June 2022 Examiner Report

Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
0460 Geography June 2022

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/11
Geographical Themes
Key messages
In order for candidates to perform well on this paper they should:
• Follow the rubric correctly, answering only three questions, one chosen from each of Sections A, B and
C.
• Answer all parts of the three questions they choose in the spaces provided, including questions
which involve the completion of maps or graphs, e.g., 1(a)(ii), 5(a)(ii).
• Know how to respond to command words used and words which indicate the focus and context of each
part, making sure that irrelevant material is not included.
• Learn geographical words and phrases to use them correctly in answers or define them if
required.
• Use comparative words to describe differences or compare features shown on source material.
• Write answers of an appropriate length by considering the mark allocations and space provided in the
answer booklet.
• Write clearly and precisely, avoiding vague words or statements which need to be qualified or
elaborated (e.g., pollution, overcrowding, cheap).
• Attempt to develop ideas or link them to others when extended writing is required in those questions
worth five or more marks.
• Interpret various types of graphs and diagrams accurately to support ideas expressed in answers, using
accurate statistics (with units) where appropriate to support statements made or to enhance
development. Note that statistics alone will not be credited in answers which require description.
• Interpret photographs and maps carefully and refer to relevant evidence in them.
• Make sure that the answer is based entirely on the source material provided when the word ‘only’ is
used in the question.
• Know the difference between describing a distribution from a map and the location of a specific feature.
• Have a wide range of case studies and choose them with care to fit the questions selected, including
relevant place specific information while concisely answering the question set.
General comments
A number of able and well-prepared candidates performed very well across the paper and showed excellent
geographical knowledge and understanding, writing answers of a consistently high quality. As expected,
however, there was a wide range of marks and most candidates, while not performing consistently across the
paper, did make a good attempt at many parts of their chosen questions, enabling the paper to differentiate
effectively between candidates of all abilities.
There were a very small number of rubric errors, though it was rare to see scripts where all six questions had
been answered. Those few candidates making rubric errors tended to answer three or four questions from
the six, selecting two from the same section rather than one from each section.
The presentation of answers from candidates was generally acceptable and answers were usually in an
appropriate amount of detail. Occasionally answers worth a small number of marks were of excessive length
and answers to questions worth more marks were too brief. However, most candidates were guided by the
mark allocations and space provided, the best responses being concise yet detailed and accurate in
content. Some candidates made use of the continuation sheets at the back of the question-and-answer
booklet; however, some needed to do so only because they had included too much irrelevant material in
their answers.
© 2022
Questions 1 and 6 were the most popular questions, with Questions 3 and 4 being of roughly equal
popularity. Good answers were seen to all questions, including those requiring extended writing, particularly
to the part (c) questions on dependent populations, the development of coral reefs and methods to supply
energy. As always, some included unnecessary general introductions to these questions with irrelevant
information about the topic being tested. The best of these answers, however, were well focused with
developed or linked ideas and some place specific information. Weaker responses were sometimes poorly
focused with brief lists of simple points, sometimes in bullet points, not all of which were relevant.
Some candidates did not score marks consistently across the paper as they did not respond correctly to
command words, e.g., ‘describe’ in 2(a)(iv), 4(a)(ii) and 5(b)(i) or ‘compare’ in 5(a)(iii) and 6(a)(ii) or key
words such as ‘natural environment’ in 3(b)(ii) or ‘economic activity’ in 6(c). Sometimes key words are
emboldened, as was the case with ‘rural areas’ in 2(a)(iv). This is done to draw candidates’ attention to a
significant word which should not be overlooked.
The following comments on individual questions will focus on candidates’ strengths and weaknesses and are
intended to help centres prepare their candidates for future examinations.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
This was more popular than Question 2, with most candidates choosing this question.
(a) (i) There were some good answers which expressed the divided up / made up idea, and many were
able to refer to age groups based on what they saw in Fig. 1.1. Many references to age groups
were made, however, without any understanding of the ‘divided up’ element of the definition.
(ii) Most candidates answered this correctly. However, there were a significant number of errors,
particularly where candidates did not use the correct angle of shading for the 25–29 age group.
(iii) This question was well answered. Most candidates were able to describe the changes in the
world’s population structure using Fig. 1.1, particularly for the 0–24 and 50 and over age group,
although less well for the 25–49 age group where a small increase is seen. The use of statistics
alone does not describe the changes; the wording needs to clearly describe the change, such as
increase or decrease.
(iv) This question differentiated well. Stronger candidates showed some excellent understanding of a
variety of ideas, particularly reduction in birth rates and the education of females. Weaker
candidates did not recognise that they had to write about the decrease in the 0 to 24 age group,
and so no credit was gained where this was the case. Simple bullet point lists should also be
avoided as the ideas need to be developed, for example education does not gain credit but
education of females or education about contraception does.
(b) (i) This question was generally well answered with good use being made of the resources provided.
Many valid references were made to the top and the base of the pyramid, as well as its overall
shape or the fact that the bars are decreasing in size. Weaker responses considered the male /
female balance or gave reasons such as high birth rate and low death rate, neither of which is
relevant here.
(ii) This question differentiated well producing answers which, at one extreme, showed excellent
knowledge and understanding as to why there is a larger proportion of old dependents in MEDCs,
while at the other extreme statements were weak and lacking in precision. Simple ideas such as
better education, better living conditions, less disease, better housing always need some form of
elaboration, linking it clearly with the question being asked.
(c) This was a straightforward case study and differentiated well. Candidates need to avoid the use of
an overall introduction providing context and instead should concentrate on answering the question
set. While many candidates expressed simple ideas, the strongest candidates developed their
ideas and described the difficulties caused by a large dependent population. LEDCs such as Niger,
Nigeria and Bangladesh were common case studies for problems caused by large proportions of
young dependents. MEDCs such as Italy, Japan and the UK were also effectively used in relation
to their old dependents. A common error was to consider difficulties caused by a growing
population rather than by specified dependent populations.
© 2022
Question 2
This question was less popular than Question 1.
(a) (i) The majority of candidates answered this correctly. However, common errors either used the
word ‘migration’ or defined international migration rather than internal migration.
(ii) This was usually answered correctly.
(iii) This question differentiated well. Most candidates identified the impact of distance decay and how it
affects the cost of the journey. Incorrect responses considered the need to cross an international
boundary or the need for a passport. Weaker responses which did not gain credit included ideas
such as easier or more accessible. These ideas need to be developed if credit is to be given.
(iv) This question was generally well answered, with a whole range of ideas which considered the
problems of out migration for rural areas. Ideas such as the impact on the working population and
food production were well considered. A common error was to not read the question carefully which
resulted in answers that considered the impact of in migration to urban areas.
(b) (i) Most candidates used the resource well and described three differences clearly. Some errors were
made when contrasting the population density. Candidates should also note that statistics were not
required for this question and so no credit was given for their use.
(ii) This question discriminated well with excellent answers clearly describing a range of problems
faced by people in squatter settlements. It should be noted that vague ideas such as overcrowding,
disease or pollution need further development for credit here.
(c) This was a familiar and straightforward case study question, which was correctly interpreted by
most candidates. As in Question 1, many achieved Level 1 by referring to simple ideas while
others tried to develop them, sometimes very effectively and occasionally with place detail which
therefore gained full credit. Mumbai, Dhaka, and Lagos were seen as textbook examples.
However, some others effectively used examples from their own country in South or Central
America. While the latter offered good scope, such examples were often just as lacking as textbook
examples in terms of using developed statements or clear place specific detail.
Question 3
This question was slightly less popular than Question 4 and was answered by a smaller proportion of
candidates.
(a) (i) Most candidates correctly identified the stack in the resource, although some incorrectly suggested
it was a stump.
(ii) This was usually answered correctly.
(iii) This question discriminated well. Some candidates knew the process of abrasion and explained it
well. Many others had no idea and wrote about other erosional processes or vaguely wrote about
the waves or the sea wearing it away. Others referred in error to river erosion.
(iv) This question also discriminated well with many good and detailed accounts, the key to such
answers being the reference to alternate bands of hard and soft rock. Some did this very well,
referring to the impact of their relative resistance on erosion and some correctly used the terms
discordant coastline and / or differential erosion. Others wrote generally about erosion, some
confusing bay and headland formation with the formation of caves, arches, and stacks.
(b) (i) This question was generally well answered with many references to fishing, trade, and tourism.
Weaker responses tended to be less precise, simply mentioning the presence of a beach or that
people could obtain ‘food’ and be employed. References to energy generation were not credited as
they lacked understanding that any electricity generated locally would be fed into the national grid
rather than benefitting just the area where it is generated.
(ii) This was a straightforward question which discriminated well. Good references were made to
hazards such as erosion, tsunamis and flooding and their immediate impacts. Good answers to
© 2022
these five-mark questions consider a range of factors; alternatively, they will consider a smaller
range of factors but will develop these ideas well, for example the impact of businesses being
damaged on employment or profits.
(c) This question discriminated well. Good answers combined precise description with linked
explanations and so achieved the top end of Level 2 or, where they used precise statistics such as
water temperature, Level 3. Weaker responses sometimes referred to factors such as shallow
depth but did not clearly explain why this was important, for example so sunlight can penetrate or
to allow year-round growth.
Question 4
This was a slightly more popular question and was answered by a slightly larger proportion of candidates
than Question 3.
(a) (i) Many candidates correctly defined the term ‘source’ of a river.
(ii) All mark scheme ideas were seen here, including the winding course, with references to the
gradient and rocks in the channel being the most common. Some candidates, however, did not
fully address the question and just referred to ideas such as grass and hills which are not typical
features of a river near its source.
(iii) Many candidates fully understood hydraulic action and gave a very clear account of the process.
Many others had no idea and wrote about other erosional processes or vaguely wrote about the
river wearing it away or referred in error to waves or the sea.
(iv) There were again some excellent answers which showed a very clear understanding of the
formation of potholes and explained the role of the loose stones carried by the fast flowing water,
the swirling action, abrasion and deepening of the hollows. Weaker answers showed very little
understanding.
(b) (i) The majority of candidates answered this question well, with references to water supply, fishing,
trade, and transport. Weaker responses tended to be less precise, simply mentioning the presence
of water, or that people could obtain ‘food’ and be employed. References to waste disposal and
tourism were not credited as these uses of the river would not have been a reason for the growth of
cities, although people could clearly use it for these purposes. Similarly, references to farming and
fertile soils did not relate to the growth of large urban settlements such as Cairo.
(ii) This question differentiated well. Stronger answers considered a whole range of mark scheme
ideas, such as erosion and flooding and their immediate impacts. Many candidates are aware of
the need to consider a whole range of factors, or to develop some ideas fully in these five-mark
questions.
(c) This question discriminated well. Good answers gave precise linked explanations and clearly
explained the formation of an ox bow lake in a logical order and so achieved top end Level 2 or
full Level 3 marks. Some diagrams effectively aided the explanations, but many showed little by
way of explanation. Weaker answers failed to explain that erosion occurs on the outside of the
meanders and why this occurs, instead simply explaining the cutting through of the neck of the
meander.
Question 5
This question was answered by fewer candidates than Question 6.
(a) (i) This was usually answered correctly.
(ii) The divided bar graph was usually correctly completed and shaded.
(iii) This question differentiated well. It was generally well answered, either by use of words or
statistics. The important thing was to compare, which some candidates did not do.
(iv) Many candidates were able to correctly refer to the importance of agriculture in Africa. Better
responses referred to drought conditions and the need for irrigation while others correctly
observed that, in percentage terms, more water would be used for agriculture in Africa as
© 2022
industrial and domestic use is relatively low.
(b) (i) Generally, answers were poor and did not focus on obvious features of the reservoir such as its
location on the Tigris River, its length, shape, orientation, and width. Many candidates did not
attempt to use the scale and compass which would have helped them to write relevant descriptions
of the features. Some incorrectly wrote about its potential impacts while others vaguely referred to
it being big.
(ii) This question discriminated well, and all mark scheme ideas were seen, particularly advantages
such as water supply, HEP and flood prevention, while common disadvantages referred to the loss
of farmland and flooding of settlements, plus the cost and disruption of building. Perceptive
candidates recognised the potential conflict with Syria and Iraq over the use of water.
(c) This case study question differentiated well. As in previous case studies the full range of marks
was seen. Most candidates interpreted the question correctly and chose an appropriate country,
although a few wrote about water supply rather than energy supply. Level 1 was characterised by
simple lists of different types of energy supply, while some candidates developed their descriptions
to obtain Level 2, for example HEP which is a renewable form of energy, coal which is a fossil fuel,
geothermal power which uses the heat from volcanic rocks. As the command word was ‘describe’,
this was the type of elaboration required rather than an attempt to explain the importance of
different forms of energy or their advantages and disadvantages. It is important to read the
question carefully to ensure that it is answered well.
Question 6
More candidates chose to answer this question than Question 5.
(a) (i) This question was usually correctly answered with neat and accurate completion of the bar graph.
(ii) Many candidates gained both marks here. However, some candidates failed to use
accurate supporting statistics.
(iii) Most candidates gained at least one mark here, though full marks were not common.
Mechanisation and improved skills or education were popular correct answers, though
significant numbers of candidates simply referred to people finding alternative employment using
examples from the graph without suggesting any reasons for this. Few candidates considered
the role of imports or the impact of Government policy on industry.
(iv) This is a familiar question and many candidates answered it well. Good knowledge and
understanding were demonstrated by many candidates with four clear ideas as to why the
tourism industry is important. Weaker answers did not develop their ideas beyond the ideas of
jobs and income.
(b) (i) Many candidates responded well to this photograph, and it was generally high scoring, with
beaches, cliffs and bays being popular and obvious responses along with the less obvious but
correct response of mountains. Some candidates incorrectly wrote about activities rather than
attractions and others wrote about the weather or climate, but these were in the minority.
Reference to the sea needed to make it clear what the attraction is, for example it is clean or blue.
(ii) Five-mark questions offer the potential for clear differentiation. There was an excellent range of
valid responses from perceptive candidates, with some developed ideas. Weaker candidates
tended to mention one or two problems only, some of which were too vague to credit, such as
pollution, crowded or crime.
(c) This case study differentiated well. A whole range of responses was seen, with most but not all
candidates being able to identify an area and an appropriate economic activity. There were many
candidates who considered tourism, while others referred to examples as wide ranging as mining,
manufacturing, and agriculture. The more precise the candidates were in identifying the activity,
the better their answers tended to be. However, some answers did not consider the impact on the
local natural environment and so did not gain credit. For example, global warming answers were
not valid, but many were seen. Deforestation in the Amazon (or similar area) was a very common
choice which was fine if linked with an economic activity. Not all candidates did that, and some
ignored local environmental impacts at the expense of writing about global impacts and impacts on
people. Candidates must read the question carefully if they are to gain credit for their answer.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/12
Geographical Themes
Key messages
C.
• Answer all parts of the three questions they choose in the spaces provided, including questions which
involve the completion of maps or graphs e.g., 3(a)(i), 4(a)(i).
• Learn geographical words and phrases to use them correctly in answers or define them if required.
answer booklet.
elaborated (e.g. pollution, overcrowding, cheap).
General comments
however, there was a wide range of marks and most candidates, while not performing consistently across
the paper, did make a good attempt at many parts of their chosen questions, enabling the paper to
differentiate effectively between candidates of all abilities.
the six, selecting two from the same section (often Questions 1 and 2) rather than one from each section.
mark allocations and space provided, the best responses being concise yet detailed and accurate in content.
Some candidates made use of the continuation sheets at the back of the question-and-answer booklet;
however, some needed to do so only because they had included too much irrelevant material in their
answers. A few did not clearly indicate which questions they had answered on the extra pages.
© 2022
to the part (c) questions on population growth, hazards faced by coastal communities and the impacts of
food shortages. As always, some included unnecessary general introductions to these questions with
irrelevant information about the topic being tested. The best of these answers, however, were well focused
with developed or linked ideas and some place specific information. Weaker responses were sometimes
poorly focused with brief lists of simple points, sometimes in bullet points, not all of which were relevant.
Some candidates did not score marks consistently across the paper as they did not respond correctly to
command words, e.g., ‘describe’ in 3(b)(i), 4(b)(i) and 5(b)(i) or ‘compare’ in 1(a)(iv) and 6(a)(iii) or key
words such as ‘urban sprawl’ in 2(c) or ‘equatorial climate’ in 3(c). Sometimes key words are emboldened,
as was the case with ‘equatorial climate’ in 3(c). This is done to draw candidates’ attention to a significant
word which should not be overlooked.
Question 1
This was a very popular question, answered by most candidates. Many candidates generally did well on this
question and showed very good geographical knowledge.
(a) (i) and (ii) Most candidates identified appropriate years and interpreted the graph well.
(iii) Many candidates gave the correct methods of calculation, though some found it difficult to express
their ideas clearly, particularly in terms of the use of the word subtract/minus. In addition, some
candidates were too vague (e.g., the difference between birth and death rates / immigration and
emigration) rather than explaining exactly how the measures are calculated as the question asked.
A common mistake was the confusion between immigration and emigration.
(iv) This was a challenging question for many candidates who struggled to make appropriate
generalisations and comparisons. Weaker responses listed statistics for different years but did not
make any general statements (e.g., there was greater increase in international migration than
natural increase, net international migration fluctuates more than natural increase) and many
treated the two measures separately, leaving it to the examiner to make a comparison. Better
answers did make comparative statements about change in growth over time and attempted to
compare statistics from similar time periods, though some did not score data marks because they
did not include ‘thousands’.
(b) (i) While many candidates scored all three marks, a significant number did not write about
contraception to give other reasons for large families.
(ii) There were many good answers which demonstrated excellent understanding. All ideas suggested
in the mark scheme were seen and many were clearly expressed, some with development. Others
repeated ideas from (i) about contraception while others repeated valid ideas which they had
included in error in (i). While this enabled them to gain the marks in (ii), they did not return to (i) to
revise their answers.
