Plate tectonics: over tens of millions of years, continental position changes ocean currents and heat transport (e.g. polar continents promote ice sheets), mountain building changes weathering and atmospheric circulation, and volcanic outgassing at plate boundaries raises CO2 and can sustain greenhouse conditions. Examination (rather than description) is shown by judging the relative scale, speed or timescale of the factors, or by noting feedbacks and that the factors interact.

AO1 (3 marks) and AO2 (3 marks). Mark using levels of response, best-fit then refine within the level.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough/comprehensive. Accurate knowledge of at least two natural forcing factors with clear, developed explanation of how each changes climate (mechanism, feedbacks and timescale). Evidence of examination, e.g. comparison of the importance or timescale of factors, or interaction between them. Well-structured and coherent.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Reasonable. Some accurate knowledge of two factors, or one factor in depth; some explanation of how climate changes, but links or examination are partial or unbalanced.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. Limited, generalised or list-like points (e.g. 'the sun gets hotter', 'volcanoes put out gases') with little or no explanation.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Answers may include:
- Milankovitch cycles: eccentricity, tilt and precession alter the distribution of solar radiation on Earth, triggering glacial/interglacial cycles; ice-albedo feedback amplifies the change (up to 2 marks for developed explanation).
- Solar output: sunspot cycles and variation in solar luminosity change energy received; lower activity linked to cooler spells; the effect is relatively small (up to 2 marks).
- Plate tectonics: continental drift changes ocean currents, land at the poles allows ice sheets to form; volcanism and mountain building alter atmospheric CO2 and weathering over millions of years (up to 2 marks).
- Timescales: tectonic (millions of years), Milankovitch (tens to hundreds of thousands of years), solar (decades to centuries).
- Accept volcanic eruptions releasing aerosols for short-term cooling as an example of natural forcing.
Do not accept: anthropogenic causes as the focus of the answer, unless used to contrast with natural forcing.
Credit any other valid response.
Credit valid case study examples, e.g. named past climate periods.

The trend is a clear overall decrease in sea-ice extent, from 7.8 million km² in 1980 to 4.0 million km² in 2020, a total fall of 3.8 million km² (roughly half). The decline is not constant. Between 1980 and 1995 the fall is gradual (7.8 to 6.9, 0.9 million km² in 15 years, about 0.06 million km² per year). The rate increases between 1995 and 2010, when extent falls from 6.9 to 4.9 (2.0 million km² in 15 years, about 0.13 million km² per year), with the biggest five-year drop between 2005 and 2010 (0.8). After 2010 the decline slows (4.9 to 4.0, 0.9 million km² in 10 years). There is no year in which extent increases, although the fall between 1990 and 1995 is very small (0.1).

4 marks, point-marked. One mark for each identified or developed point, up to 4. At least one mark must use figures from Fig. 1 (data quoted with units); a maximum of 3 marks if no data are used.

Answers may include:
- Overall decrease / downward trend in extent throughout the period (1 mark)
- Use of start and end values: 7.8 to 4.0 million km² (1 mark); or a fall of 3.8 million km² / about half, Accept 3.7 to 3.9 (1 mark)
- Rate of decline is slow at first, 1980 to 1995 (only 0.9 million km² lost) (1 mark)
- Decline accelerates from about 1995 to 2010, e.g. 2.0 million km² lost in 15 years, or 0.8 million km² lost between 2005 and 2010 (up to 2 marks)
- Decline slows again after 2010, e.g. 0.9 million km² lost in 10 years / 4.6 to 4.0 (1 mark)
- Very small fall between 1990 and 1995 (0.1) / no year shows an increase (1 mark)

Accept: any correctly calculated rate of change. Allow: 'steady' only if qualified with data. Do not accept: explanations or reasons for the decline (not required); a list of every value with no pattern identified; 'it goes down' with no data and no development (max 1 mark).

Credit any other valid response.

