The mark scheme for the extended decision-making question uses three levels. Understanding what actually distinguishes them — with real examples — is the fastest way to improve your own answers.
The question: "Using the sources and your own geographical knowledge, which option do you recommend for managing erosion at this coastal town? Justify your decision." (8 marks)
Level 1 answer (1–3 marks): "I think Option A is better because it is better for the environment and cheaper than the sea wall. Option B costs a lot of money and might damage the beach. Option A lets nature happen and creates habitats."
Why Level 1: Makes vague general claims without using source evidence. No specific data cited from any source. No own geographical knowledge. No stakeholder analysis. No acknowledgement of counter-arguments. "Better for the environment" and "cheaper" are asserted, not evidenced.
Level 2 answer (4–6 marks): "I recommend Option A (managed retreat). Source 2 shows that the erosion rate has increased to 2.1m/year, which means that hard engineering would face increasing pressure over time. Option B would cost £4.7 million according to Source 4 and requires ongoing maintenance. Option A creates intertidal habitat which Source 5 shows is important for bird species on this stretch of coast. The main problem with Option A is that 12 homeowners would be disrupted."
Why Level 2: Uses specific source evidence (Sources 2, 4, 5). Identifies cost difference. Acknowledges a counter-argument (homeowners disrupted). But: no own geographical knowledge used. The conclusion is not fully justified — does not explain why the advantages of Option A outweigh the disadvantage. Does not explain why Option B's beach erosion effect makes it a worse long-term choice. Reaches no decisive conclusion.
Level 3 answer (7–8 marks): "I recommend Option A (managed retreat) as the most sustainable long-term solution to coastal erosion here. Source 2 shows the erosion rate has accelerated from 1.2m/year in 2010 to 2.1m/year by 2023 — this trend means that hard engineering, which does not address the root cause, will face ever-greater pressure and will ultimately be overwhelmed as sea levels continue to rise under climate change projections. Source 4 prices Option B at £4.7 million upfront plus £200,000/year maintenance, making its 50-year total cost approximately £15 million — compared with a one-off compensation and relocation cost for Option A. Evidence from managed retreat schemes elsewhere strongly supports Option A: the Medmerry scheme in West Sussex (2013) successfully created 183 hectares of intertidal habitat and provides better long-term flood protection than the original sea wall it replaced. The main counterargument is the impact on the 12 cliff-top homeowners, who face real financial loss — Source 3 shows average property values of £450,000 in the affected row, making this a significant personal hardship. However, the cost of permanently protecting 12 properties through hard engineering, funded by all district taxpayers, is not defensible when Option B's beach erosion effects (documented in academic literature on sediment cell interruption) would eventually leave adjacent properties and businesses worse off. Option A, with fair homeowner compensation, is therefore the correct decision: it is more cost-effective at scale, ecologically beneficial, and addresses the root cause rather than delaying the inevitable."
Why Level 3: Specific sources cited with data (Sources 2, 3, 4). Clear, decisive recommendation in the first sentence. Own geographical knowledge (Medmerry case study, sediment cell theory, climate change sea level projections). Stakeholder acknowledged with specific data (£450,000 average property values). Counter-argument properly addressed and outweighed. Sustained argument throughout. Concluding sentence resolves rather than hedges.
Quick Check: A student writes: "Source A is biased because it was written by a developer." Is this a complete source evaluation? What is missing?
No — this is only the beginning of a source evaluation. Identifying the producer is important, but a complete evaluation needs: (1) What specific bias does this create? (The developer has a financial interest in the project succeeding, so is likely to emphasise benefits and downplay costs or environmental impacts.) (2) What evidence in the source suggests bias? (E.g., the source presents economic benefits in detail but does not mention habitat loss.) (3) What does the source still contain that may be accurate or useful? (E.g., the construction cost figures, even if cherry-picked favourably, are likely accurate because they would be audited.) (4) How does this bias affect the reliability of the source? A complete 4-mark answer would address all four of these steps, not just name the producer.
PrepWise is a trading name of A3M Quality Solutions Limited, registered in England and Wales, company number 14959172. Registered office: 202 Stroud Road, Gloucester, GL1 5LA. ICO registration ZC267069.
Cookies on PrepWise
Cookies. Essential ones keep you signed in. With your OK we'd also use a few to see which pages help people find us, never to follow you elsewhere. Cookie policy