(c) There was a variety of case studies, with excellent answers on several African countries such as
Nigeria and Niger, and Asian ones such as Bangladesh and India. The focus of the question was
on the problems caused by high population growth, although some gave reasons for the growth or
strategies to reduce it (e.g. China’s one child policy) at the expense of answering the question in
detail. Impacts upon employment, food supply, education and health care were the most common
problems discussed. Statistics were often included; however, these were variable in their accuracy
and not always integrated into answers by adding description in words (e.g., a low number of
doctors per 1000). While the use of statistics is valuable detail which gives the case study
authenticity, they should not be quoted without appropriate descriptive comment.
© 2022
Question 2
Relatively few candidates answered this question, and for many it was a rubric error where they did so.
(a) (i) Many candidates correctly identified Canada or Australia.
(ii) Most candidates did not understand the meaning of ‘infrastructure’, even though many use the
word frequently in other answers. ‘Roads’ was a common correct response, though other types of
infrastructure listed in the mark scheme were rarely seen.
(iii) Some candidates did not refer to environmental problems but focused on problems caused by
people in cities. Often the only creditable answer was an example of a natural disaster, though
more perceptive candidates referred to examples of pollution – air pollution, water pollution or noise
pollution.
(iv) Candidates who compared often scored full marks. This was achieved by using the word ‘better’ in
relation, for example, to levels of healthcare and education in the two cities. Some tried to go
beyond Fig. 2.1 to explain why there were differences, which was not required, while others lifted
statistics from Fig. 2.1, which were not accepted.
(b) (i) Most candidates correctly defined the functions. The weakest responses were in explaining
‘commercial’.
(ii) Most candidates did not understand the idea of an ‘administrative’ function. Some candidates did
gain credit for reference to government and organisation of the city, but it was rare to see answers
which scored high marks.
(c) Many responses named an urban area, with Atlanta being a very popular choice, but answers did
not always relate clearly to urban sprawl and some focused on the problems for people rather than
the natural environment. These answers generally referred to urban problems which occur within
the city, especially within the inner suburbs or the CBD, and so were irrelevant. Candidates who
wrote about air or water pollution, deforestation, loss of habitat and threats to species tended to
achieve Level 2 answers by developing or linking their ideas. Relatively few, however, were able to
include appropriate place detail to earn maximum marks.
Question 3
Approximately two thirds of candidates answered this question, and a wide range of quality was seen.
Average marks on Questions 3 and 4 were very similar.
(a) (i) There was a high omission rate. The most frequently used example was the Sahara Desert. Some
candidates drew an arrow but did not label it.
(ii) The question differentiated well. Some candidates gave precise answers using the correct lines of
latitude and/or referring to the western sides of land masses. Whilst other candidates did not look
carefully at the map and so answered vaguely, with references to ‘between the tropics’, ‘on the
Equator’ and on the coast.
(iii) Most candidates scored two marks, one for temperature and one for rainfall. Only the better
responses referred to specific temperature figures in their description. Many described the diurnal
range of temperature, but not the seasonal variation.
(iv) Most candidates did not score high marks on this question. There was very little understanding of
the impact of the prevailing wind direction, although some knew that the winds were dry. Some
candidates wrote about low pressure and high pressure and their impacts but did not specify that a
hot desert is influenced by high pressure. Some candidates scored one mark for referring to ‘high
pressure’ but could not explain its influence. Some answers about high pressure were incorrectly
linked with temperature rather than rainfall.
(b) (i) Many candidates scored three marks describing various features of the vegetation. Some
candidates explained why these features were important, but this was the answer to (ii). Some
candidates wrote about the plant roots which could not be seen on the photograph. When the word
‘only’ is used, credit will not be awarded for information which is not contained in the source.
© 2022
(ii) Many candidates showed good knowledge of vegetation adaptations, particularly their roots, thorns
and ability to store water. All ideas in the mark scheme were seen and many answers showed
good understanding, with many including appropriate development.
(c) Many candidates did not make the change from hot desert to equatorial climate despite equatorial
being emboldened. Candidates who correctly answered the question wrote about climate in areas
such as Amazonia and Borneo. Answers varied from simplistic description to well developed or
linked explanations based on the Hadley Cell. Good answers linked description to explanation to
develop their ideas. Weaker answers focused incorrectly on the vegetation and/or deforestation
rather than climate characteristics.
Question 4
This was the least popular question of the pair. However, it was attempted by a significant number of
candidates, some showing excellent knowledge and understanding while many other responses were weak.
(a) (i) Many candidates identified the correct statement.
(ii) Descriptions of the characteristics of the sand dunes were generally weak. Many did not refer to
the marram grass and did not describe the slope with any accuracy. A number of responses
referred to rocks and rocky – describing the beach instead of the dunes.
(iii) The question differentiated well. Many candidates gave valid ideas to explain the formation of the
sand dunes while weaker answers were confused between deposition by the sea and the wind.
(iv) Another question which was a good discriminator. Most candidates had some knowledge of spit
formation, but some candidates also put their ideas into the correct sequence and used appropriate
terminology, with a detailed account of the influence of longshore drift.
(b) (i) Many candidates made observations from the evidence in the photograph. However, these were
not always relevant as they did not refer to the characteristics of the bay. Many correctly referred to
the beach in the bay and occasionally the wave cut platform; however, there was little reference to
the shape or size of the bay.
(ii) The question differentiated well. Many good accounts were seen – the key to the good answers
being the reference to alternate bands of hard and soft rock. Some did this very well, referring to
the impact of their relative resistance to erosion, and some correctly used the terms ‘discordant
coastline’ and/or differential erosion. Others wrote generally about erosion, some confusing
bay/headland formation with the formation of caves, arches and stacks.
(c) The full range of marks was seen here – precise description of a variety of coastal hazards with
some development of ideas achieved the top end of Level 2 or Level 3, and such answers were
very impressive, particularly when they incorporated place references. Holderness answers were
very common, and this case study offered ample opportunities to refer to named places where
specific hazards are experienced with loss of income, homelessness and disruption to
communications frequently being referred to as development. A range of other acceptable case
studies was used, some textbook based and some using local knowledge. The latter tended to
elicit weaker responses in general, with one or more hazards being named or described and with
little attempt to develop or locate them. Very weak answers sometimes just described the problems
experienced by people living at the coast without linking them to specific hazards (e.g., loss of
houses, farmland) or wrote briefly about the hazard of coastal erosion but then concentrated on
management solutions at the expense of answering the question. Some better answers focused on
areas with multiple hazards such as Japan and the Maldives, where candidates wrote about the
hazards caused by tsunamis and coastal flooding, as well as coastal erosion.
© 2022
Question 5
Questions 5 and 6 were of roughly equal popularity.
(a) (i) Many candidates did not give a sufficiently clear definition of extensive farming, referring to both
inputs and outputs or size of farm. While the idea of large land area was often expressed, this was
not linked with inputs or outputs. Some simply described the farmland in the photograph. Others
defined subsistence farming.
(ii) Most candidates correctly identified the land uses, some by referring to livestock and crops, others
by using the terms arable and pastoral. Either approach was acceptable.
(iii) Many candidates correctly named three ways to increase yield. Common suggestions included
fertilisers, pesticides, more labour, and mechanisation. Others clearly were not familiar with the
word ‘intensive’ giving answers such as ‘buy more land’.
(iv) The question differentiated well. Better responses suggested ideas in the mark scheme with a clear
focus on transport costs and perishability. Some weaker responses thought that people would
come to the farm to buy produce.
(b) (i) This was a good discriminator. Many candidates correctly identified the heights where grapes are
grown using the contour lines, but there was little use of direction or distance in describing
distribution. Many candidates referred to ‘near’ the river or Sion which lacked the required
precision.
(ii) This was also a good discriminator. Better answers gained marks by reference to soil, aspect,
market, and water supply. A common misconception was that grapes need to be grown on flat
land.
(c) The most popular case studies were about Somalia or South Sudan. There were many good
answers, although some weaker answers focused too much on the causes of food shortages rather
than the impacts. This was especially true when the case study focused on the Darfur region where
war was seen as the main cause. Weaker answers also contained a list of impacts which were not
developed, but stronger responses were able to link the ideas to develop them.
Question 6
Questions 5 and 6 were of roughly equal popularity and on average this was the higher scoring of the two
questions.
(a) (i) Most candidates read the correct percentage from the graph.
(ii) Many candidates correctly identified two differences, although weaker responses did not
understand the term ‘fossil fuels’ and wrote about differences in other fuels such as HEP. There
was some confusion over Austria and Australia. Some used statistics here which was a valid
approach, although not all were sufficiently accurate.
(iii) Many candidates scored well by identifying that Austria did not use nuclear power and France used
it the most. Many candidates scored the third mark by comparing percentage statistics.
(iv) This discriminated well. Better answers suggested valid ideas included in the mark scheme, but
weaker answers focused incorrectly on generic ideas such as the danger of explosion, accidents
and air pollution, points which are either not true or require more precision (e.g., leak of radiation).
Expense was often discussed but not clearly enough. Reference to ‘expensive’ needed to be
qualified by reference to building costs or the expense of decommissioning. Many candidates wrote
about disasters such as Chernobyl without any clear explanation of why the government would not
choose to use nuclear power.
(b) (i) Many candidates interpreted the photograph well. They suggested ideas from the mark scheme,
with particular emphasis on strong winds with no obstructions, large area of flat land, and few
people nearby to object. Weaker responses suggested the winds will blow from the sea which was
insufficient to gain credit. Some candidates considered the fact that the Netherlands can afford to
© 2022
develop wind energy rather than considering the significance of the specific location shown in the
photograph.
(ii) There were many excellent answers about the advantages and disadvantages of wind power. The
answers in the mark scheme were all present in candidates’ answers. However, not all answers
were sufficiently balanced to score full marks.
(c) Many candidates did not fully consider water supply management and did not develop their
answers much beyond dams located on rivers. Some candidates described water transfer schemes
well (e.g., the Lesotho Highlands project and the China South-North project). However, many of
those who used Lesotho as their case study did not go beyond a simple reference to the dams built
there, although better responses linked this with pipelines to areas in South Africa. Other case
studies gave more opportunities for explaining different methods of supplying water. There were
good accounts of supply in Dubai and the western United States, for example, which referred to a
range of strategies. Some weaker responses continued with the energy theme and described HEP
projects.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/13
Geographical Themes
Key messages
C.
• Answer all parts of the three questions they choose in the spaces provided, including questions which
involve the completion of maps or graphs, e.g., 1(a)(i), 4(a)(ii).
• Learn geographical words and phrases to use them correctly in answers or define them if required.
answer booklet.
elaborated (e.g. pollution, overcrowding, cheap).
General comments
however, there was a wide range of marks and most candidates, while not performing consistently across
the paper, did make a good attempt at many parts of their chosen questions, enabling the paper to
differentiate effectively between candidates of all abilities.
the six, selecting two from the same section rather than one from each section.
mark allocations and space provided, the best responses being concise yet detailed and accurate in content.
Some candidates made use of the continuation sheets at the back of the question-and-answer booklet;
however, some needed to do so only because they had included too much irrelevant material in their
answers.
© 2022
to the part (c) questions on international migrants, the causes of flooding and global warming. As always,
some included unnecessary general introductions to these questions with irrelevant information about the
topic being tested. The best of these answers, however, were well focused with developed or linked ideas
and some place specific information. Weaker responses were sometimes poorly focused with brief lists of
simple points, sometimes in bullet points, not all of which were relevant. Some candidates did not score
marks consistently across the paper as they did not respond correctly to command words, e.g., ‘describe’ in
1(b)(ii), 3(b)(i) and 3(c) or ‘compare’ in 2(b)(i) or key words such as ‘central business district’ in 2(c) or
‘distribution’ in 2(b)(i). Sometimes key words are emboldened, as was the case with ‘rural areas’ in 1(b)(ii)
and ‘human interactions’ in 5(c). This is done to draw candidates’ attention to a significant word which should
not be overlooked.
Question 1
This question was as popular as usual with most candidates choosing it.
(a) (i) Nearly all candidates correctly located an area of sparse population density; however, a few
candidates missed this question out.
(ii) Most candidates gained both marks here, although there were some rounding errors, such as 3.8
or 4. However, credit was given within their response as there was no need to round the answer.
(iii) This question differentiated well. Most candidates stated that the distribution lies in areas of lower
rainfall and milder temperatures. However, only the more able candidates supported their answer
clearly with both population density and climatic statistics. It is important to use the correct units
when quoting statistics.
(iv) This question was well answered. Most candidates were able to describe the relationships between
population density and natural resources and transport, and were then able to include examples of
their importance, such as providing jobs and allowing raw materials to be transported.
(b) (i) Most candidates correctly linked the photographs to the descriptions and so gained full marks.
(ii) This question was well answered where candidates noted that the question was about
overpopulated rural areas and not urban areas. Good answers considered five distinct problems, or
developed ideas, such as overcultivation leading to soil erosion. Some candidates still tend to refer
to pollution as a generic idea, and need to state which type of pollution they are referring to, such
as water pollution in rural areas.
(c) This was a straightforward case study and differentiated well. Occasionally candidates misread the
question and wrote about rural to urban migration rather than international migration. Examples
such as migration to the UK, USA and Qatar were used to good effect, as well as examples that
candidates used from their own countries. However, some answers were not well developed
beyond the idea of better jobs and higher salaries. Statistics such as literacy rates are useful as
place specific detail. However, candidates need to describe in words the pull factors, such as a
developed idea that better education leads to higher literacy rates, rather than just including
statistics with little if any explanation, which will not gain credit.
Question 2
Fewer candidates chose to answer this question compared to question 1.
(a) (i) The majority of candidates identified the correct answer here.
(ii) Candidates need to use the scale to describe distance and also use correct compass directions to
clearly describe location. This is a skill which could be further developed.
© 2022
(iii) This question differentiated well. Stronger responses considered the importance of the railway, as
well as being close to workers. Fewer candidates, however, considered other factors such as the
cost of land or the importance of the meeting of roads.
(iv) Most candidates did not develop their answers to consider the potential variation in housing types,
age of buildings or density, but simply used the map and key to state that one area is unplanned
while the other is residential.
(b) (i) Most candidates failed to clearly distinguish between the distribution of food shops and charcoal
sellers. Candidates need to understand that distribution requires a consideration of where things
are located, using compass directions or factors such as roads, and to compare these rather than
simply considering the numbers of each service. It is also worth noting that the command word
‘compare’ invites reference to similarities as well as differences.
(ii) This question was less well answered. Many candidates do not appear to fully understand the
shopping hierarchy and the impact of the order of goods upon distance travelled and frequency of
purchase as well as other factors such as perishability.
(c) This question discriminated well. Stronger responses clearly described a named central business
district, using developed statements to good effect, for example, high land cost leading to high rise
buildings, or high accessibility and congested roads leading to high levels of air pollution. The word
‘because’ is a useful word when describing and explaining as it lends itself to developed
statements which access Level 2 of the mark scheme.
Question 3
This question was more popular than Question 4.
(a) (i) Many candidates failed to develop their answer beyond the idea that it is where the coast is
eroded, which did not gain credit. Candidates needed to define both the wearing away and the fact
that it is caused by waves or the sea.
(ii) Many candidates were able to correctly identify the two coastal features, although some candidates
only included one tick.
(iii) Many candidates did not demonstrate a clear understanding of corrosion beyond the idea of the
erosion of a crack. Many confused corrosion with hydraulic action. However, some excellent
answers were also seen showing a good understanding of the process.
(iv) This question was well answered and differentiated well. Most candidates clearly described
advantages such as fishing or a port, or jobs in tourism. However, the disadvantages were often
less well developed. Weaker responses were less precise and referred to the view, transport, or
tourism without reference to work or income, and so did not gain credit.
(b) (i) Candidates often failed to describe the features of the spit, beyond the idea that it is made from
shingle. Few used the scale or compass directions to good effect. While the marsh was often
mentioned, it needed to be clear where this is found on the spit. Weaker responses described its
location near the river mouth rather than describing its features.
(ii) This was well answered by most candidates with a whole range of ideas. However, weaker
responses did not develop their answer beyond the idea of longshore drift and showed little
understanding of swash and backwash.
(c) This question differentiated well, with some excellent answers giving detailed accounts of coastal
management strategies. Holderness as a case study was an example where candidates could link
named places with specific protection methods to very good effect. Weaker answers failed to
explain how strategies worked beyond the idea of stopping erosion and needed to consider ideas
such as absorbing wave energy or reflecting wave energy, or how groynes stop longshore drift.
© 2022
Question 4
This question was answered by fewer candidates than Question 3.
(a) (i) This was correctly answered by most candidates.
(ii) Confluences were sometimes confused with tributaries here, or the country boundary was mistaken
for the watershed; however, many candidates clearly identified the two features.
(iii) Good understanding was shown by many candidates of the three types of river erosion. However,
some candidates did not make it clear that the rocks are carried by the river when abrasion occurs.
Most, however, showed a good understanding of hydraulic action.
(iv) This question differentiated well. Stronger answers showed a clear valley cross section for each
part, with appropriate labelling, usually about the valley gradient. Weaker answers, however,
showed a channel cross section rather than a valley, with water filling the section, which did not
gain credit.
(b) (i) Again, this question differentiated well, with good answers clearly identifying three features of the
waterfall which could be seen in the photograph, such as the plunge pool, white water and steep
sided gorge. Weaker responses considered vegetation, which is not a key feature of a waterfall, or
explained its formation.
(ii) This question differentiated well. Excellent accounts described how there would be further
undercutting, resulting in the collapse of the overhang, retreat of the waterfall and formation of the
gorge.
(c) This question also differentiated well. Most candidates were able to name a river and refer to
simple causes of flooding such as prolonged rainfall or snow melt. Good examples included the
River Valency in Boscastle and the Ganges in Bangladesh. Strong answers developed their ideas
clearly, such as prolonged rainfall leading to saturated soils, or deforestation leading to less
interception and so greater discharge.
Question 5
This was quite a popular question and was answered by slightly fewer candidates than Question 6.
(a) (i) The vast majority of candidates answered this correctly, although some candidates confused the
two farming systems.
(ii) Most candidates correctly named the two months.
(iii) This was generally well answered with the correct inputs, processes and outputs placed in the
correct columns by all except a few candidates.
(iv) Many candidates were able to correctly refer to the significance of the availability of water and