Evidence from Fig. 4: Country P began far higher (11.2 vs 1.1 tonnes), peaked at 11.8 in 2000 then fell to 7.9 by 2020 (a fall of 3.3 from 1990 and 3.9 from the peak). Country Q rose steadily and accelerated after 2000 (1.6 to 3.9 to 6.4), a rise of 5.3 tonnes, so the gap narrowed from 10.1 to 1.5 tonnes.

Reasons for Country P: a mature economy with deindustrialisation and a shift to services; manufacturing (and its emissions) relocated to EDCs; fuel shifts from coal to gas and renewables; energy efficiency measures in buildings, vehicles and appliances; mitigation policy and carbon pricing; public awareness and international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. Early rise to 2000 reflects growth in car use and consumption before policies took effect.

Reasons for Country Q: rapid industrialisation and economic growth; urbanisation and rising car ownership; rising incomes and demand for electricity and consumer goods; reliance on cheap coal and other fossil fuels; manufacturing for export to ACs; population moving out of low-energy subsistence lifestyles; weaker or later mitigation policy because development has been prioritised. The acceleration after 2000 suggests a take-off phase of growth.

A top answer links reasons to specific figures and to the differing stages of development.

6 marks, levels of response. AO2 (3 marks): applying knowledge of emissions, development and mitigation to explain the trends. AO3 (3 marks): using and interpreting evidence from Fig. 4.

Level 4 (Comprehensive, 5-6 marks): Thorough, well-developed suggestions explaining both countries' trends, supported by accurate and manipulated data from Fig. 4 (e.g. peak, change, narrowing gap). Coherent, logically structured response.
Level 3 (Thorough, 4 marks): Developed reasons for both trends with some use of Fig. 4 evidence; or very well developed reasons for one country with some reference to the other.
Level 2 (Reasonable, 2-3 marks): Some reasons, partly developed, for one or both countries; limited or descriptive use of the figure.
Level 1 (Basic, 1 mark): Simple, generic statement(s) with little or no reference to Fig. 4.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Use best fit, then refine within the level. Do not credit pure description of the figure without reasons.

Answers may include:
- Country P: fall from peak of 11.8 (2000) to 7.9 (2020) because of fuel shifts from coal to gas/renewables, energy efficiency, deindustrialisation/growth of the service sector, outsourcing of manufacturing, mitigation policy (carbon taxes, Kyoto Protocol commitments), public attitudes.
- Country P: slight rise to 2000 due to growing consumption and car use before policy action.
- Country Q: rise from 1.1 to 6.4 (nearly sixfold) because of industrialisation, urbanisation, rising incomes and energy demand, reliance on coal and fossil fuels, manufacturing for export, population growth, priority on development over mitigation.
- Acceleration after 2000 (1.6 to 3.9) reflecting rapid economic take-off.
- Narrowing gap from 10.1 tonnes to 1.5 tonnes in 2020.
Accept: reference to technology transfer, foreign investment, global supply chains.
Do not accept: unsupported claims such as 'Country Q does not care about climate change'.
Credit any other valid response. Credit valid case study examples.

A strong answer sets out both sides and reaches a judgement.

For the proposition (adaptation more realistic): mitigation depends on international agreement (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC-informed process), and free-rider problems, differing national priorities and reliance on fossil fuels slow progress; emissions already emitted commit the climate to some warming, so adaptation is unavoidable; adaptation is local, can be done by a single government or community, brings visible short-term benefits (e.g. sea walls or flood defences under 'protect', raised housing and early warning under 'accommodate', managed relocation under 'retreat'); EDCs often lack capital for large-scale mitigation technology and prioritise development.

Against: adaptation treats symptoms not causes and has limits (thresholds, e.g. sea-level rise overwhelming defences; protection is costly and can be maladaptive); without mitigation, risk and inequality grow, with vulnerable EDCs least responsible yet most affected; mitigation such as energy efficiency, fuel shifts to renewables, forestry and carbon capture can bring co-benefits and is realistic where costs have fallen; geoengineering is uncertain and risky.

