IB Geography Past Papers & Drilling (Paper 2): Population, Climate and Resource Data

Question 1

(a) 2 marks Natural increase = 31,200 – 16,800 = 14,400, i.e. 14,400/2,400,000 x 1,000 = 6.0 per 1,000; net migration = 22,800 – 18,000 = 4,800, i.e. 2.0 per 1,000. (b) 2 marks Total change = 14,400 + 4,800 = 19,200; growth rate = 19,200/2,400,000 = 0.8%, so the year-end population is 2,419,200. (c) 3 marks Dependency ratio = (410,000 + 420,000)/1,570,000 x 100 = 52.9 dependants per 100 people of working age; the 65+ group alone is 17.5%. (d) 3 marks Rising old-age dependency raises health, long-term care and pension costs while a smaller working-age share narrows the tax base; responses include later retirement, more inward labour and automation.

Question 2

(a) 2 marks North = 1,200,000 x 9.5 = 11.4 million tonnes; south = 3,800,000 x 2.5 = 9.5 million tonnes; combined 20.9 million tonnes, a ratio of about 1.2:1. (b) 2 marks The north district accounts for 11.4/20.9 x 100 = 54.5% and the south for 45.5%. (c) 3 marks North 3 + 2 – 5 = 0; south 5 + 4 – 2 = 7. The larger, more exposed and less adaptable south district is clearly more vulnerable. (d) 3 marks Emissions and vulnerability measure different things: a low-emitting area may sit in a cyclone, drought or sea-level-rise hotspot, depend on farming or tourism, and lack early warning, insurance and infrastructure, so disaster losses can take a larger share of local output.

Question 3

(a) 3 marks Total footprint = 50,000,000 x 5.40 = 270 million gha; biocapacity per person = 96,000,000/50,000,000 = 1.92 gha. (b) 2 marks Deficit = 270 – 96 = 174 million gha, or 3.48 gha per person. (c) 2 marks 270/96 = 2.81 times biocapacity; the share met from outside = 174/270 = 64.4%. (d) 3 marks Options: energy efficiency, more renewables, less food waste and meat, better material recycling. Limits: rebound effects can cancel efficiency gains, upfront costs are high, and offshoring the pressure just moves the deficit elsewhere.

Question 1

(a) 1 mark Renewables = 7% hydro + 4% solar + 2% wind = 13% (2015: 4%). (b) 3 marks Coal: 34% – 46% = -12 percentage points; relative change = -12/46 x 100 = -26.1%. (c) 2 marks Fossil fuels: 78% in 2025 (34 + 26 + 18) against 88% in 2015 (46 + 22 + 20), i.e. -10 percentage points. (d) 4 marks Strengths: it shows the direction and speed of change at a glance (coal -26.1%, renewables up from 4% to 13%). Limits: shares hide growth in total demand and say nothing about per-capita use, carbon intensity, import dependence or nuclear waste costs; a balanced evaluation must reach a judgement on how far it is useful.

Question 1

How the 10-mark essay is marked: (1) define the key terms (physical: climate, relief, soils, water; human: economic opportunity, policy, conflict, history) 1-2 marks; (2) argument and counter-argument, each with a named case study and data, 3-4 marks; (3) interaction between the two sets of factors, e.g. irrigation or air conditioning partly offsetting physical limits, 2-3 marks; (4) explicit judgement – Evaluate/To what extent always demands a conclusion, 1-2 marks. Sample skeleton (option ii): high-income areas carry a large per-person footprint (this paper’s teaching figures: 5.40 gha against 1.92 gha of biocapacity per person), so efficiency alone struggles to offset growing total demand; sustainability needs efficiency, a cap on total consumption and fair sharing together, supported by named policy cases. Note: use the named case studies and real data you studied in class; the figures here are only a structure drill.