suitable temperatures for wheat and rice and many impressive answers were seen, including
relevant supporting statistics from Fig. 5.1. As always, the use of statistics requires a degree of
precision and the use of the correct units, which not all candidates included. The use of words like
‘warm’, ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ is, of course, somewhat subjective and it is always worth clarifying such
statements with the aid of statistics.
(b) (i) This differentiated well and there were many candidates who used the evidence in the photograph
well to suggest impacts of soil erosion, such as gulleying, the removal of topsoil and the
consequent reduction of yields. Weaker responses tended to make sweeping statements about the
land being destroyed or lost or farming not being possible without seeming to even consider the
evidence in the photograph.
(ii) This question discriminated well and there were some excellent responses. All mark scheme ideas
were seen, especially references to the use of irrigation, tree planting and the reduction of
overgrazing or overcultivation. Weaker responses referred to the use of fertilisers or crop rotation
which would not necessarily reduce soil erosion.
© 2022
(c) This question discriminated well and there were some excellent responses. Most candidates
interpreted the question correctly and chose an appropriate country or region, though a few wrote
about natural events, such as drought, rather than human actions. Level 1 was characterised by
simple lists of different human actions, while some candidates developed their description or linked
them to obtain Level 2. Some included place detail: however, in most cases even the more
developed and otherwise impressive responses tended to be generic answers rather than giving
place specific detail.
Question 6
This was a slightly more popular question with more candidates choosing this question than Question 5.
(a) (i) Most candidates were able to write a correct definition of desertification.
(ii) Asia was usually correctly identified for the most land lost to desertification. However, some
candidates wrongly suggested it was also the area where arable farming had been the main cause
of desertification.
(iii) Most candidates gained some credit here. The most successful responses considered each of the
causes of desertification in turn and compared them, gaining full marks. The use of statistics alone
does not allow a comparison; candidates should describe the differences and so compare the
causes. Some weaker candidates wrongly compared Asia and Europe.
(iv) While there were some excellent answers, many candidates did not score well on this question.
Most candidates were able to make simple statements, such as trampling by livestock or
vegetation being eaten. Stronger answers referred in addition to the bare soil being washed away
or blown away, resulting in soil erosion due to roots not being able to stabilise the soil. There were
some answers referring to deforestation, which were not relevant. Deforestation and desertification
are different issues.
(b) (i) Many candidates responded well to this extract and the question was generally high scoring with a
variety of mark scheme ideas being included in most responses. Some weaker responses did not
include reference to a year or time period and so did not gain credit.
(ii) This question discriminated well. A variety of answers was seen. Weaker responses, however,
failed to develop their ideas clearly and did not address the idea of how human activities are
increasing the temperature of the Earth, such as increasing car ownership and an increase in the
number of factories and so an increase in greenhouse gases.
(c) This was a straightforward case study and differentiated well. The strongest responses selected
appropriate case studies such as the melting of the polar icecaps and the impact on wildlife
habitats, and rising sea levels and flooding risk to areas such as mainland China, Indonesia and
Thailand, or coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef. It should be noted that the question asked
about the problems caused by global warming, not the causes of global warming. A significant
number of candidates wrote about the latter, incorporating references to flooding and loss of habitat
in the wrong context. To gain credit such references needed to specifically relate to problems
caused by global warming such as flooding of coastal lowlands or low lying islands, destruction of
Arctic environments and threat to species of Arctic wildlife such as polar bears.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/21
Geographical Skills
Key messages
• Paper 21 is a skills paper and candidates are required to use the resources within the questions.
Sometimes this did not happen, and answers were based on knowledge only.
• Candidates should pay attention to the number of marks available to make sure they are
answering in sufficient detail.
• Where a question is asking for a description of change, candidates should make sure they are
using comparative language.
• Terms like infrastructure and quality of life are used regularly by candidates, but they are too vague
and will not be credited.
General comments
Most questions in the paper were attempted. If no response was provided, it was often where annotation was
required on the resource, for example, the cross section. This may be because candidates did not notice
these questions due to there being no space available for the response. Candidates were able to access the
physical and human questions equally. They generally scored better marks on the short answer questions
with extended responses proving more challenging.
Question 1
(a) Candidates were able to score highly on this section and had good skills in using the map key.
Feature A was a main road (road was also allowed), B was a footbridge, the land use at C was
coniferous trees / bracken / heath / rough grassland (any one was credited), the settlement at D
was Gavilmoss, and the height above sea level of the spot height at E was 202 m. Where
multiple answers were given and one was incorrect, no mark was awarded.
(b) The response to the distance measurement in part (i) was mixed with a number of candidates just
outside of the acceptable response of 1500–1600 m. It is important to note the question asked for
the distance to be measured along the road rather than as a straight line. The compass bearing in
part (ii) of 72–78 degrees was more accurately answered.
(c) This question gained mixed responses with very few candidates gaining full marks. There was
often a lack of understanding of the term drainage which meant some candidates could not access
the question at all. Instead, answers referred to the relief or the human features of the river and
surrounding settlements. Marks were generally gained for describing the water features such as
waterfalls, springs, ponds/lakes as well as small rivers. The main drainage feature on the extract
was the main river Calder, although this often was not identified by either name or significance.
This usually meant that credit for the river Calder flowing southeast, or river Calder meandering
was not awarded.
(d) The cross-section question proved difficult for many candidates with a number giving no response.
Feature X in part (i) was a traffic-free cycle route but many candidates identified it as a road.
Although many candidates were in the right vicinity with the position of the main road in part (ii), a
lack of accuracy meant they were often just outside of the acceptable response of 105–109 mm
from the left-hand margin. To complete the cross section in part (iii) a hill was required, rising
between 87–<100 m. Candidates usually drew a hill but at times it was not high enough.
© 2022
(e) Most candidates were knowledgeable about the reasons a settlement grows. Where marks were
lost, it was due to listing the features identified on the map but not explaining that feature, e.g.,
road as opposed to road for travel. Those explaining the features referred to the road, river, railway
station and woodland but very few identified the well, floodplain, bridge or valley. Use of the
contour lines to describe relief was poor; it was a gentle slope.
Question 2
(a) In part (i) most candidates understood the term population density and were able to use the data in
Fig. 2.1 to calculate correctly. When describing the change over time in part (ii), almost all
identified an increase, and many could accurately read the data for 2010 and 2020. A few
candidates rounded the data up or down rather than including one decimal place in the answer
which was not credited. Very few gained the third mark which was for describing the rate of
change, quicker 2010–2014 and slower 2014–2020. Candidates then had to select from three
possible options in part (iii). The correct answer was positive net migration which most candidates
got correct.
(b) Instructions on the examination paper state that candidates will need a ruler and may use a pencil
for graphs. In completing the bar graph in part (i), many did not use either which resulted in
careless drawing. Candidates were often successful in calculating the total population of Pays de la
Loire in part (ii), with errors usually occurring when candidates divided the area by the population
rather than multiplying the area by the population.
Question 3
(a) When describing the changes in the clouds between Fig. 3.1 and Fig. 3.2, many candidates made
a good effort in studying the images. Most identified the increase in cloud cover, although very few
could exemplify this using oktas. Some candidates correctly stated that the cloud type changed
from cumulus to cumulonimbus, although many other types of cloud were mentioned which were
not evident in the images. Many candidates answered that clouds became darker, became larger,
became denser, or became higher. When credit was not awarded it was because comparative
language was not used, therefore change was not identified.
(b) A number of responses to this question were overcomplicated which at times meant that it was
difficult to interpret what was being stated. The changes in weather were that temperature
decreased, sunlight decreased, precipitation increased, and humidity increased. Most
candidates scored at least 2 marks, and many scored 3 marks. Errors usually occurred with
humidity.
Question 4
(a) Fig. 4.1 showed the location of hot deserts in the world and candidates were asked to describe the
distribution. Responses were very mixed with many referring to the proximity to the Equator rather
than the proximity to the Tropics. Credit was achieved for stating that hot deserts are coastal. Many
candidates then more specifically identified the continents where hot deserts were located but did
not locate them within those continents, e.g., western North America, western South America,
northwest / central Australia, central Africa/north Africa / Horn of Africa. No marks were awarded
for stating where hot deserts could not be found. In a question describing distribution, candidates
should remember to use compass directions and not refer to above and below.
(b) There was good understanding of how to read a climate graph. In part (i), almost all candidates
read the data correctly for the highest (28 °C) and lowest (11 °C) temperature. Some did not then,
however, complete the calculation to get the answer of 17 °C. Most responses to part (ii) were
correct. From the four options given, the answer was 290 mm. Part (iii) was challenging for many
candidates. Some referenced rainfall rather than temperature and others gave no indication in
which months the higher or lower temperatures were to be found to explain their statement. Credit
was gained for stating that the higher temperatures were in months between October and March
(or beginning and end of the year) or that the lower temperatures were in months between May and
August (or middle of the year).
Many candidates scored full marks and demonstrated very good knowledge of the ways in which
hot desert plants adapt to the climate such as storing water, long roots, spikes, waxy cuticle, night-
time pollination, closed stomata during the day. Some candidates gave the wrong reasoning, such
© 2022
as protection from animals, but for this question they were credited anyway as the command word
was describe rather than explain.
Question 5
(a) Almost all answered part (i) correctly with crude oil and almost all answered part (ii) correctly with
electronics. In part (iii) the response was mixed, with most candidates correctly calculating the
total value as 331 but many not using the column header in Fig. 5.1 to realise the value was in
billions.
(b) There were some good responses with many candidates recognising that Europe had a higher
value of exports and Europe had a greater market share. Where responses focused on the types of
products produced, candidates needed to make sure that they used comparative language, such
as more secondary in Europe and more primary in Africa. Listing products was not credited. Few
candidates identified the overall trend that the continents produce different products.
(c) This was more challenging and there were many vague comments that did not gain any credit.
Some candidates failed to understand what was being asked of them. Marks were most often
achieved for increasing wages and creating jobs. When referring to infrastructure, the term
alone was not enough. Candidates need to name the specific infrastructure such as
improvements to schools, roads, hospitals, sanitation, electricity.
Question 6
(a) Almost all gained the mark as there were so many possible examples. A very small number of
candidates referred to an industry rather than a product which meant they did not score.
(b) The first part, (i), asked candidates to describe specific industrial units in Fig. 6.1. Many achieved
the two marks with ease, using descriptors such as modern, white, and parking. Some described
the units as large which was credited, but the comparative largest was not. Fewer candidates
gained credit for identifying that the units were one or two storeys high, they had flat roofs and they
were rectangular. Sometimes candidates wrote about what the units were probably used for, which
did not answer the question. The second part, (ii), focused on why the specific location was
chosen. Many gained 1 mark, and some gained 2. The most common responses were the proximity
to roads and that it was flat. Less common were the ideas that there was room for expansion (not
open space) and workers were available in the nearby housing. Very few candidates recognised
that land is cheaper on the rural-urban fringe or the idea that raw materials could be gained from
nearby industry.
(c) Few candidates gained marks for this question with many repeating their response to (b)(ii).
Where marks were given, it was generally for comments regarding the need for a skilled workforce
or that the finished goods are small and light. Marks would also have been given for raw materials
are small and light, finished goods have a high value, high technology industry is often research
based, proximity to other companies to share ideas or reference to the need for a power supply.
The wording of the question in asking why transport costs are not important meant that only
stronger candidates understood the premise.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/22
Geographical Skills
Key messages
• Candidates should read and respond to the questions carefully, for instance Question 2(a)(ii) referred
to ‘provinces migrants travel from’ not ‘to’. Question 2(b) asked candidates to refer to the map, ‘Using
Fig. 2.1 only…’, but some candidates wrote about features of Sichuan, which were not on the map.
• It is important to understand the geographical terminology referred to in the questions. For example,
Question 6(d) referred to population structure. Candidates should know, for instance, which elements
to focus on for the terms relief and settlement.
• Candidates should avoid listing several different features in short one word answer questions,
especially in Question 1, as this will not be credited.
• Candidates should read the map and key in Question 1 carefully. For instance, many candidates
mistook a road more than 4 metres wide for a secondary road.
• Many candidates need to be more accurate in the completion of a cross-section derived from a
topographical map.
• Questions often require candidates to describe distributions, for example of settlement. They should
refer to compass directions, grid references or relate the distribution to other geographical features
such as transport routes shown on the map.
• Candidates should avoid using vague terminology such as pollution, infrastructure, facilities, and lack of
resources. These terms should be further exemplified, e.g., pollution by the source, or of air, water, etc.
• When writing on the extra pages, make sure that ‘continued on back page’ is written at the end of the
answer and the question number and part is clearly stated on the back pages.
General comments
A wide range of marks was attained and in general, very good responses were seen for all questions. Most
candidates demonstrated a solid understanding of the fundamental abilities needed to successfully interpret
maps, graphs and photographs and provide appropriate responses. Generally, candidates performed equally
well across all the questions, with Questions 4 and 5 being done particularly well and Questions 1(c)(iii)
and 1(d) less so. There was little evidence that candidates ran out of time to finish the paper, and there were
relatively few question parts which were not attempted.
Question 1
(a) Candidates were able to score high marks in this section demonstrating an ability to find features
on the map and identify them using the key. Feature A was a secondary or B road (examiners also
allowed Muirhouse Farm since the A coincided with its name on the map of Uplawnmoor), and the
vegetation at B was bracken, heath or rough grassland. This was frequently confused with
coniferous trees. The feature at C was a mast, the height above sea level of the spot height at D
was 198 m, and the land use at E was coniferous or non-coniferous or mixed woodland and / or
scrub. In the latter, coppice was often incorrectly identified as being present.
(b) Although there were many correct answers, some candidates found part (b) challenging. The
distance measurement in (i) was 2500 m, the bearing in (ii), 50°, and the estimated area of Loch
Libo (iii), 100 000 square metres. The latter is a question which is seldom asked, and many
candidates were not prepared for it.
© 2022
(c) The cross-section question proved difficult for many candidates, with a significant number omitting
parts (ii) and (iii). Most correctly identified the land use at A in part (i) as a golf course which
suggested they had correctly identified the line of section on the map. While most candidates did
use a labelled arrow in part (ii) to mark the A736, its location was not always placed to the east
side of the valley bottom (within 59–63 mm of the western side of the cross-section). When
completing the cross-section in part (iii), there should have been a relatively flat line at first which
then got steeper to intersect with the eastern side of the section on or just below 175 m.
(d) This proved a difficult question for many candidates with some weaker responses clearly showing
that the term relief was not well understood. Nearly all candidates recognised that the land
immediately to the north of the A376 was steep with some better responses pointing out that the
relief became gentler further to the north / north-west as well as declining in height. They also
identified the highest point at 259 m and the lowest point at 88 m. Many described how close or
far apart the contours were, with some describing the course of the A736 rather than the land to
the north of it. In addition, many candidates referred to the vegetation and the position of
settlements which was not needed.
(e) The best responses focused on the entire area south of the A736 as well as the two biggest
settlements, Neilston and Uplawnmoor. This often included the dispersed nature of isolated
houses, farms, and hamlets, while recognising Neilston as a nucleated settlement and Uplawnmoor
as being more linear. The better answers also accurately located elements of the distribution, such
as Neilston being in the NW of the map extract or that the bigger settlements were close to the
A376 or were along roads greater than 4 m wide. The weaker responses were too generalised, for
instance noting that there were nucleated and linear settlements with no reference to their names,
or that settlements were near roads without specifying which type of road. There were also
statements on vegetation and relief unrelated to settlement distribution.
Question 2
(a) (i) Most candidates focused their answers on methods suitable for drawing on a map, although those
responses which gave descriptions instead of named techniques, such as a choropleth, were
equally acceptable. Thus, a colour coded map (with a key) was often stated. Other common
responses were bar charts (for each province), proportional arrows or circles and different patterns
of shading. Line graphs and scatter graphs were not acceptable, in addition to adding numbers or
labels to the provinces.
(ii) This was a potentially difficult question which was managed well by most candidates. In addition to
the overall increase in the amount of migration, there were many points that could have been made
about both the number of migrants and the amount of increase in migrants from individual
provinces. The best responses tended to also look at overall patterns linking the data with the map,
for example identifying that the shorter the distance the greater the number of migrants. Weaker
responses often referred to migration to the provinces rather than from them, and there was some
confusion between the most migration and the biggest increase in migration.
(b) Most candidates made the point that it was a longer distance to travel from Sichuan to Shanghai
than from the other provinces, with some calculating the distance from the map scale. Some
mistakenly gave reasons why most people wanted to stay in Sichuan which were not immediately
obvious from the map. Again, those who thought the question was asking about migration to
Sichuan gained no credit.
(c) This was generally well answered, with many responses referring to unemployment and the
pressure on, cost of, or lack of, housing. Others mentioned the cost of health, health care,
sanitation, or food supplies. Weaker responses tended to use vague terms such as a lack of
resources and overpopulation, while others gave non-economic reasons, contrary to what the
question asked.
Question 3
(a) Candidates were awarded marks across the full range. Most got lowest life expectancy and ageing
population correct (A and C), while responses for high birth rate and death rate (A), high birth rate
and declining death rate, and highest population growth (both B) were more mixed.
© 2022
(b) (i) Most candidates read the graph, Fig. 3.2, accurately to state that the percentage of population
aged 65 years and over in middle-income countries increased by 2.5 per cent between 1960 and
2018. The few that misjudged the scale often gave 2 per cent or 5 per cent.
(ii) Most candidates recognised the positive correlation with the most common statement being ‘The
higher the income, the greater per cent of the population aged 65 and over’. Many also added that
‘the lower the income, the lower per cent of the population aged 65 and over’, which did not gain an
additional mark. Few noted that it was a strong relationship. The other element which could be
picked out from Fig. 3.2 was ‘the higher the income, the greater the increase’, or vice versa. This
was seldom seen. A common error made by many candidates was stating that ‘people aged 65
and over had a higher income’.
(c) In the main, this question was answered well. Common responses referred to improved healthcare,
sanitation, diets, or food supply. To this was added the provision of pensions, old people’s homes,