Case studies: e.g. an AC with strong mitigation policy and coastal protection versus an EDC reliant on low-cost community adaptation. Conclusion: the two are complementary; adaptation is realistic in the short term and for locked-in change, mitigation is essential long term; the balance varies with wealth, geography and political will.

AO1 (4), AO2 (4), AO3 (4). Levels of response, best-fit then refine within the level; quality of extended response assessed.

Level 4 (Comprehensive) 10-12 marks: Thorough, accurate knowledge of mitigation and adaptation strategies; well-applied, specific case study evidence (AC and/or EDC); balanced, evaluative discussion of the proposition with a clear, well-supported conclusion; coherent, well-structured and precise use of terminology.
Level 3 (Thorough) 7-9 marks: Good knowledge and application; some case evidence; discussion of both sides with some evaluation; conclusion mostly supported; generally clear structure.
Level 2 (Reasonable) 4-6 marks: Some knowledge, partly developed; limited or generic examples; one-sided or descriptive with limited evaluation; conclusion simple or unsupported.
Level 1 (Basic) 1-3 marks: Isolated, basic points; little or no application; assertion only; limited structure.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Answers may include:
- Adaptation strategies: retreat, accommodate, protect (sea walls, flood defences, drought-resistant crops, early warning, managed relocation).
- Mitigation strategies: energy efficiency, fuel shifts, carbon capture, forestry, geoengineering.
- Realism linked to cost, technology, timescale, political agreement, geopolitics (Kyoto Protocol, IPCC), free-rider problems.
- Committed warming makes adaptation unavoidable; limits and thresholds to adaptation; maladaptation.
- Inequality: EDCs vulnerable yet low historic emitters; differing capacity between AC and EDC.
- Case studies of two countries at different stages of development.
- Conclusion: complementary approaches; balance depends on context.
Credit any other valid response.
Credit valid case study examples.
Do not accept purely generic statements about 'pollution' without link to greenhouse gases.

Worked approach: (1) Use Fig. 1 to describe the flows. Home production fell from 14.2 to 12.5 million tonnes (about -12%), with its lowest point of 11.9 in 2021. Imports rose from 3.1 to 7.3 million tonnes (more than double). Total supply = 17.3 in 2015 and 19.8 in 2025, so physical availability has risen overall. (2) Link to money flows: the share of income spent on food rose from 38% to 52%, showing falling food affordability (one of the three pillars: access, affordability, use). The steepest rise (41% to 49%) coincides with the biggest jump in imports (4.4 to 6.0), suggesting import dependence and price exposure. Paying for imports drains foreign currency and may raise the cost of living. (3) Suggest reasons and consequences: smaller farm output could be due to drought, soil degradation, conflict or land converted to non-food uses, and low rural incomes reduce investment; imports depend on world prices, exchange rates and trade policy of players such as governments, transnational food companies and traders. Poor households spending over half their income on food are most vulnerable to price spikes, so they may cut quantity or quality of food (food use/nutrition). (4) Evaluate: more imports can stabilise supply when harvests fail, so the effect is mixed. Overall, food availability may be secured by import flows, but affordability and access are weakened, and resilience is reduced because of dependence on external flows. A Malthusian or Boserupian position may be used to support the argument, though this is not required.

8 marks, levels of response (AO1 knowledge of food security and its pillars, AO2 application to Fig. 1 and the themes of flows and players, AO3 interpretation of data and construction of an argument). Best-fit, then refine within a level.

Level 4 (7-8 marks) Comprehensive: Thorough, well-developed suggestions for how food and money flows affect food security, using accurate manipulated evidence from Fig. 1 (e.g. change in imports, change in home production, total supply, income share). Clear understanding of food access, affordability and use. Makes a balanced or integrated judgement (e.g. availability improves but affordability and resilience worsen). Well structured, geographical terminology used precisely.

