4 for the pollution question, might learn another one or two briefly to throw in
A2 Edexcel Geography 2016 Contested Planet/Geographical Research watch
View Poll Results: What topics will you be picking for Unit 3?Energy Security21370.76%Water Conflicts17257.14%Biodiversity Under Threat11437.87%Bridging the Development Gap11237.21%The Technological Fix7324.25%Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 301. You may not vote on this poll
- 11-06-2016 19:16
- 11-06-2016 19:23
to what extent does tectonic activity at plate boundaries affect the formation of a range of distinctive landscapes?
how would you plan this question if you were to do a case study approach? is the seismic/volcanic features because of the plate boundary or is it a different thing - im hella confused.
distinctive landscapes are only found at plate boundaries - discuss.
how would you also answer this w/ a case study approach?
- 11-06-2016 21:24
My layout for unit 4 is:
Define tectonic activity
State that that tectonic activity leads to a wide range of seismic and volcanic process which lead to a variety of landscapes with many intrusive and extrusive features.
Introduce framework and some of the case studies im going to use
Talk about my resources, how i chose them and why i chose them and then also state why i used a large sample size. I will then draw a table showing all the resources I used.
For the main section:
I'm going to start with divergent plate boundaries stating what they are. Then I will use two contrasting landscapes such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East African rift that both occur on this plate boundary. Below this i will write a short summary of all the extrusive features also present at this plate boundary.
Then i will write about convergent plate boundaries and state what they are. I will talk mention island arc but very briefly and my main case study will be the Andes west pacific. I will then also talk about the main extrusive features here which are composite volcanoes and then also mention other such as a caldera.
After this i will draw a diagram of intrusive land-forms and state they can be found at both convergent and divergent plate boundaries.
I will mention seismic processes quite briefly including the san andreas as my main case study and draw diagrams to support this. i will also state that seismic processes produce landscapes which are less obvious than volcanic process.
Lastly i will conclude.
What do you guys think?????Last edited by cfcforever; 11-06-2016 at 21:27.
- 11-06-2016 21:47
For unit 4 I'm doing tectonics. My teacher always says after i did the report mocks i didnt include all the landforms, he said i needed to include; Intrusive, extrusive, all landforms, and folding, AND include all landforms under these headings such as batholiths. I really struggle with writing quickly, always been a problem with geography with me, and i can't include all this! however i need an A at least for uni. Anyone know which points i should include and a couple of case studies to still get a good A?
- 11-06-2016 22:02
Personally I think its impossible to include all landscapes in detail. I am writing about the main ones such as the Mid-Atlantic ridge, Rift Valley, Deccan plateau, Shield Volcanoes, Fold Mountains, Composite volcanoes and then for intrusive features im drawing one diagram and labelling it. I think that is sufficent because i literally cannot write anymore in the time allocated.
- 11-06-2016 23:10
if the question stated something like "to what extent do seismic processes..." do we write simply about seismic ? or somehow include volcanic processes into this?
- 11-06-2016 23:47
- Thread Starter
- 12-06-2016 01:42
anyone doing LIFE ON THE MARGINS - FOOD SECURITY please go to this thread:
- 12-06-2016 03:03
Is anyone doing culture-globalisation for unit 4? We've just planned 7 possible frameworks for having one global culture...etc
- 12-06-2016 04:44
(Original post by Mariochan)
- 12-06-2016 08:17
Guys today was just soo bad its got me rethinking life so the geography exam was just... I dont even know i cba to describe how bad it was
Soook i went to get mc donalds to cheer myself up.. i got the flavour wrap thing and they messed up my order they gave me grilled chicken I dont **** with that its all about crispy chicken. It was too late to change it as I was already home and now its given me a bad stomach ache.. might just have to tranform into a bird and fly away..
(Original post by cfcforever)
- 12-06-2016 11:41
The first section of the paper I thought was ok, but i was struggling with the timing.
For the energy question:
a) I mentioned the pros and cons of each type of fuel and why people may have a specific attitude toward them. For example Nuclear power produces nuclear waste and is quite dangerous to use (Chernobyl 1986) so people might not think it can provide long term energy security. etc
b) for the second question I talked about unconventional fuels. I talked about the Arctic's ANWR and the environmental costs referencing the exxon valdez spill in 1989 but also the economic costs of exploiting the area and potential conflicts. I then talked about tar sand oil in Alberta Canada and how this reserve is can help reduce issues of peak oil and keep oil prices stable but like the Arctic can incur huge economic costs. Then i went onto fracking talking about shale gas and how its a cleaner fuel and much better to use then tar sand oil but causes environmental degradation, water contamination and has been linked to earthquakes.
For the water section:
a) I talked about Copenhagen water being privatized and that there may be large demand for water so water companies increase prices to perhaps lower demand but also make a larger profit.
For London i said the prices are high but nowhere near as bad as Copenhagen even though water is also privatized.I tried to say that London and its surrounding areas receive a lot water because of its climate so has a sufficent supply and demand might not be as bad.
For Las vegas I said the cost is much lower then expected since the area is arid and desert like with a very dry climate. I mentioned that water prices are kept artificially low as its economy is revolved around tourism which requires a high water demand for pools and hotels etc and this encourages unsustainable usage and may lead to water supplies running dry.