and lower birth rates. Some candidates wrote the reasons for low birth rates but without linking
them to there being fewer children. Other statements such as ‘access to healthcare’ needed the
idea of improvement or good quality. Those statements which suggested that old people were
earning more in high income countries received no credit.
Question 4
(a) (i) Most candidates correctly referred to the eruption of Kilauea. Those who referred to plate
movement or boundaries gained no credit as this was not mentioned in Fig. 4.1, and this
location is a hot spot.
(ii) Again, most candidates focused their efforts on deriving information from Fig. 4.1, and thus many
scored the full three marks. Reference to evacuation centres, lava tunnels, the fact that residents
were used to the eruptions and considered them as part of life, and that many had lived there for a
long time and considered it as home were often seen. Points which referred to fertile soils, tourism,
minerals, and geothermal energy were not credited since they were not mentioned in Fig. 4.1. A
popular misconception is that the residents had built lava tunnels rather than them being a natural
feature.
(b) (i) The majority located the earthquake’s epicentre from Fig. 4.2 well. Most candidates recognised
that it was in the Pacific Ocean and off the southwest or west coast of Hawaii. Some used the scale
to give the distance of between 10 and 15 kms. Some responses confused east and west,
suggesting the epicentre was to the southeast of Hawaii, or indeed, in the southeast of the Pacific
Ocean. Those who gave a time, such as the epicentre is five minutes away from Hawaii, were
given no credit as was the case with vague distances, such as under 25 kms.
(ii) Most candidates correctly gave a time of between 37 and 43 minutes for the tsunami to reach the
island of Kauai.
(iii) Almost all candidates completed the line for fifteen minutes on Fig. 4.2 successfully. There were a
small minority who omitted this question.
Question 5
(a) Many candidates scored well when describing the attractions for tourists from the photographs
(Figs 5.1 and 5.2) showing two different tourist locations in Thailand. In Fig. 5.1 the shops or
market selling souvenirs and the sale of food in cafes or restaurants was nearly always mentioned.
To this was often added the colourful buildings, interesting architecture, the display of street art and
night life. In Fig. 5.2 the boat trips, offshore islands, the beach and clear blue water and clear blue
skies were all noted by many. It was expected that any reference to culture had to be local, and
there were some candidates who listed various water sports for which there was no evidence.
(b) This question was well answered usually by reference to the provision of jobs and increase in
income for local businesses. Some candidates referred to cultural exchange or the promoting of
local culture which was equally appropriate. Since the question referred to the local population,
those responses which referred only to the ‘country’s economy’ were not credited.
© 2022
(c) A range of appropriate problems caused by tourists was seen, most commonly litter, water
pollution, traffic congestion and disrespect for the local culture. It should be noted that the focus
was on problems caused by tourists themselves, and thus the building of hotels, for instance, was
not credited. The term ‘pollution’ on its own was too vague.
Question 6
(a) (i) Many read the triangular graph (Fig. 6.1) accurately, giving 54 per cent for primary industry in 1970
and 40 per cent for the tertiary industry in 2019. The latter was more often answered correctly than
the former. However, it was clear that some candidates had not come across this type of graph
before. The most common errors were 58 per cent for primary and 80 per cent for tertiary, and this
relates to the misunderstanding of the direction of the lines on the graph.
(ii) Most candidates suggested an appropriate type of graph to show the information in Fig. 6.1, with
most stating a bar graph or pie chart. As this was not continuous data, a line graph was
incorrect.
(b) Almost all candidates recognised that the percentage in secondary industry shown on Fig. 6.1 had
increased.
(c) Most candidates recognised that many people who formerly worked in agriculture had moved to
urban areas for jobs in either secondary or tertiary industry which were better paid and largely of a
less physical nature. Some suggested that much of the labour force was now educated and more
skilled and were thus capable of such jobs. Others considered the wider changes in agriculture, for
instance, due to mechanisation, damage caused by overcultivation or the result of flooding,
cyclones, or droughts. It was also pointed out by some that with development, agricultural land had
been lost to the expansion of cities and that much food was now imported.
(d) Many candidates gained marks by referring to a more aging population in rural areas, as well as a
reduced number of economically active and/or fewer children/lower birth rate. Some also pointed
out that there would be a gender imbalance with fewer males and more females. However, it was
clear that many candidates did not fully understand or did not focus on the term ‘population
structure’. These often referred to the reduction in population or services in rural areas or the
consequences of rural to urban migration for urban areas such as squatter settlements.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/23
Geographical Skills
Key messages
• Candidates need to learn key terms and their meanings – epicentre, focus, temperature range, raw
materials.
• If using the additional pages, candidates should state the question number, rather than giving the page
number. Only ask for an additional booklet once the additional pages at the back of the question paper
have been filled.
• Candidates need to pay attention to specific details. In Question 1(a)(iii) the subtle difference between
building and important building was critical. In Question 6(a) many referred to America rather than
North America or South America and many used that term when they actually meant USA.
• In Question 1 and Question 6 the areas for extended writing were not subdivided into space for each
point. Candidates are expected to notice how many marks are available and write an appropriate
number of points to obtain those marks. In Question 1(b)(iii), for example, there was a tendency to
make just one comment about housing and one comment about street pattern, but for 3 marks, a
second comment about one of those was also required.
General comments
All questions were accessible to the candidates with some very good responses seen for each one.
There were no time issues on this paper and candidates should be reminded to use any spare time to check
through their work.
Question 1
(a) The 1:25 000 map extract was for Irvine, Scotland. Fig. 1.1 contained information for both part (a)
and part (b), and candidates first had the familiar task of identifying features.
The type of road at A was a dual carriageway. Main road was also accepted, as was its identifier,
A78 and also by-pass. Most put dual carriageway, with just a few using the other options. Some
spoilt their answer by copying A35 or A30 from the key, while a few put secondary road.
Feature B was a museum, with its very distinctive symbol. Consequently, almost all answers were
correct.
Feature C was labelled on the map as a hotel. Most had this answer, while a few checked the
colour against the key and opted for building, which was also correct. Again, there were few errors,
but a few chose important building from the same line in the key.
The height above sea level of the contour line at D was 20 metres. Again, most had the correct
answer. The most common error was 769, taken from the adjacent road identifier.
(b) Fig. 1.1 also located the railway station (E), the starting point for the distance measurement, along
the railway to the southern edge of the map. This was comparatively straightforward due to the
straight path of the railway line, and answers between 1530 metres and 1580 metres were
credited. A few were slightly too short at 1525 metres, but most of those who knew what to do were
very accurate in the middle of the range. As in the past, there was some confusion as to how to use
the scale information, with different mathematical calculations appearing around the margins.
© 2022
Candidates should be encouraged to make direct use of the scale line and not to write in the
margins of the question paper.
Candidates were then asked for the bearing of feature C (the hotel) from the railway station at E.
Answers within the range 87°– 93° were accepted and a pleasing number did well on this, with
many within the range or close to it. A few had oriented their protractor incorrectly or measured
anticlockwise from north.
In part (iii) candidates had to describe the housing and street pattern in Fullerton, which was
identified by its grid squares and also as area F on Fig. 1.1. Typically, they scored 1 mark, usually
for indicating the clustering, most using the term nucleated. Many continued to write about the
buildings and forgot to mention street pattern at all. However, they usually wrote about the named
buildings (post office and school) and relatively few scored the points that were available for
description such as detached, rows, blocks and gardens or yards. Those who did mention street
pattern usually indicated the curves. A few spotted the dead-end roads. Most only wrote about the
road types and commented that they were beside the river, which was not relevant.
The industrial estate was grid referenced and identified as G on Fig. 1.1. Candidates were asked to
suggest reasons for its location. Possible answers included the large area of flat land, proximity of
housing providing a labour supply and market, cheaper land on the edge of the urban area and
connections with the other industrial estates nearby. Many wrote about roads, but on its own this
was limited. A passing dual carriageway is of no advantage unless there is a junction to make it
accessible. Similarly, they wanted to use the river for transport without considering its small size
and the weirs downstream. Those who mentioned the town often referred to it being a long way
from noise or air pollution. Candidates obviously prepare for the exam by learning standard location
factors, but they should also practise applying them to particular locations from map evidence.
Here, the roads needed mention of road junction or access to the main road, the river was
available for water supply for cleaning or waste disposal and cheaper land needed to be connected
to the location outside the urban area on land that could flood.
(c) Candidates were then asked to describe the human and physical features of the River Garnock.
The answer space was subdivided to try to ensure that candidates addressed both aspects of the
question and there was a 2-mark reserve for each part. Candidates typically scored 5 or 6 marks.
For the human features candidates tended to write about features on the banks of the river rather
than features directly connected to the river itself. The best answers spotted the weirs, bridges,
footbridge, jetty and that the channel appeared to have been straightened. However, many spotted
only one of these, usually bridge, and some just said that the road or railway went over, or even
through, the river.
Almost all candidates scored better on the physical features, and even the weakest responses
pointed out the mud and sand or shingle. Many noted features that usually apply to rivers, such as
meanders, tributaries, braiding and variable width, and also commented on the flow direction (to
the S or SE) and the low gradient. Being close to the sea provided some additional options, such
as the river being tidal, and having an estuary and mouth. The latter needed to be located at Irvine
Bay or Bar, so that it was a clear point rather than a passing comment. Mention of the bar itself was
also credited.
Additionally, the River Garnock has signs of embankments. As these could be natural levees or
man-made or a combination, they could count as human or physical. A few focussed entirely on the
surroundings, so in the physical section wrote about vegetation, which was not credited.
Question 2
(a) The pie charts for Question 2 were in colour in the insert. The data showed the population
structure for low-income, middle-income and high-income countries in 1970 and 2018.
In part (i), candidates were asked the percentage of population aged 15–64 in 2018. Most had
selected the correct pie chart and measured the blue segment. Answers in the range 52 per cent to
58 per cent were accepted, allowing for a careful estimation of the percentage, but many had a
precise 55.56 per cent, indicating that they had measured the 200° and performed the calculation.
A small number opted for 200 per cent.
© 2022
Candidates then needed to compare the blue sections on all the pie charts and look for the largest
growth between the two years. The largest growth in percentage aged 15–64 was in the middle-
income countries. There were mostly correct answers for this. A small number thought it was the
high-income countries, where there was also a significant change.
The answer to part (iii) was more obvious. The population 65 and above was represented by
green and the largest growth in percentage was clearly in the high-income countries. Almost all
candidates had the correct answer. A small number thought that they needed to name a high-
income country, and these had invariably made a similar mistake with part (ii).
(b) The low-income countries showed little change and candidates were asked to state two reasons for
the large proportion aged 0–14. Many gained a mark by mentioning the high birth rate but for a
further mark they needed to consider the reasons for a high birth rate. Many focussed on the lack
of contraceptives or education about family planning and the need for children, either to work or to
look after the older generations. Other possibilities included the desire for a son, the lack of
education for women and early marriage.
(c) In part (c) candidates were asked to suggest three problems caused by an aging population. There
were plenty of possible answers here and many scored at least 2 marks. They mentioned the
burden on the economically active, with the government needing to raise taxes to pay for pensions,
health care and care homes. Some also noted the effect on the labour force, with the potential
shortage of workers. A few had some strange suggestions, such as shortage in the housing market
and traffic problems, perhaps suggesting that this is a topic where students would benefit from the
opportunity for further discussion to help develop their understanding.
Question 3
(a) Question 3 was based on photographs, presented in the insert. Figs 3.1 and 3.2 showed industrial
units and housing in the rural-urban fringe and candidates were asked to use evidence from Fig.
3.1 to suggest ways in which the development was having a negative impact on the natural
environment. Most suggested that natural vegetation had been removed and many went on to
mention loss of habitats and reduced biodiversity. The other common response was to mention air
pollution or greenhouse gases from the cars or chimney on the house. However, there was no
photographic evidence for air pollution from the industrial unit. Others mentioned noise or light
pollution, but these needed to be linked to disturbing or scaring wildlife in order to be credited. Cars
killing wildlife was also valid. A few candidates wrote an excellent explanation of how the
impermeable surfaces would lead to increased surface run-off and could result in flooding.
Candidates then had to turn their attention to Fig. 3.2 to identify two ways in which there had been
an attempt to reduce the impact on the natural environment. Commonly, candidates pointed out
that vegetation was being replanted and they also noticed the low barrier or fence providing a
boundary. These were things that had been added into the landscape but commenting on what had
been left was also valid – leaving open spaces and leaving mature trees in place. Some were
focussing on human intervention and wrote about the wooden stakes supporting the trees and
others were rather confused by the tree guards, interpreting them in several ways, including
containers for flowers.
(b) Fig. 3.3 showed a new shopping development and candidates had to suggest three reasons why
people would choose to shop there, based on evidence only from the photograph. Most mentioned
the parking and the easy access with the wide road. Some commented on pedestrian access and
also disabled access due to the level site. Other ideas included the lack of traffic congestion and
crowds, the lighting which enhanced safety at night, and the fact that the shopping area was
covered or indoors. Many pointed out that the store was large, but this needed a bit more
explanation as to why people would therefore choose to shop there, such as greater range of
products, more stock, etc. Quite a few took the location of the shopping development in the rural-
urban fringe as given in the question and wrote about closeness to villages or ‘no other shops’, but
this could not be deduced from the photograph.
© 2022
Question 4
(a) Fig. 4.1 was a cross-section through an area affected by an earthquake and candidates were
asked to identify various features. Line A-B was a fault or slip line. Here, many suggested a plate
boundary, but this did not fit the scenario of Fig. 4.1 where a more specific answer was required.
There was a high omission rate on this question and few correct answers.
X was the focus of the earthquake, while Y was the epicentre. Again, there was a high omission
rate. Many candidates knew the terms but got them mixed up and a surprisingly high proportion put
the same answer for both part (ii) and part (iii) to be sure of getting at least 1 mark.
(b) Fig. 4.2 showed the number of global earthquake deaths between 2000 and 2015. Candidates had
to identify 2004 and 2010 as the two years with the highest death toll. This was a relatively simple
task and almost all candidates scored the mark.
They then had to suggest four reasons why the number of deaths varies from year to year. Many
scored well on this, with three or four good points. Many pointed out that magnitudes vary, as does
frequency, and the effect would depend on the population density of the areas impacted. Many
explained the effect of the depth of the focus and the time of the day. With part (i) highlighting
2004, the occurrence of tsunamis was often mentioned, and other secondary effects could have
included landslides and the spread of disease. Many wrote about how preparedness and response
affected the death toll, pointing out the differences between MEDCs and LEDCs in terms of
building condition, education and awareness, speed of response and post-earthquake provision.
Candidates had no shortage of ideas, and they were generally well expressed. Suggestions that
did not score often included predicting the earthquake, evacuating the population or reference to
volcanic activity.
Question 5
(a) This question was relatively straightforward throughout. Fig. 5.1 presented data as a climate graph.
Most candidates correctly read the January rainfall at 200mm. A few read the data for June or July,
while a small number used the temperature scale, even though this resulted in 0mm.
The annual temperature range was 2°C, calculated from 27° minus 25°. Unfortunately, quite a few
candidates simply read the data that they needed from the graph and stopped there.
In part (iii), candidates were presented with a table of statements from which they had to select
which three were true about the climate in Fig. 5.1. The correct statements were ‘there are two
wetter seasons’, ‘temperatures are high throughout the year’ and ‘July is the coolest month’.
Candidates often scored 3 marks. ‘The annual temperature range is high’ was probably the most
common incorrect selection, further illustrating that some candidates had a poor understanding of
the concept of temperature range.
(b) Fig. 5.2 was part of a food web, showing energy flows from producers, through primary consumers
to secondary consumers. Most candidates were able to identify the two foods eaten by the caiman-
tapir and howler monkey. A few incorrectly stated grass and banana tree, as they followed the
arrows right through to the producer level.
They then had to suggest two impacts of a reduced number of orchids. Almost all commented on
the effect on the spider monkey, with lack of food resulting in a decrease of population. The
majority then looked at the secondary consumers and realised that the jaguar and ocelot would be
affected in a similar way. A few pointed out the likely impact on howler monkeys and three-toed
sloths, but for credit, this needed a little explanation, relating decreasing numbers to a change in
food source for jaguars and ocelots.
© 2022
Question 6
(a) Fig. 6.1 was a complex resource with a lot of information. Candidates were asked to identify the
evidence that the global coffee shop company was a transnational company and that it had
undergone globalisation. The candidates who scored well were able to cope with the various ways
in which data was presented as well as demonstrating their knowledge of world geography by
accurately naming continents and countries. From the map, it was evident that coffee shops were
located in many countries, across several continents. Most candidates expressed this, and some
went on to use the size of the circles to quote data. Similarly, raw materials were being sourced
from a huge number of countries. Many got this basic point, but some scored more for further
detail, by pointing out that most raw materials were from LEDCs, but MEDCs in North America and
Europe supplied the paper. The graph clearly showed the increase in number of coffee shops.
Most candidates pointed this out and many went on to quote relevant data from the graph for a
further mark. A few wrote in general terms about transnational companies without referring to Fig.
6.1, but candidates typically scored at least 3 marks.
(b) The coffee company offers support to local farmers in the three ways listed in Fig. 6.2. Candidates
were asked to explain how each type of support could help sustainable development. Most dealt
with all three points in the order listed, and a substantial number extended their response onto the
additional pages as, having reached the end of the paper, they discovered that they had time to go
into some detail.
For education about soil management techniques, they wrote about maintaining healthy, fertile soil
and prevention of soil erosion. Some did forget the context at this point, and so introduced
overgrazing, which was not relevant.
For agreed prices for coffee beans, many were keen to see fair trade and guaranteed prices
ensuring economic stability for the farmers. However, some were clearly confused and appeared to
think that the farmers were buying the coffee beans, while others were arguing for a fair price for
the coffee bean company and the coffee drinkers.
For research into disease resistant trees, many could see the advantages of being able to maintain
the trees for a longer period, resulting in stable yields and steady incomes, with less need to clear
land for new trees or to use pesticides. However, there was some confusion about which trees
could be diseased or disease-resistant (the crop or the surrounding forest), and whether the
disease could be passed to humans through drinking the coffee.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/03
Coursework
General comments
This report refers to the performance of centres in the June 2022 examination. However, the comments
made here are equally applicable for centres that make their entries for the first time in November 2022 or
during 2023.
The range of topics undertaken included a much greater variety compared with the June session in 2021.
From the table below it can be seen that coursework submissions on human geography topics outnumbered
those on physical geography.
Topic Percentage of centres