Level 3 (5-6 marks) Thorough: Developed suggestions linked to Fig. 1, with some data used accurately. Good understanding of food security. Some linking of flows (food, money) and/or players. Some balance or implication drawn.

Level 2 (3-4 marks) Reasonable: Some suggestions with partial development; limited use of Fig. 1 (may only quote figures without interpreting them). Some understanding of food security. Limited or generic link to flows/players.

Level 1 (1-2 marks) Basic: Isolated or simple statements, very little use of Fig. 1, little geographical understanding. Mainly descriptive or generic.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Answers may include:
- Home production falls from 14.2 to 12.5 million tonnes (about 12%), reducing local availability and farm incomes. Accept any reasonable reason: drought, soil degradation, conflict, lack of investment, land use change.
- Imports rise from 3.1 to 7.3 million tonnes (more than doubled), filling the gap; total supply rises from 17.3 to 19.8 million tonnes, so availability improves. Allow ECF only for own calculations of totals or percentages.
- Income share spent on food rises from 38% to 52%, so affordability falls; poorest households most at risk and may reduce quantity, quality or nutritional intake (food use).
- Dependence on imports exposes the country to world price shocks, exchange rate changes and export bans by players such as exporting governments, traders and transnational companies; outflow of money to pay for imports.
- Imports may offer resilience against local harvest failure, giving a mixed picture; the largest rise in food cost share coincides with the 2018-2021 import growth.
- Credit use of Malthusian or Boserupian ideas, or the idea of threshold and risk, if relevant.

Do not accept: statements that only copy figures without comment (cap at Level 2); claims that imports always reduce food security.

Credit any other valid response.
Credit valid case study examples.

A strong answer picks 2-3 players and links each to at least one flow, with explanation and evidence. For example: (1) National governments of ACs can use carbon taxes, fuel-shift policies and subsidies to redirect investment from fossil fuels to renewables, reducing carbon flows into the atmosphere; EDC governments may prioritise development and fossil-fuel use, so national priorities produce uneven carbon flows. (2) International bodies and agreements: the IPCC provides assessment evidence that informs policy, and the Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for ACs, creating flows of money through emissions trading and technology transfer to EDCs, though limited coverage and withdrawals reduced its effect. (3) MNCs and businesses decide where to invest in low-carbon technology or locate high-emitting production, so they move carbon-intensive activity between countries and shape technology flows. (4) NGOs and the media shape perception and pressure on other players, influencing the direction of flows indirectly. Examine: the flows are interdependent (finance enables technology, which reduces carbon) and the balance of power between players is unequal, so benefits are uneven between ACs and EDCs. A valid conclusion weighs which players have most influence.

8 marks, levels of response (best-fit, then refine within level). AO1 knowledge of players and flows; AO2 application to climate change responses and examples; AO3 analysis/evaluation of how and to what extent players shape flows.

Level 4 Comprehensive (7-8 marks): Thorough, accurate knowledge of several players and at least two types of flow; developed, well-linked examination of how players shape flows; applies valid case study evidence; includes a balanced judgement or recognition of unevenness/interdependence. Coherent, well-structured argument.
Level 3 Thorough (5-6 marks): Good knowledge of players and flows; clear explanation of how players influence flows with some case evidence; some examination of links or limitations but may be partly unbalanced.
Level 2 Reasonable (3-4 marks): Some relevant knowledge of players and/or flows; mostly descriptive or asserted links; limited or generic evidence.
Level 1 Basic (1-2 marks): Isolated, simple statements about climate change responses with little or no link between players and flows.
Level 0: 0 marks - no creditable response.