For Mumbai and Shanghai i said these countries were recently developed and the water is nationalized. The government has a role in providing cheap water to its citizens but also since these are mega-cities there is a lot of water needed for domestic and industrial uses to again water prices are kept lower.
b) I cant remember what i put. I think i talked about treaties such as the Helsinki rules and Nile initiative. Hard engineering products like dams and transfer schemes and for soft engineering drip feed irrigation and rainwater harvesting.
Superpowers was by far the first section part A was OK, part b was the worst and part c i nearly didn't finish and was also a awful question. If you want what i put just message me so i can show you how badly i answered those questions.
- 12-06-2016 11:59
Does anyone have any good sources for Unit 4 Tectonics that aren't websites, but can be found on the internet still? Like magazines, journals, videos? Much appreciated
- 12-06-2016 12:42
- 12-06-2016 12:47
Kinda worrying about unit 4! my current teacher (our original amazing teacher left 3 months ago so weber had supplies since then) said we needed load of little case studies, which i can't remember cause I'm not good at remembering loads, because of the nature of the tectonics focus statements. What do people on here think? Do you have just 3/4 big case studies that will fit any question, if so what ones? Thanks, really need some help on this one!
- 12-06-2016 15:01
(Original post by Smash98)
- 12-06-2016 15:06
I was just curious of how well I did in this exam:
1(a) I split the paragraphs into the three categories:
--> Reliability: I talked about hydroelectric power being most agreed because it can produce a high amount of electricity (e.g. Three Gorges Dam). I then talked about wind power being unreliable because, e.g. energy supply is variable and depends on wind and therefore usually needs a constant backup supply of energy from fossil fuels. I also talked about inefficiency, e.g. in UK how they are less than 25% installed capacity meaning power is unreliable as downstream turbines lose 30% more power compared to those at the front. I talked about nuclear as well but I can't remember what I said.
--> Enviro sustainability: Talked about hydroelectric power being recyclable hence sustainable as it doesnt release CO2 as well on use as its renewable and recycable. Talked about nuclear definitely and wind power. I think I also made some disagreement points.
--> Long term needs: I cant really remember what points i said here but i know i did talk about energy security. I talked about nuclear, biofuels, wind...e.g. Talked about nuclear (e.g. not guaranteed safe as Chernobyl event was inevitable - therefore can impact on the energy security and dev the point to link to not meeting long term needs as social issues)
--> conclusion: Overall renewable is the most agreed as most sustainable...but...
1st indicator: Described what GDP per capita meant....linked to Mexico and Phillipines...then said how it helps show the eco differences between North and South (North-South divide) then evaluated
2nd indicator: Electricity consumption would affect power generation. Showed difference between 2 countries. This could be fed into industry so therefore allows businesses to prosper due to higher productive capacity - link to dev. Then eval
3rd indicator: Showed differences between 2 countries...said higher spent --> higher skill levels --> higher job prospects --> future incomes rise meaning they can afford basic necessities --> less absolute poverty --> higher living standards --> higher eco dev...Then evaluated
4th indicator: Looked at the figures for Rwanda and Mexico I think....Then I said in Rwanda it shows more woman have higher status --> reduce social inequality between men and woman --> reduce impact on minority groups --> higher living standards and human welfare --> higher eco dev....I evaluated by saying it conflicts with the North-South divide as Rwanda is in the South and so should be expected to be least economically developed out of the three countries but the figure states the opposite.
4(b) Intro --> define dev gap, say how aid can be top-down or bottom-up
1st para --> multilateral aid...definition....benefits...c osts (used brand report as case study)
2nd para --> Bilateral aid...definition...benefits...co sts (used Pergau dam as example)
3rd para --> Voluntary....definition...benefi ts...costs (used Barlonyo Uganda example)
Conclusion --> summarise findings....Bottom-up is best strategy as it is the most sustainable as locals are involved in the decision making...
I didn't put 1(b) because I thought that essay was relatively simple - I just split it up into social, eco, enviro benefits and costs (case studies were - Tar sands, Shale gas, Arctic oil. Shell in the River state of Nigeria)
Now this is where it became more of a problem due to timing for section B
(a) I just did one para on China and another on India showing its stengths and weaknesses in within the paragraphs I also compared between the two
--> China: Benefits = Higher GDP, fortune 500 companies, infrastructure spending higher (
Costs = in 2015 had a higher % of population over the age of 65 --> ageing pop --> high dependency ratio......I said one more cost but i cant remember
---> India: Benefits = Cant remember what I said....I know I mentioned about the subsidies which would reduce absolute poverty for the poorest, . Also, India has a more younger population than China in 2015 meaning higher workforce....
Costs = however poverty levels were very high in 2012 despite development - hence lower SPI scores due to low incomes, said more stuff but cant remember
--> Conclusion: China > India and explained why
(c) Intro - explained what the geopolitical power hierarchy showed.