Human Energy 1
Population 1
Settlement and service provision 2
Tourism and recreation 23
Urban settlement 32
Physical Coasts 7
Rivers 30
Weather and climate 4
Moderators noted a tendency for the fieldwork to be undertaken nearer the school than in the past,
especially in the local CBD. There were still some centres which collected data online, for instance, using
questionnaires. Some centres chose to use data collected on a topic by past cohorts of their candidates. This
is currently still admissible and there was no evidence that candidates did any better or worse than if they
had collected the data themselves.
It is expected that data is collected in groups. This is then collated by a teacher and redistributed to the
candidates for them to work on their individual hypotheses. However, where candidates collected their own
data in small groups, this tended not to work so well. For safety reasons, we would not endorse candidates
being allowed to collect data on their own ‘in the field’. If a candidate needs to add extra data for their own
study to that which has already been collected as a group, it is expected that they will be accompanied by an
adult, especially when administering questionnaires or collecting data on a river or along a beach.
While the data collection must be a collaborative exercise, individuality is key to achieving the highest marks.
It was pointed out by moderators that they felt that some centres’ candidates were given too much guidance
regarding the content of their studies; an example of this is the same computer-generated graphs appearing
in every study. Individuality can be enhanced by candidates researching their own background information,
and attempting at least one hypothesis which is not attempted by other candidates. In addition, candidates
should use their own photographs as well as graphs, maps and field sketches.
There is training available online for teachers who are new to the coursework option and there is also the
coursework handbook available from the school support hub which includes examples of coursework which
are annotated to show how they should be marked.
It is strongly recommended that centres should read and take note of this report’s content together with the
moderator’s comments on school-based assessment of coursework which each centre receives in order to
help candidates achieve higher marks in future series and to help centres understand the moderation
process more fully.
© 2022
Key messages
• Nearly all candidates possessed a clear understanding of the route to geographical enquiry, and this
was reflected in well organised studies which invariably contained the five sections outlined in the
syllabus.
• Most candidates displayed a very good background knowledge of their chosen topic, although this was
not always well linked to the justification of their hypotheses. Geographical models outlined in the
introduction were often given no, or only cursory, attention in the analysis and conclusion.
• It is important that enough primary data on any one parameter is collected to allow candidates to exhibit
a depth of understanding in their analysis. Not all data collection exercises produced enough data to
allow the identification of clear trends and anomalies as well as the opportunity to perform statistical
analysis. Adequate data also means that candidates can comfortably focus on a maximum of three
hypotheses.
• Most candidates described the methods of data collection well. However, there was an almost universal
lack of attention to sampling procedures and detailed justification of the selection of sites for data
collection. All relevant primary numerical data should be included in tabular form.
• An impressive range of data presentation methods was utilised with many demonstrating the complexity
required to score well. However, a large number were ineffective due to the absence of correctly
labelled axes (with units).
• To be worthy of credit at a high level, photographs should be well annotated. A large single paragraph in
a text box or one- or two-word labels do not count as annotations.
• The best responses gave well-reasoned explanations to support their findings; however, many reasons
given, e.g., for anomalies, were too speculative.
• Most studies clearly confirmed or rejected their hypotheses in the concluding section. The best
responses supported this with key numerical data and valid explanation.
• Most evaluations demonstrated a clear grasp of the limitations of the study undertaken. However, more
attention could be paid to what went well and why. Plausible suggestions for improvement or extension
if the study were to be undertaken again often lacked detail.
• Centres are reminded that the word limit is 2000 words. Moderators often pointed out that some centres’
submissions were too long and lost focus. Where this is an issue, it is expected that a word count is
declared in order for the candidates to focus on this issue. It was agreed that the best studies were
those that were concise. Text placed in tables also counts towards the word limit.
• The team of moderators would like to compliment the majority of centres for the conscientious and
copious comments made on scripts to justify the marks awarded. This certainly helped the moderation
process.
• The generic mark scheme for coursework assessment was used by every centre. The moderators
stated that, ‘overall, the marking done by centres was accurate’. Where there were disparities, it was
usually the under-marking of organisation and presentation and over-marking of the analysis and
conclusion sections. The changes, if any, frequently occurred at the top and lower end of the mark
distribution.
Comments on specific assessment criteria
Each centre receives a separate coursework report on their own submission, which will refer to both
strengths and weaknesses. The following points will refer to those that are common to several centres and
are based on each of the assessment criteria in turn.
The criterion of knowledge with understanding tended to be assessed accurately; where disparities occurred,
it was often because the marker seemed to only take the candidate’s introduction into account. This is largely
the knowledge element, while the level of understanding can be demonstrated throughout the study. For
example, a judgement can be made on how well the theory has been applied such as in the provision of
reasoned explanation in the analysis or how perceptive the candidate has been in stating the limitations of
the study in the evaluation. Knowledge can also be introduced at a relatively late stage such as to explain
trends or anomalies in the data. This can be highlighted by markers in their comments made on the scripts.
Most enquiries were well organised with clearly stated aims and hypotheses. These were often accompanied
by the expected outcomes which were often related to theory. However, candidates should make sure their
introductions are not too long. Many followed some initial aims with a prolonged background information
section. For example, there are some candidates who write all they know about rivers, rather than carefully
selecting their information to justify their hypotheses. Extended paragraphs of the history of the locality are
© 2022
often irrelevant and do not gain any credit. Some candidates write a glossary of geographical terms, many of
which are not mentioned again, and is not needed. Too many candidates place the theory before their
hypotheses, rather than after it, which would encourage greater selectivity. On the other hand, some
candidates tend to be far too brief in their use of theory; this was common using Bradshaw’s model or urban
land-use models, where once having scanned the diagram(s), just a few simple sentences (if any) to explain
the relevance to the hypotheses were written. It should be noted that in the better studies these theories
proved a focal point throughout, with good comparisons to the data collected.
The wording of the hypotheses is important. Nearly all those that were stated were plausible. The most
successful formula seemed once again to encourage candidates to use two core hypotheses and a third
chosen by the candidate themself. This resulted in a more focused study with greater evidence of individual
work. The use of four or five hypotheses or a generic guiding question was usually associated with a
superficial analysis. Furthermore, it is questionable whether some candidates understood the nature of a
hypothesis. Some expressed their hypotheses as questions rather than statements, and this seemed to
result in a failure to fully explore the findings, with a brief ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the concluding section.
Most candidates include at least one map in their introduction. The inclusion of maps is gradually improving
with most now including a scale and orientation. This is viewed as being essential if the map is to be
effective. However, it is also expected that any map, from whatever source, is utilised. Its function is most
often to show the location of the sites of data collection and/or the relationship between the data collection
area and its region, for example, a drainage basin or a city. The best examples are usually well annotated
and possess clarity so that relevant detail is easily accessed. However, there are still some who include a
plethora of maps at different scales with little or no customisation to the study sites. Sometimes the quality of
the scanning is poor so that much of the detail is illegible, for example, the scale. This seems to be most
common when Google Maps are downloaded. It should be noted that where candidates have taken the
trouble to hand-draw maps, they are invariably worthy of credit.
The criterion observation and collection of data was accurately assessed by the markers and very few
adjustments had to be made. Once again, the moderators were impressed by candidates who were able to
describe their data collection techniques very accurately despite not having taken part in the fieldwork data
collection. In this case, most used the data from a previous cohort and it seemed to work equally well for
both human and physical geography topics. For those who did not use past data, it was refreshing to see
that most were able to undertake fieldwork data collection without hindrance.
Most data collection strategies were well organised and resulted in enough data to ensure the opportunity for
sufficient depth of understanding and detail to be demonstrated in the analysis. Most centres managed to
collect questionnaires from at least the recommended 50 respondents, whether they were carried out online
or not. Bi-polar analyses assessing environmental quality also managed to achieve enough locations in the
area of study. For river studies, 10 locations is ideal, although this was not always achievable due to
constraints of candidate safety or of time. For river studies there is no shortage of the different parameters on
which data can be collected, allowing a range of hypotheses in order that each study is more individual.
Where the number of sites is below six, a centre could consider measuring each site at three different cross
sections, each a minimum of 100 m apart.
A common weakness, particularly for those undertaking questionnaires, was the failure to discuss the
sampling strategy used. Even if respondents were accessed on an opportunity basis, then it should be stated
and justified. This particularly applied to online questionnaires. It appears that methods of sampling are
poorly understood or ignored. More candidates attempted to justify the sites sampled for studies taking place
in an urban environment or a tourist resort, but explanation was brief.
The time allowed for data collection can be an issue, especially when the time available on the school
timetable is limited. However, a surprising amount of data can be collected in a relatively short space of time
when many candidates are divided into small groups to cover a large area, each coordinated to do similar
activities at similar times, such as a pedestrian or traffic count. On return, the data is then coordinated
centrally and shared. Centres that allocated at least half a day for data collection almost inevitably achieved
much better results than those which attempted to collect data in one or two hours.
It is common for candidates to write up their data collection methodology in tabular form. These are usually
well set out, and positively include a link to the hypothesis to which the technique being described relates.
However, many include some evaluation of each data collection technique, but this is best left for the
concluding section of each study in order to prevent repetition and avoid wasting words. It should be made
clear that all wordage in tables counts towards the overall word count. Some moderators commented that
© 2022
candidates had described methods of data collection which were not used to answer their hypotheses. This
also used up wordage which could have been utilised elsewhere.
The use of secondary data can play a valuable role and numerical data could be utilised from secondary
sources such as weather stations or censuses. However, this option was not taken up by centres. In
addition, there was the opportunity to compare data collected at the present with that collected on the same
topic in the past. This idea was taken up by a few centres. It must be noted that the use of secondary data
does not extend to synthesising written information obtained from the internet or textbooks and putting it
together in essay format. This would not gain any credit for organisation and collection of data.
Finally, the best studies placed all their relevant data in tables and usually integrated it with the methods of
presentation or analysis. Candidates should avoid placing their data in an appendix as it will most likely be
referred to in the text of the study. However, there were many studies where tables of data were completely
absent, and centres should address this weakness in the future.
Moderators agreed that organisation and presentation was the criterion where, on average, candidates
scored the most marks. However, it was also the criterion which resulted in the greatest disparity between
markers and moderators, especially at the lower end of the mark distribution. Studies which scored higher
marks were often over-marked due to the lack of complex methods of data presentation and/or the absence
of location maps, which had either not been utilised by the candidate or did not possess both scale and
orientation. Some lower scoring studies which used at least three different simple techniques or included one
complex technique tended to be under-marked. The techniques used must be effective in portraying the
data; for example, line graphs used for discrete rather than continuous data which meant they were
inappropriate. Also, different sorts of bar graphs only count as one technique. Furthermore, the same data
presented in a number of different ways only counts once. Since the emphasis must be on positive marking,
only the three most complex and effective graphs should be considered by markers. There is no place in the
mark scheme to deduct marks for other ineffective or inappropriate graphs.
Moderators were impressed by the range of skills demonstrated by candidates in the presentation of their
data. There is clearly a drive in most centres to get their candidates to produce more complexity and this was
largely successful. For many, there is no longer a reliance on basic bar charts, line graphs, pictographs and
pie charts. These techniques were most commonly located on maps which made them complex. Scatter
graphs with appropriate lines of best fit were commonly seen, as were divided and stacked bar graphs and
radar graphs. Many of the river studies contained cross sections, although these were sometimes created
with less care, since their scales were not always the same and this made comparison difficult. There were
also some excellent field sketches which were clearly linked to one of the hypotheses and were very well
annotated; however, at times, others were rather untidy where the relevance was difficult to ascertain and
features difficult to identify. While a number of candidates used a statistical technique (principally
Spearman’s Rank Correlation), markers are reminded that, to count as a complex presentation technique,
the candidates must demonstrate the complete working out themselves and not rely on the computer to
generate the result.
The most common flaw which was particularly prevalent was that bar, line and scatter graphs lacked any, or
only had partial labelling, particularly of the Y axis. Such labelling should include the name of the parameter
along with the units of measurement. On some occasions, titles were also missing. As many graphs are
produced by using computer programmes, all centres should advise their candidates that, having input the
data, they should inspect the results carefully and make any necessary changes which is usually quick and
easy to do.
There were some centres where the annotation of photographs, graphs and maps would best be described
as impressive. Anomalies on graphs, for instance, were highlighted by a circle leading to an arrow and
relevant comment. However, this was not the case in many studies where photographs had no annotations
and were not referred to in the text. Many others had just a title and/or simple labels which would not count
as complex. These served little purpose. Centres should make sure that their candidates know exactly what
is expected by annotations; for example, a paragraph written underneath the photograph, would not count.
An increasing trend is for hand-drawn graphs and diagrams to be scanned into the study, albeit at an
appropriate place. These become more difficult to read, especially when they are scanned in monochrome.
moderators would expect to see the original and candidates should be reminded that each graph should be
drawn by themselves and not by one person in their group and then shared for the rest to scan into their
work. Furthermore, as it is expected that individual initiative is demonstrated in the use of presentation
techniques to attain the highest marks, the same range of computer-generated graphs appearing in every
study that a centre’s candidates submit should be avoided.
© 2022
Almost all candidates followed the route to geographical enquiry and therefore produced studies with an
appropriate structure for the organisation section. Most candidates are integrating their graphs and diagrams
with the text of the analysis. This helps to ensure candidates analyse the data shown by each
graph/diagram/map in turn, making sure that none are redundant. Candidates should be discouraged from
putting all their graphs together in one section, whether it is before the analysis or in an appendix at the end.
This also includes statistical tests. It is good practice to provide a table of contents with page numbers at the
beginning of the study. However, with amendments being made the original page numbers are not always
accurate. Candidates should check this as one of their last jobs before submission of their work. More
candidates are including risk assessments which undoubtedly demonstrates their organisation, and a few
mentioned undertaking a pilot study, for example in their own school grounds for a microclimate survey.
The analysis tends to be over-marked by a number of centres, especially at the top end of the mark
distribution. The requirement for reasoned explanations at Level 3 is still being overlooked by markers when
reasons given are very short and tenuous. Some of the marker comments on the scripts revealed that the
higher marks were being given for explanations which were not developed.
Although still one of the weakest criteria for many candidates, there are improvements being made year on
year by centres. One moderator commented that candidates seem much more able to interpret their data
rather than just describe it, with few achieving only Level 1 marks. Descriptions are also much more thorough
with some good use of data as support, drawn from either tables or graphs. Some candidates manipulated
data, producing averages, for instance. The quality of explanation was a slightly improved than in previous
sessions with some reasoning able to lift candidates into Level 3. The better responses used one or more of
geographical theory, secondary data or personal observation to support their explanations. In addition, they
clearly identified anomalies from graphs, using numerical values to show why they are anomalies, and
explained them with reasons that were creditable. However, it is still too often the case that explanation is
speculative with no firm foundation. Some identified anomalies but blamed errors in data collection. It is
worth stating that phrases such as ‘the reason might be/could be/may have been’ should be avoided when
attempting an explanation.
Although there was some use of statistical techniques, there tended to be a lack of a full statistical analysis.
Despite scatter graphs and lines of best fit being drawn, many candidates did not really explore the
implications of what their statistical work indicated or display an understanding of the technique they had
used. The correlation coefficient value itself was often poorly interpreted. This was particularly the case when
a correlation coefficient was produced by the computer and no workings were shown. This lack of
understanding also extended to tests for the level of significance.
The analysis section is where candidates can really demonstrate their level of understanding. However, the