Answers may include:
- National governments: carbon taxes, emissions targets, renewable subsidies, fuel shifts, energy efficiency standards, which change carbon flows; EDC priorities may differ from AC priorities.
- International institutions and agreements (IPCC, Kyoto Protocol): assessment evidence, binding targets, emissions trading, climate finance and technology transfer to EDCs.
- MNCs/businesses: investment in renewables or carbon capture; relocation of high-emission production; control of technology and patents.
- NGOs, media, and the climate change debate: shaping public and political perception and pressure on other players.
- Flows of carbon (emissions, sinks, forestry, carbon capture), money (climate finance, investment) and technology (transfer, adaptation and mitigation technologies).
- Unequal power between players and uneven benefits between ACs and EDCs; interdependence of flows.
- Accept mitigation and adaptation examples if linked to players and flows.
Do not accept answers that only describe the causes of climate change with no reference to players.
Credit any other valid response.
Credit valid case study examples.

Plan: (1) Introduce the proposition and define mitigation (reducing emissions or enhancing sinks) and adaptation (adjusting to actual or expected impacts), noting 'realistic' means affordable, achievable and effective in practice. (2) Case for adaptation being more realistic: benefits are local and visible, within the control of national or local players, and not dependent on global agreement; examples are protect (sea walls, flood defences), accommodate (raised housing, drought-tolerant crops, early warning) and retreat (managed relocation). An EDC with low historic emissions has little leverage over global emissions, so adaptation is a pragmatic priority. (3) Case against: adaptation has costs and limits (thresholds, e.g. sea level rise or heat stress beyond which accommodation fails), can be maladaptive, and is unaffordable for many EDCs without external finance. Mitigation tackles the cause, avoids future impacts and is shown to be achievable by an AC through fuel shifts to renewables, energy efficiency and forestry, but depends on collective action, free-rider problems, and the geopolitics of the IPCC and Kyoto Protocol-type agreements; costs fall on near-term economies and benefits are delayed. (4) Case-study comparison: use an AC and an EDC with specific, accurate, 21st-century detail (policies, schemes, figures). (5) Evaluation: realism varies with development level, scale (local versus global), timescale (short-term adaptation, long-term mitigation) and risk and resilience. Conclude with a clear judgement, most likely that the options are interdependent rather than competing, with adaptation more immediately realistic in the EDC and a mix in the AC.

20 marks: AO1 = 8, AO2 = 12 (knowledge and understanding of mitigation and adaptation strategies and case studies; application and evaluation through the proposition). Quality of extended response is assessed within the levels. Use best-fit then refine within the level.

Level 4 (Comprehensive) 16-20 marks: Thorough, accurate knowledge of both strategy types and detailed, specific evidence from both countries. Evaluation is sustained and balanced, with clear links to development level, cost, thresholds, governance and timescale. A well-supported, convincing conclusion that directly addresses 'to what extent'. Logical, fluent, well-structured argument.

Level 3 (Thorough) 11-15 marks: Good knowledge and understanding with mostly detailed case evidence from both countries. Evaluation is evident but may be uneven; a supported conclusion. Clear structure.

Level 2 (Reasonable) 6-10 marks: Some accurate knowledge, with case material that is generalised or only partly applied to the proposition. Limited evaluation; conclusion may be asserted. Some structure.

Level 1 (Basic) 1-5 marks: Isolated or generic points, little or no case evidence, description rather than argument, no or unsupported conclusion. Limited organisation.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content. Answers may include:
- Adaptation: protect, accommodate and retreat strategies; local control; immediate benefits; suited to EDCs with low emissions; costs, funding gaps, limits and thresholds; maladaptation.
- Mitigation: energy efficiency, fuel shifts, carbon capture, forestry, geoengineering; addresses the cause; needs international cooperation (IPCC, Kyoto Protocol); political and economic costs, delayed benefits, free-riding.
- Case studies: AC and EDC compared on capacity, cost, governance, vulnerability and policies.
- Evaluation: inequality, risk, resilience, thresholds, sustainability; strategies are complementary; time and scale.
- Credit any other valid response.
- Credit valid case study examples.