--> China: Talked about eco rise of China (Figure 12), predicted to have the highest GDP levels in 2050 (largest increase from 2030) --> higher economic strength which could strengthen its regional power--> cause decline of "core regions" such as USA...This was coupled with the fact that USA's position as a global superpower was weakening in the past due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and unpopular military involvement within Iraq and Afghanistan --> change of geopolitics in terms of power meaning China could be the next global superpower in the future.
I said another point but cant remember.....
Eval: Population decreasing which could also be seen as a negative impact
--> India: Talked about resource consumption rising globally...in the future they will demand a high amount of resources due to high economic growth levels...I said something about this and linked it to India being a potential global superpower.
I said another point but can't remember.....
Eval: I linked to past and said how previously despite high development - there were high levels of poverty and lack of meeting basic human needs (SPI index) and so in the future despite growth --> poverty could increase. I linked this to view 3 which said "until and unless India increases its highways, speeds up its rail..." which its unlikely to do due to high poverty levels....I also talked about population being an issue. Basically after these eval points i linked it to the question by saying its unlikely to become a global superpower or a potential superpower...
Conclusion: Summarized....said how China is likely to be the next global superpower compared to India.....especially as USA is the current supowerpower and historically no one nation has maintained control of the global economy over centuries....
(b) I had to rush this as only had 3 minutes but managed to write a solid paragraph more than half a page (I have small hand writing)
--> Compared the SPI rank....then looked at basic human needs and foundations of wellbeing being higher for China because of higher investment into infrastructure - explain....although opportunity score is lower but only by a small margin due to China's political system being a dictatorship (communist country) and therefore its not accountable to its population --> meaning less resources are allocated efficiently to its population. I also linked the lower SPI rank in India (more poverty) and higher SPI rank in China (less poverty) - explained
All in all I believe I would get around 40/41 in section A (8/10 + 12-13/15 + 7/10 +13/15) and then not great in section B (11/14 + 3/10 + 6/16) = 60/61 marks
I used a lot of evidence from booklet to support answers so I gave myself that in section B as a worst case scenario.
My question is in the dev gap 10 marker would I get higher than 7 out of 10 because I know my explanation to how the indicator shows development and i used 2 countries to explain how it shows development levels. Although I think for at least 2 of my indicators the evaluation wasn't solid enough - i only included 1 evaluation and explained it for each indicator.
Another question is would I get more than 3/10 for the 10 marker in section B for what I said or what that be the absolute maximum?
Another question is would I get more than 6/16 for the 16 marker in section B for how I did it?
1a) I put the 3 paragraphs based on the renewable energy figures and gave examples for each of them (e.g wind farms in Denmark , Fukushima disaster or biofuels in Brazil)
Vs Arctic costs
Tar sands benefits
Vs tar sands costs
Conclusion (so 5 paragraphs in total)
4a) again , indicator based on the figures but how Mexico, Philippines and Rwanda and how they could be useful or not (GDP/capita was useful but women in parliament was not very relevant)
Chinese government aid in solar farms south of Addis abba airport
How Russian Gazprom was giving technical assistance to Nigerian state oil cooperation for them to maximise revenues and then how they would ideally use those revenues to bridge the development gap
As I did section B first, this was the question I answered last so I didn't have time to give a proper conclusion but it was around 2/3 lines.
6a) Chinese economic benefits (manufacturing industry, technological exports)
Chinese economic costs (sudden aging population shock, maturing economing growth)
Indian economic benefits (Modi's FDI and make in India initiative etc)
Indian economic costs (More import costs against export income as drop in oil price meaning as India's export is refined oil : inflation in RPI terms)
b) China is a state capitalist economy so it explains its SPI indicators
How SPI indicators cannot only be explained by its politics (as there's a high rural to urban divide)
Indian free market economy and a democracy explaining its SPI indicators (used Bihar as an example for poverty, etc)
How there's inter governmental contrast in India (Kerala is communist, Maharashtra is capitalist yet more prosperous than capitalist Bihar so SPI index cannot be always explained through politics)
China by 2030 -Used,Nye's smart power theory and How China was boosting both hard and soft power to become a potential global superpower from and emerging world player
China by 2050- used the "Gini out of the bottle" scenario, poor geopolitics, relations with the west and neighbouring countries; and how economic growth would have matured by then and it might end up like Japan so it would remain at a "potential global superpower" and not go up to "global superpower" by then
India by 2030 -Used Modi's foreign trips to help geopolitical relations and FDI ; again used how they were using Smart power to become an "emerging world player" from a regional power at the moment
India by 2050- used how potential geopolitical relations including US's push for India fo become a "non major NATO ally" and how the gradient of India's economic growth was stepper than China's; which is why India would progress to "potential global superpower" from an "emerging world player"
A paragraph of criticism of India on why that may not be the case, e.g population explosion, high corruption levels and a very development gap
That's what I put
Posted from TSR Mobile
(Original post by Indigo.Brownhall)
- 12-06-2016 16:17
You could probably get away with talking about volcanic, you would have to argue that volcanic processes create more of a distinctive landscape than seismic. However, I think it would be quite unlikely that it would be just on seismic. Probably more likely to be just on volcanic.
- 12-06-2016 16:39
- 12-06-2016 17:46
Is there a Tectonic Unit 4 exemplar?