depth of analysis can be severely limited by the lack of a sufficient amount of raw data on any one variable
for interpretation purposes. Here, the centre can avoid this by making sure their candidates have enough
data at their disposal to achieve their full potential.
Although many conclusions were a little short, most candidates summarised their findings well with clear
references to the hypotheses which were either confirmed or rejected. The best enquiries quoted key data,
trends or made reference to figures (graphs, maps and statistical tests) used earlier in the study, as well as
providing some explanations. Unfortunately, many responses lacked the evidence to support their
assertions, explanation was superficial, and any model or theory quoted in their introduction was not
mentioned. This particularly applied to urban land-use models and the Butler model, although Bradshaw was
an exception. The most common omission was key data which limited progression to the higher Level 3
marks.
The conclusion and evaluation were marked accurately apart from the highest scoring studies. Here, too
much credit was given for accounts which lacked key data. The key data should be either examples of
numerical data or stated characteristics shown on graphs, maps and tables which are clearly referenced; for
example, ‘On Fig. 1 it can be seen that…..’. Some candidates introduced new ideas in their conclusions, and
it was felt that these would have been better in the analysis.
An evaluation section is an expected part of the conclusion, although markers should take into account
comments made in the methodology section, which usually refer to the effectiveness of the equipment they
used. Candidates tended to make some valid criticism of their data collection strategies, and many came up
with one or more realistic improvements, with better answers stating the implications of their suggestions.
Very few candidates included any reference to the restrictions posed by COVID-19 in carrying out their
enquiries. Furthermore, those who had to rely on a centre’s past data often revealed a clear understanding
© 2022
of the weaknesses and what could have been done better. Once again, sampling procedures received very
little attention. In addition, there were a plethora of generic improvements which needed some development,
e.g., ‘we needed more time’ or ‘we should have sampled more sites’. Most of the evaluation tends to be used
for negative comments rather than stating what went well and why it was effective. The evaluation sections
are often a good gauge of a candidate’s level of understanding of the topic undertaken.
Administration
Centres must be praised for the hard work of their markers and their accuracy in utilising the generic mark
scheme for coursework assessment. In nearly all centres it was applied consistently with the order of
candidates remaining unchanged. This made making adjustments relatively straightforward, and for most
centres there was no change. For those that were adjusted, this was by no means across all of the mark
distribution. There seemed to be a pattern of negative adjustments of above 50 marks and positive ones for
those below 37. Some centres were a little harsh and a small positive adjustment was made. Those very few
centres which had a large negative adjustment applied were generally relatively new to the moderation
process; the reasons would be detailed in the document moderator’s comments on school-based
assessment of coursework which each centre receives.
Moderators also appreciated the conscientious approach of most markers in adding comments to their
candidates’ scripts to justify the marks awarded, as well as those who added a cover sheet with some overall
comments. These generally used the wording from the generic mark scheme for coursework assessment
and this facilitated the smooth running of the moderation process. On the very odd occasion, it highlighted
when a marker had misinterpreted the mark scheme. If your centre has not done so, it would be very much
appreciated if markers would make these comments (in pencil) on the scripts for your next submission.
Please note that only one piece of coursework can be accepted for each candidate. Where two different
fieldwork exercises have been carried out, it is up to the centre to see that only the one attaining the highest
marks according to the generic mark scheme for coursework assessment is submitted. The centre must also
make sure that coursework based on different topics are of equal value in giving the opportunity for
candidates to achieve their potential.
Please make sure you check the latest documentation from the school support hub to ascertain the exact
number of scripts that should comprise your centre’s sample. There were one or two centres which had to
send more on this occasion, and this inevitably delayed their moderation.
Almost all centres submitted their coursework samples on time, before 27th April deadline, with the
appropriate paperwork completed. The latter consisted of the candidate summary assessment form together
with the MS1 or the internally assessed marks report. Please make sure that an individual candidate record
card is attached to the front of each piece of work and not sent in the package separately. Not all British
centres managed to return their samples so speedily, since some failed their internal audit having received
the request for specific scripts. In addition, please make sure that candidates are listed in candidate number
order on the coursework assessment summary form.
Most of the paperwork was completed accurately and included with the sample. In almost all cases the
sample included an appropriate number of scripts representing a fair cross-section of the marks awarded (to
include the top and bottom of the mark distribution).
Please continue to double check the paperwork to make sure there are no mathematical errors. Very few
errors were detected this time.
However, it is worth restating those errors usually take place in one of the following instances:
• most commonly where the addition of the assessment criteria marks on the individual candidate record
card was incorrect and this was subsequently transferred to the coursework assessment summary form
and then the MS1s
• transcription errors from the coursework assessment summary forms to the MS1 forms. Occasionally,
this may occur where an internal moderation has taken place and the candidate’s original marks have
been entered instead of the new mark.
Although Moderators do correct these errors whenever they are found, it is recommended that all centres
should have their candidates’ marks double checked.
© 2022
Where a centre has more than one marker, it is essential that an internal moderation takes place. There is
evidence that these have been conscientiously carried out by most centres and marks changed accordingly.
However, the change for an individual candidate is not always reflected in the change in marks for individual
assessment criteria, only the overall total out of 60. This information is essential for the moderator’s job to be
carried out effectively. There have been occasions when one marker’s marks from a centre have differed
considerably in standard from those of the remainder of the markers, and an internal moderation is the best
way to resolve this problem.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/41
Alternative to Coursework
Key messages
Every examination is different but there are usually a few generic tips and key messages that need to be
made and which should improve candidate performance in future. Most of these have featured in previous
reports but the same issues do keep coming up again, despite the entry having new candidates and several
new centres. Here are a few key messages that the examiners feel will benefit future candidates:
• When answering hypothesis questions that ask whether you agree or not, always give your opinion first
before any supporting evidence. This will usually be Yes, No, or Partially / To some extent. If you are
asked to support your decision with data, then statistics must be used from the resources referred to.
Data is quantitative; evidence can be qualitative or quantitative. If you make an incorrect conclusion to
the hypothesis, you will gain no credit for the answer.
• When giving figures in an answer, always give the units if they are not stated for you.
• Read questions carefully and identify the command word, e.g., Describe, Explain, Suggest.
• When asked to compare or make judgements, use terms such as higher, lower, rather than just
listing comparative statistics.
• If comparing statistics, it is important to use paired data rather than one set on its own.
• Check you are using the resources that a question refers you to, e.g., Support your answers
with evidence from Figs. 2.3 and 2.4 and Tables 2.3 and 2.4.
• Attempt all completion tasks on graphs, tables, or diagrams – not all the answers are on lines and in
writing. Many candidates are missing out on relatively easy marks by not attempting these
questions.
• Consider the marks awarded. Examiners do not expect you to write outside of the lines provided, so
do not write a paragraph when only two lines are given as this wastes time.
• If you must write more than the lines allow, indicate this with a phrase such as (continued on
additional page). This is very helpful to the examiner in finding your answers.
• When completing graph work, use a dark-coloured pencil or pen as scripts are scanned for marking
and light colours do not always show up. Always shade bar graphs and pie charts accurately.
• When you think you have finished, check that you have not missed out a question. Some questions are
hard to find if they are on pages with a lot of graphs or maps. Make sure you have answered the
questions on every page. This applies especially to questions where you are asked to complete tables,
diagrams, graphs, or maps.
General comments
Most candidates found this examination enabled them to demonstrate what they knew, understood, and
could do. The overall range of marks went from 1 to 56 out of 60 – like previous years – with weaker
candidates scoring on the practical questions, such as drawing and interpreting graphs and tables, and
candidates of higher ability scoring well on the more challenging sections requiring explanation and
judgement, especially regarding hypotheses. Most candidates answered Question 1 more successfully than
Question 2.
Some candidates omit graph completion questions which are usually ‘straightforward’ to answer. This is an
on-going problem from year to year despite it being highlighted in each report to centres. Although there
were no significant reports of time issues, some candidates do write too much in some sub-sections. They
should be encouraged to answer more succinctly and perhaps give more thought to their answers. Most
points for teachers to bear in mind when preparing candidates for future Paper 41 questions relate to
misunderstanding or ignoring command words, and to the use of appropriate fieldwork techniques and
equipment. Particular questions where candidates did not score well often related to them not carefully
reading the question. In Question 2a(i), for example, some candidates focused on the actual questions in
the questionnaire rather than advice on how to use the questionnaire. As in some previous papers,
© 2022
Questions 2c(i) and (ii) required candidates to suggest a suitable methodology to extend the fieldwork.
This type of question, or a similar question suggesting improvements, is frequently included on this paper
and is an area which centres should practise with candidates. However, it is not good practice to develop a
series of generic improvements which may apply to all fieldwork, as such suggestions tend to be vague and
not worth credit.
Although this is an Alternative to Coursework examination, candidates will still be expected to show that they
know how fieldwork equipment is used and about appropriate fieldwork techniques even if they have only
limited opportunity for fieldwork within the centre. For example, Questions 1b(i), 1c(i), 1e(i) and 2a(i)
focused on specific equipment and techniques commonly used in fieldwork. Centres are encouraged to carry
out basic fieldwork with candidates, especially using simple techniques which can be done on the school site
or in the local area.
Question 1
(a) Nearly all candidates correctly matched the drainage basin processes with their correct definition
which was an encouraging start.
(b) (i) Many candidates who attempted this question were able to draw a suitably labelled diagram of a
quadrat. This is an important piece of fieldwork equipment which candidates need to know how to
use. Candidates who drew the square frame and internal divisions scored two marks. Stronger
responses showed the split between vegetation and bare soil by shading and labelling on the
diagram or in a key. Unfortunately, 19 per cent of candidates did not attempt the question,
showing that they had no knowledge of what a quadrat is. Some candidates drew a shape similar
to a divided bar graph which was not accepted.
(ii) Most candidates completed the divided bar graph accurately. They drew the dividing line accurately
at 70 per cent and shaded the two sections appropriately. A few candidates reversed the order of
the segments despite having six other bars to compare with.
(iii) The first hypothesis question proved to be challenging for many candidates. Weaker responses
looked for an increase in vegetation cover from site 1 to site 7, missing the point that the path was
in the middle of the section at sites 3 to 5. Other candidates did not see the significance of sites 6
and 7 which made the hypothesis conclusion partly true. Candidates needed to support the
conclusion which was given to them in the question by appropriate statistics. Candidates need to
be taught that if they are supporting a partially true hypothesis, they must give statistics which both
support the hypothesis and reject it.
(c) (i) Although the quality of answers varied, many candidates used the photograph well to describe the
candidates’ method. They understood that the bottomless cylinder was used to hold the water, the
ruler was used to measure the height of the water, and the stopwatch was used to time how long
the water took to soak into the ground.
(ii) Most candidates correctly identified that the water level fell more rapidly at site 1. Many then used
comparative statistics to support this conclusion. They usually referred to the fall in water level over
7 minutes when the water has all infiltrated at site 1, or the height of water after 7 minutes at site 1
and 10 minutes at site 4.
(iii) Most answers included the correct calculation to produce the given infiltration result of 11.5 mm per
minute. Weaker answers gave incorrect calculations which did not produce the required result
given in the question.
(iv) Most candidates correctly selected site 1. Some weaker answers had selected site 4 because it
was the smallest figure, but this showed that they did not understand the idea of rate of infiltration.
© 2022
(d) (i) Many candidates plotted the data accurately. Some candidates did not plot the point with sufficient
accuracy, usually making an error in plotting the result on the vertical scale which was more
difficult to interpret. 5 per cent of candidates did not attempt the question.
(ii) The second hypothesis question differentiated well. Most candidates correctly agreed with the
hypothesis, but only stronger responses identified that there was a positive relationship between
vegetation cover and infiltration rate. Many candidates used comparative statistics to back up their
conclusion, selecting data from two different sites.
(e) (i) Some candidates had difficulty interpreting the diagram from the student’s fieldwork notebook.
Candidates usually gained credit by describing how the tape measure was put across the path to
get equal intervals to measure depth by using a ruler. Details of keeping the tape measure tight
and making sure the ruler was put vertically were only included in stronger responses. Some
candidates used their knowledge of measuring depth in a river channel, but some spoiled their
answer by referring to the river bed and water surface.
(ii) 11 per cent of candidates did not attempt to complete the cross-section. Most of those who did
answer the question plotted the two points accurately and completed the cross-section line. The
main error was plotting the measurement at 3.5 m across the path incorrectly, despite a marker for
3.5 m being included in the horizontal scale.
(iii) This was a relatively difficult question for many candidates who did not understand the link between
less infiltration and soil compaction caused by footpath erosion. Better answers were distinguished
by showing an understanding while weaker answers wrongly suggested that footpath erosion may
increase infiltration.
(iv) This question discriminated well. A variety of suggestions were made with the most popular being
the creation of new paths, making existing paths more hard-wearing by adding stones, making
them permanent with tarmac or concrete, restricting access to worn paths, and educating visitors
about footpath erosion. Weaker responses were vague in their suggestions such as installing
fencing or planting vegetation, but they did not specify that these should be next to the path.
Question 2
(a) (i) The question discriminated well between candidates of different abilities. The most popular
suggestions were ideas about being polite, explaining the purpose of the survey, working with
another student for safety, and accepting that some people may not be willing to answer the
survey. Some candidates did not read the question carefully and made points about the questions
in the survey, such as not asking personal questions.
(ii) Other than the 5 per cent of candidates who did not attempt the question, most plotted both bars
correctly. Weaker responses had misread the scale or had not carefully plotted the bar for ‘once a
month’ and drew the bar to 55 or 57 per cent rather than 56 per cent as required.
(iii) Most candidates correctly agreed that hypothesis 1 was true. Many made at least one valid
statistical comparison between the neighbourhood centre and one of the other shopping centres.
The most common comparison was in the percentages visiting the different centres ‘every day’.
Some candidates compared weekly or monthly visits which were irrelevant to the hypothesis.
(iv) The question was not answered well by many candidates. Many answers were little more than
data about methods of travel with little or no attempt to identify the differences required by the
question. The differences between the methods of transport needed to be stated and then
supported by data, for example ‘more people used the bus to travel to the CBD than the
neighbourhood centre. 39 per cent travelled by bus to the CBD and 15 per cent travelled by bus to
the neighbourhood centre’, and ‘by car is the most popular method of travel to the CBD and
walking is most popular to the neighbourhood centre. 43 per cent go by car to the CBD and 73 per
cent walk to the neighbourhood centre’.
(v) The question differentiated well, and many good answers included three valid reasons for variation
in travel methods to the different centres. The most popular answers referred to travel distance and
time, the availability of different methods of transport and level of car ownership.
© 2022
(b) (i) 7 per cent of candidates did not complete the pie graph. Many candidates were mainly accurate in
plotting the dividing line at 90 per cent and shading the two segments. Some candidates did not
plot the two segments in the order shown in the key, despite having two other pie graphs which
showed the correct order. A few candidates carelessly lost one mark because they did not shade
the ‘wide range of shops’ segment correctly using horizontal lines as in the other two pie graphs.
(ii) 7 per cent of candidates did not complete the divided bar graph as for the previous question. Most
other candidates completed the bar correctly, although some plotted the dividing line at 91 or 92
per cent instead of 90 per cent. Some candidates had plotted the segments incorrectly and left part
of the bar unshaded.
(iii) The question differentiated well. Most candidates made the correct conclusion and disagreed with
hypothesis 2. Better responses followed their conclusion by stating that shoppers are attracted to
shopping centres for different reasons. The quality of supporting evidence varied according to
candidates’ ability. Some candidates gave valid comparisons, but others selected statistics at
random with no attempt to make a comparison between centres in support of their decision to
reject the hypothesis. The following examples show the different types of comparison that were
required. ‘People are attracted to the CBD because of the wide range of shops but are attracted
to the out-of-town mall by the parking convenience.’ ‘The main items bought in the CBD are gifts
and the main items bought in the neighbourhood centre are food and drink.’ If candidates used
statistics, they needed to compare one reason for visit or main item bought across the three
centres, e.g., ‘for food and drink 74 per cent of people went to the neighbourhood centre, 10 per
cent to the CBD and 15 per cent to the out-of-town mall’.
(c) (i) Many candidates seemed to be unfamiliar with the concept of the sphere of influence of a shopping
centre, despite it being explained in the question paper. Few candidates suggested an appropriate
question to find out about the sphere of influence such as ‘Where do you live?’ A common incorrect
suggestion was to ask how far the person had travelled to the shops, but these answers would
produce imprecise distances and they could not be used to find out the area where people who
used the shopping centre lived.
(ii) Due to many candidates having little understanding of the term, most could not describe a method
to investigate and delimit the sphere of influence. Few candidates referred to a map on which they
could plot the areas where people lived in order to join the furthest locations and so draw a frame
to delimit the sphere of influence.
(iii) Candidates were much more successful in suggesting why the size of the sphere of influence
varies. They used the evidence in the two photographs to suggest reasons such as the greater
variety of shops and availability of parking. Other common suggestions were the presence of more
shops and more choice of goods in the out-of-town shopping mall. Better candidates also
suggested that people will travel further to an out-of-town centre, including coming from different
towns, whereas the neighbourhood centre is only used by people living in the local area.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/42
Key messages
Examiners have suggested the following tips to pass on to future candidates.
• When answering hypothesis questions that ask whether you agree or not, always give your opinion at the
start of your answer before any supporting evidence. This will usually be Yes, No or Partially / To some
extent. Do not just copy out the hypothesis if you agree with it. It is important to make a decision and state
it as well as providing the data or evidence for your choice. Be clear in your decision – expressions such as
‘might be true’, ‘could be false’, ‘true and false’ are too vague.
• If you are provided with a decision about a hypothesis, such as in Question 2(e)(iii) where candidates
were told that the hypothesis was False, do not then disagree with it and try to justify a different decision.
You need to support the decision made with evidence.
• Note that if the question requires data as evidence, such as in Question 1(c)(iii) on this paper, you must
give numbers and statistics; descriptive statements will not count for credit. If evidence is asked for, this
can include numbers and descriptive statements. If the question says ‘Do not use data in your answer’ as
in Question 1(d)(iii), then only descriptive statements will be credited.
• When giving figures in an answer, always give the units if they are not stated for you, e.g. Question 1(c)(iii)
‘velocity is highest in the middle at 0.53 metres/second’ or ‘m/s’. It is also important that your numbers are
clear, e.g., a 1 can look like a 2; 4 can look like a 9; 7 can look like a 1, sometimes 2 can look like a 5. In
Question 2(c)(i), for example, the answer – site 14 – often looked like site 19 or site 11. Candidates’
writing must be legible; credit cannot be given if the answer cannot be read.
• When shading or completing graphs, use the same style as that provided in the question and make sure a
sharp pencil is used to give a clear, dark image. Check that you understand the scales used and the
importance of any plots already provided. If adding plots to complete a graph, these should be in the same
style as the plots already on the graph. In Question 2(c)(iv), for example, the two plots should have the
site numbers 6 and 17 by them, like the others provided. If crosses are used on the graph, then any
additional plots should be in the same style, e.g., the river cross-section in Question 1(d)(ii).
• When completing bar graphs, make sure your shading matches the key. For example, if the shading is
horizontal, do not draw shading that slopes to the right or left. These points were important in Question
1(c)(i) and Question (2)(e)(ii). Shading correctly is not always credited but it is good practice to do it
correctly in case it counts for a mark.
• If you need to refer to data from a table or graph, use the exact figures from the table rather than make
erroneous judgements from the graph. Try to avoid words like ‘almost’, ‘nearly’ or ‘approximately’ and
choose a precise number, e.g., in Question 1(c)(ii).
• When you think you have finished, go back and check that all graphs have been completed; too many
candidates lose relatively easy marks by missing out graphs, e.g., Question 1(c)(a), Question 1(d)(ii),
Question 2(c)(iii), Question (2)(c)(iv) and Question 2(e)(ii).
• Read questions carefully and identify the command word, e.g., Describe..., Explain… A question that asks
‘Why?’ requires a reason to be given, not a description.
• Check you are using the correct resources that a question refers you to, e.g., Question 1(b)(ii) Fig. 1.2 and
Table 1.1.
• Consider the marks awarded and the number of lines given for each question, as these indicate how much
you should be writing. For example, avoid writing too much and outside the lines if only 2 lines are given as
this wastes time.
• Be careful with the use of terms such as ‘majority’ when the correct term would be ‘highest’ or ‘most’. The
‘majority’ must be more than 50 per cent of the statistics being described and is not a term that will be
accepted if the data involved is less than 50 per cent, e.g., Question 2(e)(iv).
• It is important that, when you write the remainder of an answer elsewhere, you signal it by writing e.g.,
‘continued on page 17’ to ensure it is seen. Several candidates gave the wrong sub-section number to their
extra work. This made it more difficult to match it to their earlier answer and credit it correctly.
© 2022
• If you need to add extra work, make sure you use the extra pages provided at the end of the question
paper rather than asking for an additional booklet which is not needed.
• You are expected to have a calculator, protractor, and a ruler in this exam. It was apparent in several cases
that these did not appear to be used, e.g., drawing freehand bar graphs on Question 1(c)(i). Sharp pencils
also produce a more accurate plot on bars; a few drawn lines were too broad to judge accuracy.
General comments
could do. It appeared to be a positive experience for many candidates with most questions being attempted
and most achieving marks on most sections. Weaker candidates were able to score marks on the practical
questions such as drawing graphs or completing tables, making calculations, and making choices from
tables. Stronger candidates scored well on the more challenging sections which required judgement and
decision-making on hypothesis choices with evidence and other written answers.
Most points for teachers to consider, when preparing candidates for future Paper 42 questions, relate to
misunderstanding or ignoring command words and the importance of experiencing fieldwork – even if it is in
the school grounds or simulated in the classroom. Questions where candidates did not score well often
relates to them not fully reading the question or just completely missing out straightforward graph completion.
Although this is an Alternative to Coursework examination, candidates are expected to show that they know
about fieldwork equipment, how it is used and about fieldwork techniques.
Any fieldwork experience is worth doing even if there is only limited opportunity within the centre. Familiarity with
maps, tables, sampling methods, measuring instruments and the various graphs and other refining techniques
listed in the syllabus are also important for success in this examination.
Question 1 focused on fieldwork on a river in the Netherlands. It involved knowing what a tributary and
drainage basin are as well as how to measure velocity and river depth, comparing straight river sections with
a meander, and demonstrating knowledge and understanding of river processes at a meander. Calculating
velocity from provided data, completing a triple bar graph, and completing a river cross-section were practical
skills that candidates needed to demonstrate. They also needed to make judgements about two hypotheses
using data, as well as applying knowledge and understanding to agree or disagree with them.
Question 2 was about the rural area of a small island of Ubin between Singapore and Malaysia that currently
has little economic development and how it should be protected from development in future. Candidates
needed to understand what economic development entailed and to analyse environmental surveys carried out
across the island. They also needed to consider an effective sampling technique for their questionnaire and
analyse the results to decide whether the problems identified outweighed the benefits of economic
development. Finally, they needed to describe how they would measure one of rainfall, temperature, and wind
speed at a traditional weather station on the island. Candidates were required to complete practical tasks
including an environmental quality score graph, a scatter graph, and a horizontal bar graph. They also needed
to make judgements from evidence about two hypotheses.
Question 1
(a) (i) The definition of a tributary was either not attempted by many candidates or defined too often as a
stream or small river that branched off from the main river or that the river divided into tributaries,
giving the impression that water flows uphill. Those that had learnt a definition usually gave the
standard and correct answer as ‘a small stream that flows/feeds into a larger river’. A few said it was
‘where a small river meets a larger one’ but that is a confluence, not a tributary definition. Some
confused tributaries with distributaries.
(ii) Similarly, to (i), very few could give enough detail to gain both marks for a definition of a drainage
basin. Better responses referred to ‘the area drained by a river and its tributaries’ which is the
standard definition, but many seemed to think it was the area flooded or where the tributaries are. Few
candidates used the watershed as part of their answer. Some were confused about the term ‘drainage
basin’ and discussed ideas for sewage removal, draining away waste, or similar irrelevant points.
Candidates should ensure they learn the definitions from the hydrology section of the syllabus as
many did not attempt (i) and (ii).
© 2022
(b) (i) This is a straightforward question, and most candidates are familiar with the sequence for using the
listed equipment to measure the river velocity. It is important that candidates are clear that two
ranging poles are put at each end of a fixed / stated / set distance along the river, not on the sides or
across the river or even at the start and end of a river. They need to then state that the tape measure
is used to measure this set distance, e.g., 5 / 10 metres. Stating that it ‘measures the distance
between the poles’ is too vague. Also, the stopwatch is started when the float is put in at or passes the
first ranging pole upstream; stating that it is started ‘when the float is put in the river’ is too vague.
Some suggested ‘throwing the float in’ which is too imprecise. Most candidates could gain high marks
as there were several ways to get a correct answer; indeed, most knew that the float was timed from
the first to the second pole, giving them two marks. The precise use of the ranging poles and the tape
measure are less well understood. Using the data in a formula post-fieldwork to calculate the velocity
is not part of the fieldwork to collect the data; some candidates wrote more about the calculating than
the fieldwork which gained no marks.
(ii) The majority of candidates gave two correct calculations here; overall this was done well. Weaker
answers had calculated an incorrect average or inverted the figures to calculate velocity, putting time
over distance.
(iii) Candidates gave several appropriate ideas for why the measurements might be different. There were
common references to the effect of wind change, rocks and debris getting in the way as well as
student errors in timing or putting the float in at the right place. Credit was not given for vague
references to the changing speed of the water or current changing or the measurements being
different at different times of the day. It was assumed – as in a real fieldwork exercise – that all the
measurements were taken over a very short period of time to avoid other variables changing and so
influencing the outcome.
(c) (i) Apart from those candidates who didn’t attempt this graph completion, it was done well by a large
majority. Only a small number plotted the bars too high at 0.74 or 0.79. Candidates should use a ruler
for greater accuracy; a few wavey freehand lines drawn without a ruler across the top of the bars were
often judged as too inaccurate for credit.
(ii) Almost all candidates chose the correct hypothesis and made an accurate statement that applied to
Sites 2 and 3 and/or did not apply to Site 1 where the speed was faster on the inside rather than the
outside bends. Lack of supporting data provided in the answer prevented candidates from gaining
higher marks. They either gave no data or just quoted the highest speed and compared it to the inside
one, missing out the middle speed instead of giving all the lesser comparative data. To justify their
choice of hypothesis it was important to refer to all three speeds, e.g., ‘on site 1 the highest speed
was 0.51 m/s on the inside whereas it was only 0.46 m/s on both the middle and outside, thus
disagreeing with the hypothesis’. In this example it was important to refer to both lower velocities being
0.46 m/s rather than indicate that the ‘other’ was 0.46 m/s. Many candidates gained 2 statement marks,
sometimes 3, but rarely 4 marks.
(iii) In contrast to (ii) almost all candidates correctly chose site 1 as the one with the fastest velocity in the
middle, and they went on to list that velocity as 0.53 m/s in the middle compared with only 0.36 m/s on
the left and 0.4 m/s on the right. A few chose site 2 but there, the left flow is the fastest not the middle.
(d) (i) A few candidates thought they were measuring the cross-section rather than the depth. Others
described the equipment without stating how they would use it. Several candidates suggest that the
tape measure was used to measure the width of the river; it would only be used to stretch across the
river and make sure the vertical rods/poles were measuring the depth across every 20 cm. The best
responses suggested putting a pole in the river at a vertical angle from the taut tape measure, making
sure it rested on the bed, and then measuring the wet part of the rod or ruler. Then they would move
the rod/ruler across every 20 cm. A few suggested using the tape measure in a vertical position down
to the bed, but tape measures are usually made of flexible cloth and would not stay rigid once lowered
into the water. The measuring of the depth was often missed out in answers. A small number
described how to measure the wetted perimeter using a chain.
(ii) A significant minority made no attempt to complete the cross-section. Some did complete the plots but
then did not shade the water in the channel as instructed. Some shaded the water below the channel
bed despite the example provided above it. The most common error was plotting the 0.1 depth above
the line to the left of the 2.8 mark instead of directly above it. Even if both plots were done, not every
candidate then completed the line to the provided plot at 0.
© 2022
(iii) A comparison of the two cross-sections should have led candidates to recognise that the meander
was wider, deeper and that its bed was smoother than the straight section – this would have gained all
three marks. A few did this, but the majority wrote a great deal which eventually concluded that it was
deeper. Some focused on the difference in width across the river from its banks and others were keen
to say the meander was deeper to the right whereas the straight section was deeper in the middle.
While some candidates did recognise that the meander was smoother, they did not refer to the river
bed which was needed to compare with the jagged, irregular bed of the straight section. Many wrote
about ‘steepness’ but did not define exactly what they were comparing between the two sections.
(e) This was not well answered because too many candidates either did not attempt an answer or
referred to the right or left side of the diagram whereas the key to the explanation of the hydrological
processes was the velocity of the current on the inside and outside bends. Those that did the latter
could explain that the current was faster (not bigger) on the outside bend, thereby causing erosion
and a river cliff, and slower (not smaller) on the inside bend, creating deposition and a slip-off slope.
They tended to describe the shape rather than explaining how it was formed.
Question 2
(a) Good choices were made by the majority; a few picked ‘percentage employed in the primary sector
increases’ but not many. Most candidates were able to gain 2 marks, but a few gave more than two
ticks which could not be credited.
(b) (i) Most candidates could agree that the judgements the two students made were subjective based on
personal preferences, perception, and background. Many also added that the site may have been
judged at different times as the information did not say that the students visited the site together at the
same time. They could have seen different parts of the same site which would have created different
scores. Too many candidates, thought that the students asked people what they thought and filled in
the survey sheet with their responses, but this was not the case as it was the students who looked at,
and made their own judgements, to fill in the bi-polar sheet – no one was surveyed or questioned.
(ii) The misconception that the bi-polar survey involved asking people for their views was often carried
into this question as candidates suggested that, to make the survey reliable, the students should ask
more people and produce a common score or average. Answers which scored marks included the
idea that the two students should work together and visit the site at the same time. They could also
ask other students to carry out the survey and compare their answers or get an average. A few said
that a pilot survey would have helped as well as a discussion to clarify exactly what the descriptors
meant, which might have made the scores closer.
(c) (i) Site 14 was by far the highest and correct answer given. A few gave the answer ‘6’ which was the
lowest score but not the site number.
(ii) Almost every candidate correctly chose ‘noise level’ as the factor with the highest total environmental
score of all 20 sites. It was very unusual to find an incorrect choice.
(iii) The plotting of the total scores was not well done. Those who did it well were very accurate and used
a ruler or straight edge, but too many produced plots that were too short or misplaced at the relevant
points; some lines were drawn freehand and the spacing of the marks was unequal. Some
amalgamated the two sets of data, giving an odd, combined plot. A significant minority did not attempt
this graph completion.
(iv) This more conventional graph was successfully completed by most. It was rare to see the 17-plot
marked incorrectly. The 6-plot proved more difficult and quite a lot were too far left of the correct
location. It was important that the site numbers 6 and 17 were added by the plots in line with those
plots already on the graph; but this was not always seen.
(v) This question proved difficult for the majority of candidates. There was a clear scatter of points on the
graph – so much so that the only correct answer to be accepted was that the hypothesis
‘environmental quality increases away from the village’ was clearly not true as there was no
correlation shown between the distance from the village and the total EQ score. It did seem that many
candidates have been taught to look for negative or positive relationships so that, if it is not positive,
then it must be negative, and some answers tried to do that.
© 2022
Sometimes, however, there is no clear relationship either way as there are too many anomalies. This
was the case here. The candidates who did state that the hypothesis was false and added that there
was no correlation gained two marks but then struggled to choose the correct data to prove this.
A positive or negative relationship can be supported by looking at two comparative sets of data, but a
scatter graph that yields no relationship and where the trends go up and down needs three sets of
data: a starting point, an increase and then a decrease or vice versa. Most candidates who said there
was no correlation just gave two sets of data. It was difficult to see why some candidates thought that
the hypothesis was true and then tried to prove it by carefully selecting data that showed this and
ignored all the other plots around it. In some cases, data was just copied down to fill the lines with no
context given or reason why that data was significant.
(d) Candidates should have studied three sampling methods – systematic, random, and stratified; any
other sampling methods are not appropriate answers. Systematic sampling was a popular choice, and
most candidates gave examples such as asking every 5th or 10th person; note that every 2nd person
was not accepted as a sample as it is too frequent. Not as many, however, added that the samples
were taken at ‘regular intervals’. Random sampling was also a frequent choice, but credit is not given
for writing that random people were chosen. Several candidates described the use of random number
generators instead of the more common ‘choose anyone’ idea. Stratified sampling was named by a
few but was not well described with answers loosely referring to age or gender criteria but not to
choosing a sample that represents the population.
(e) (i) Most candidates thought it would be inappropriate to carry on with the questionnaire with answers
ranging from ‘tick the box No’ to ‘say thank you and move on to somebody else’. A few would waste
time by continuing with the questionnaire to get a different perspective, but that would be pointless as
that was not part of the study. Finishing the interview was the correct answer.
(ii) This horizontal bar graph completion had the highest percentage of candidates not attempting it. Most
candidates who did it plotted both bars well. A few plotted 38 instead of 42, putting the bar 1 square
on the wrong side of the 40 line. Occasional misreading of the scale resulted in plots at 44 and 69.
(iii) The students used a questionnaire with people at the fieldwork sites and then produced a table of
their answers. While most candidates tried to support the false decision about the hypothesis, they did
not seem to appreciate that the interviewees gave several answers to perceived problems and
benefits, not just one, so there would be more answers than people which is why the table heading is
‘number of answers’ not people. Too often candidates wrote that 347 people thought there would be
problems and 323 people thought there would be benefits. Some also just said there were more
problems, but that was not true; there were 6 listed problems and 6 listed benefits, but there were
more answers for problems than benefits. So many candidates used the right totals in the wrong
context. A few candidates made the decision that the hypothesis was true despite being told it was
false and then used the data to support the hypothesis being false!
(iv) Most candidates gained a mark by recognising that ‘more jobs and income’ had the highest total of
answers as a benefit that would help local people; few chose ‘improved standard of living’ which was
the second highest answer accepted. The supportive data, however, too often referred to 82 people or
76 people instead of 82 or 76 answers; an issue highlighted in (iii). No credit was given for just stating
that 82 answers supported more jobs and income; the candidate had to recognise that this was the
benefit with the highest number of answers first.
(f) The question stated that the weather station was a traditional one, so the candidates should have
focused on this and how they would measure one of the three stated weather elements – rainfall,
temperature, and wind speed. Almost all candidates gained an easy mark for stating the instrument
that would be used – rain gauge, thermometer, or anemometer. However, from then on, too often they
wrote about siting factors for the instrument chosen rather than how they would measure and record
data for their chosen element. A small number described digital instruments which restricted marks as
this was a traditional weather station. For measuring rainfall, few did not know the rain gauge,
although some suggested water buckets or rain-catchers. A max-min thermometer was a popular
choice for temperature, but few knew how to use it, and the anemometer on top of a pole or at a
height was often proposed, though some put it on top of the Stevenson Screen. Some suggested a
wind vane should be used to measure wind speed. Most gained a generous two marks for naming the
instrument and saying how the data should be recorded in a chart or table. There was too much on
siting factors for the rain gauge, Stevenson Screen, and the anemometer and too little on how the
students would do the measuring and recording. Regarding temperature, many seemed to think the
instrument was a Stevenson Screen and wrote a great deal about its structure and site factors.
© 2022
GEOGRAPHY
Paper 0460/43
Key messages
Every examination is different but there are usually a few generic tips and key messages that need to be
made and which should improve candidate performance in future. Most of these have featured in previous
reports but the same issues do keep coming up again, despite the entry being new candidates and some
new centres. Here are a few key messages that the Examiners feel will benefit future candidates if they are
passed on by teachers.
• When answering hypothesis questions that ask whether you agree or not, always give your opinion first
before any supporting evidence. This will usually be Yes, No, or Partially / To some extent. If you are
asked to support your decision with data, then statistics must be used from the resources referred to.
Data is quantitative; evidence can be qualitative or quantitative. If you make an incorrect conclusion to
the hypothesis, you will gain no credit for the answer.
• When giving figures in an answer, always give the units if they are not stated for you.
• Read questions carefully and identify the command word, e.g., Describe, Explain, Suggest.
• When asked to compare or make judgements, use terms such as higher, lower, rather than just
listing comparative statistics.
• If comparing statistics, it is important to use paired data rather than one set on its own.
• Check you are using the resources that a question refers you to, e.g., Support your decision
with evidence from Fig. 1.3 and Table 1.2.
• Attempt all completion tasks on graphs, tables, or diagrams – not all the answers are on lines and in
writing. Many candidates are missing out on relatively easy marks by not attempting these
questions.
• Consider the number of marks awarded. For example, do not write a paragraph when only two lines
are provided as this wastes time.
• If you must write more than the lines allow, indicate this with a phrase such as (continued on
additional page). This is very helpful to the examiner in finding your answers.
• When completing graph work, use a sharp, dark-coloured pencil or pen as scripts are scanned for
marking and light colours do not always show up. Always shade bar graphs and pie charts accurately.
• When you think you have finished, check that you have not missed out a question. Some questions
may be more difficult to see if they are on pages with a lot of graphs or maps. Make sure you have
answered the questions on every page. This applies especially to questions where you are asked to
complete tables, diagrams, graphs, or maps.
General comments
could do. Weaker candidates were able to score marks on the practical questions, such as drawing and
interpreting graphs and tables, and candidates of higher ability scored well on the more challenging sections
requiring explanation and judgement, especially regarding hypotheses.
Some candidates omit graph completion questions which are usually straightforward to answer. This is an
on-going problem from year to year despite it being highlighted in each report to centres. Although there
were no significant reports of time issues, some candidates do write too much in some sub-sections.
Candidates should be encouraged to answer more succinctly and perhaps give more thought to their
answers. Most points for teachers to bear in mind when preparing candidates for future Paper 43 questions
relate to misunderstanding or ignoring command words, and to the use of appropriate fieldwork techniques
and equipment. Particular questions where candidates did not score well often related to them not carefully
reading the question. In Questions 2b(i) and 2b(ii), for example, some candidates explained how a rain
gauge and maximum-minimum thermometer worked rather than how a candidate would use them to
measure rainfall and temperature. As in some previous papers, Question 2(e)(i) required candidates to
© 2022
suggest a suitable methodology to extend their fieldwork. This type of question is frequently included on this
paper and is an area which centres should practise with candidates. However, it is not good practice to
develop a series of generic improvements or methodology which may apply to all fieldwork, as such
suggestions tend to be vague and not worth any credit.
Centres need to be aware that, although this is an Alternative to Coursework examination, candidates will
still be expected to show that they know how fieldwork equipment is used and know appropriate fieldwork
techniques even if they have only limited opportunity for fieldwork within the centre. For example,
Questions 1b(ii), 1b(iii), 2a(i), 2a(ii), 2a(iii), 2b(i) and 2b(ii) focused on specific techniques commonly used
in fieldwork. Centres are encouraged to carry out basic fieldwork with candidates, especially using simple
techniques which can be done on the school site or in the local area.
Question 1
(a) (i) Most candidates chose the correct option to explain how the students obtained their data. The
most common chosen distractor was ‘used a questionnaire with tourists’.
(ii) Nearly all candidates read the correct figure from the graph. A few errors were made in putting too
many zeros.
(iii) The correct answer, Europe, was chosen by most candidates, although a significant number
selected North America (perhaps confusing the continent with the country USA). A few candidates
chose one of the other options which suggested a lack of knowledge of which continents countries
were part of.
(b) (i) The question discriminated well. Most candidates realised that only tourists were required to
answer the questionnaire. Stronger candidates also suggested that interviewing local people or
residents would be a waste of time or provide results which were not valid. Some candidates
suggested that this would make the results inaccurate, but this was not accepted. Candidates need
to distinguish between unreliable and inaccurate.
(ii) 8 per cent of the candidates did not give an answer which suggests they had not studied sampling
methods. While the most common answer was systematic, which was correct, there were a
significant number of candidates who wrongly suggested random.
(iii) Many candidates suggested that sampling would be a quick or easy method to undertake and
would produce results which were unbiased. Some weaker candidates only scored one mark by
putting quick and easy as two separate ideas, but they are usually credited as alternatives.
Common answers which were not accepted included ‘to obtain a full range of answers’ and
‘because you cannot ask everyone’. As in the previous question some weaker candidates
suggested sampling would provide an accurate answer, which was not credited.
(c) (i) The question gave good differentiation. Stronger responses scored marks by referring to
similarities such as USA having the highest percentage in both results and the UK having the same
percentage, and differences such as some countries only had results in the students’
questionnaire. These conclusions were often supported by statistics. In contrast, weaker responses
compared what the data showed, e.g., ‘they both show the percentage of tourists to Rome’, or
compared the source of the data, i.e., from the students’ questionnaire and another source. Some
weak responses only included percentage figures but made no comparison between them. They
also referred to percentages increasing or decreasing which is irrelevant as they come from two
different data sources.
(ii) Most candidates correctly drew both bars. Candidates sometimes lost marks by misreading the
scale or drawing the lines inaccurately at 32 or 34 for parks and gardens and 24 or 26 for musical
and cultural performances.
© 2022
(iii) Most candidates correctly stated that hypothesis 1 was true, but their evidence to support this
conclusion varied in relevance. The most common supporting data was the total number of
answers in both groups of attractions. Some candidates compared the highest number of answers
for other attractions (47 for shopping centres) with the lowest number for historical attractions (72
for art galleries and museums). Weak answers did not include data to support the conclusion or just
listed the results of all eight attractions without any interpretation. A common error was to pick out
the highest scoring attraction from each group which, by itself, would not support the hypothesis.
Some candidates did not look at the results carefully and referred to people, not answers, in their
data. They had missed the point that tourists were asked to identify more than one attraction in the
questionnaire.
(d) (i) Nearly all candidates completed the divided bar accurately. A small number did not shade the bar,
plotted the line at 67 and reversed the shading, or carelessly plotted the line at 35.
(ii) The second hypothesis question discriminated well. Many candidates correctly decided that
hypothesis 2 was partly correct. They used statistics from the number of tourists replying, ‘yes’ and
‘no’ to support their conclusion, e.g. ‘73 said there is efficient and cheap public transport’ and ‘67
said there is a high risk of terrorism’. Fewer candidates gave a valid statement to support their
conclusion such as referring to the idea that tourists agreed in over half the statements or 5 out of 8
of the statements. A few candidates included this idea by listing the statements which agreed with
the hypothesis and those which did not agree.
(e) (i) This question was generally well answered and discriminated between candidates of different
abilities. The most common ideas suggested were to do with politeness, explaining the purpose of
the interview, introducing themselves or saying where they came from, asking permission to
interview the resident, and working with other candidates. Better responses also included the need
to go to different residential areas of the city to get a range of answers. The most common error
was to refer to the questions they might include, such as ‘do not ask personal questions’, which
were not relevant to the method of interviewing. Weaker responses missed or ignored the
reference ‘to carry out an interview at the homes of residents’ and wrote about interviewing in a
public place or interviewing tourists in a popular tourist location.
(ii) Most candidates suggested one general question, e.g. ‘What are the benefits of tourism?’ but they
often repeated this idea in their second question, e.g. ‘Is tourism a benefit for Rome?’ so scored
one mark. Better responses referred to specific benefits such as ‘Are many jobs created by
tourism?’ and ‘Do you benefit from the facilities provided for tourists?’ Some candidates
incorrectly suggested questions about problems caused by tourists.
(f) Many candidates scored full marks with a detailed description of problems caused by tourists. The
most popular problems included noise disturbing local people, traffic congestion and litter. Better
responses gave more sophisticated ideas such as tourists having a lack of respect for local culture,
shortage of water, increased price of goods in local shops, and seasonal or low-paid jobs in the
tourist industry. Weaker responses gave inadequate suggestions such as pollution, traffic, disease
and crime, and some of their answers focused incorrectly on problems for the natural environment
despite the question context of a tourist city.
Question 2
(a) (i) The question discriminated well. Many stronger candidates gave excellent answers which scored
full marks. They described the white colour, the Stevenson Screen standing on legs, and slats in
the Stevenson Screen, and gave accompanying clear explanations. Weaker candidates described
the Stevenson Screen being put ‘above the ground’ but made no reference to a specific height or
on legs. They also wrongly suggested this was important to protect the Stevenson Screen from
damage or flooding. Many candidates found it difficult to give the correct term for ‘slats’ or ‘louvres’
but usually gave a valid description such as ‘holes or gaps in the sides’. Weak responses
suggested siting factors rather than describing the features of the Stevenson Screen and some
listed instruments kept inside the Stevenson Screen.
(ii) Nearly all candidates correctly matched the weather feature with the correct measuring instrument.
The most common error was to confuse the anemometer and barometer.
© 2022
(iii) Most candidates correctly placed the four instruments. Weaker candidates wrongly placed the
barometer outside the screen and the anemometer and rain gauge inside the screen. A few
candidates wrongly included other instruments such a wind vane and a sunshine recorder.
(b) (i) Many candidates did not score well on this question. They wrote about how the rain gauge worked
rather than how it is used to measure rainfall. Often the only valid point was that the rain gauge is
placed in the ground. Ideas such as ‘pour the collected rainfall into a measuring cylinder’, ‘read the
amount of rainfall from the scale’ or ‘take a reading every 24 hours’ were omitted. These ideas
explain how a student would use the rain gauge in fieldwork.
(ii) This question was also answered poorly by many candidates. They made the same error as in the
previous question by giving details of how a maximum-minimum thermometer works rather than
explaining how a student would use it in fieldwork. Candidates need to refer to ‘look at the bottom
of the indices to find the maximum and minimum temperatures’, ‘read the scales at eye level’ and
‘use a magnet or button to reset the indices at the end of the day’.
(c) (i) 11 per cent of candidates did not plot the temperature. Most of the candidates who did answer
the question plotted the temperature point correctly and completed the lowest temperature line. A
few candidates made the mistake of plotting an ‘X’ rather than a dot which was needed to
distinguish the plot from the highest temperature.
(ii) Again, most candidates calculated the correct temperature variation. An error made by some
candidates was to give the answer of 24 °C which was the highest temperature.
(iii) Similarly, most candidates correctly identified the correct date with the smallest temperature
variation. The most common error was to select 18th November which was the date of the lowest
individual daily temperature.
(iv) The conclusion to hypothesis 1 was a good discriminator. Most candidates correctly identified the
decision that the hypothesis was false for most days. Better responses then referred to Naples
having the larger variation or the reverse idea for Madrid, and then supported their statement with
accurate comparable statistics. The most common set of figures given to support the conclusion
was from 12th November (7 °C in Madrid and 11 °C in Naples). Some candidates focused on the
days which did not support the hypothesis conclusion (6th and 13th) which was an incorrect
emphasis.
(d) (i) Most candidates completed the graphs accurately. Some candidates made the mistake of plotting
the atmospheric pressure reading on the right-hand frame of the graph rather than on 18th
November. Also a few candidates misread the scale and drew the rainfall bar to 12 or 15 mm
instead of the correct 17 mm.
(ii) The question discriminated well. Most candidates correctly agreed with hypothesis 2. Good
answers made contrasting statements from the days when atmospheric pressure was above and
below 1010 mb and used supporting pressure and rainfall data to support their statement. Other
candidates did not always link the correct data to support their conclusion. They did not use data
from the two periods before and after 11th November when atmospheric pressure fell below 1010
mb for comparison. Weak answers only gave data from two days which did not support their
conclusion.
(e) Candidates usually described the higher wind speed in Madrid. Only stronger candidates also
described the greater variation in wind speed. Most candidates gained a mark for comparing
statistics between the two cities, although many candidates did not interpret the data they gave and
so scored only one mark. Weaker responses misinterpreted the graphs because the scale was not
read accurately. These candidates referred to the bars as ‘days 6–10’ not realising that this was
the wind speed, and the number of days was on the vertical axis.
© 2022

June 2022 Examiner Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2022 Examiner Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2022 Examiner Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education

0460 Geography June 2022

In order for candidates to perform well on this paper they should:

Comments on specific questions

This question was less popular than Question 1.

(ii) This was usually answered correctly.

(ii) This was usually answered correctly.

This question was answered by fewer candidates than Question 6.

(a) (i) This was usually answered correctly.

More candidates chose to answer this question than Question 5.

In order for candidates to perform well on this paper they should:

Comments on specific questions

(a) (i) Many candidates correctly identified Canada or Australia.

(a) (i) Many candidates identified the correct statement.

Questions 5 and 6 were of roughly equal popularity.

In order for candidates to perform well on this paper they should:

Comments on specific questions

Fewer candidates chose to answer this question compared to question 1.

This question was more popular than Question 4.

This question was answered by fewer candidates than Question 3.

(a) (i) This was correctly answered by most candidates.

(ii) Most candidates correctly named the two months.

Comments on specific questions

Comments on specific questions

Comments on specific questions

Topic Percentage of centres

Comments on specific assessment criteria

Comments on specific questions

Examiners have suggested the following tips to pass on to future candidates.

Comments on specific questions

Comments on specific questions

You might also like