Cambridge International AS Level: Environmental Management 8291/11 May/June 2022
Cambridge International AS Level: Environmental Management 8291/11 May/June 2022
Cambridge International AS Level: Environmental Management 8291/11 May/June 2022
Published
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.
Cambridge International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.
Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2022 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE, Cambridge International A and AS Level and Cambridge Pre-U components, and some
Cambridge O Level components.
These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers. They should be applied alongside the
specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptors for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these
marking principles.
the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.
Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).
marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit is given for valid answers which go beyond the
scope of the syllabus and mark scheme, referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
marks are not deducted for errors
marks are not deducted for omissions
answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these features are specifically assessed by the
question as indicated by the mark scheme. The meaning, however, should be unambiguous.
Rules must be applied consistently, e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed instructions or in the application of generic level
descriptors.
Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question (however; the use of the full mark range may
be limited according to the quality of the candidate responses seen).
Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should not be awarded with grade thresholds or
grade descriptors in mind.
1 Examiners should consider the context and scientific use of any keywords when awarding marks. Although keywords may be present, marks
should not be awarded if the keywords are used incorrectly.
2 The examiner should not choose between contradictory statements given in the same question part, and credit should not be awarded for any
correct statement that is contradicted within the same question part. Wrong science that is irrelevant to the question should be ignored.
3 Although spellings do not have to be correct, spellings of syllabus terms must allow for clear and unambiguous separation from other syllabus
terms with which they may be confused (e.g. ethane / ethene, glucagon / glycogen, refraction / reflection).
4 The error carried forward (ecf) principle should be applied, where appropriate. If an incorrect answer is subsequently used in a scientifically
correct way, the candidate should be awarded these subsequent marking points. Further guidance will be included in the mark scheme where
necessary and any exceptions to this general principle will be noted.
For questions that require n responses (e.g. State two reasons …):
The response should be read as continuous prose, even when numbered answer spaces are provided.
Any response marked ignore in the mark scheme should not count towards n.
Incorrect responses should not be awarded credit but will still count towards n.
Read the entire response to check for any responses that contradict those that would otherwise be credited. Credit should not be
awarded for any responses that are contradicted within the rest of the response. Where two responses contradict one another, this
should be treated as a single incorrect response.
Non-contradictory responses after the first n responses may be ignored even if they include incorrect science.
Correct answers to calculations should be given full credit even if there is no working or incorrect working, unless the question states ‘show
your working’.
For questions in which the number of significant figures required is not stated, credit should be awarded for correct answers when rounded by
the examiner to the number of significant figures given in the mark scheme. This may not apply to measured values.
For answers given in standard form (e.g. a 10n) in which the convention of restricting the value of the coefficient (a) to a value between 1
and 10 is not followed, credit may still be awarded if the answer can be converted to the answer given in the mark scheme.
Unless a separate mark is given for a unit, a missing or incorrect unit will normally mean that the final calculation mark is not awarded.
Exceptions to this general principle will be noted in the mark scheme.
Multiples / fractions of coefficients used in chemical equations are acceptable unless stated otherwise in the mark scheme.
State symbols given in an equation should be ignored unless asked for in the question or stated otherwise in the mark scheme.
from fishing;
legislation;
fines for wrong disposal / the polluter pays;
taxes on plastic products / less people will buy;
restricting use of single use plastics;
(up / increases)
reduction of shark / turtle numbers, less predation of squid;
less predation on other species e.g. small fish, more food for squid;
(down / decreases)
reduction in small fish / zooplankton / less food available for squid;
injury to squid due to ingesting / eating the plastic waste themselves;
oxygen / O2;
glucose / C6H12O6;
ocean acidification;
leads to increased likelihood of extreme weather e.g. floods, storms, cyclones, hurricanes;
ash improves soil fertility / adds nutrients to soil so increase in plant growth;
organic matter burnt (in short term) soil fertility decreases / less plant growth;
valid reference to pyrophytic plants / seed germination / e.g. pine cones open up and release seeds which then germinate;
Costa Rica has more / Iceland has less flexibility if one source fails;
irritates eyes;
increased temperatures;
poor maintenance;
leading to leaks / loss of water;
food shortages;
leading to malnutrition and famine;
poverty / less money from farming;
migration of people;
away to an area with better water security / to Chennai area where there is better water infrastructure;
rationing; AW
equality of access / distribution;
sewage treatment to produce usable water for some industrial processes / street cleaning / to water crops;
effective water filtration system to ensure water clean and safe to drink;
poverty reduction;
cataracts;
Indicative content
Candidates may compare and contrast local and international strategies to manage the environment and evaluate the
contribution to global environmental improvement.
Candidates should describe strategies to manage issues such as: climate change, air pollution, waste disposal, water
pollution, food security, water security, conservation / biodiversity etc., evaluate the success of the strategies and make
relevant conclusions.
Strategies could include litter picking, recycling, use of renewable energy sources, use of public transport or cycling to
reduce car usage, tree planting, growing own vegetables and reduction in plastic usage, education etc.
Candidates should show understanding of the problems encountered with producing international agreements (such as
Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, Paris Agreement) and evaluate how local legislation / local initiatives are more likely to
meet with success.
Political and economic factors affect decision making at international level making agreement more difficult than at local
level. The role of NGOs and environmental activist groups.
3 Responses contain reasoned explanations with knowledge that indicates a strong 7–8
conceptual understanding of the topic.
Incorporates frequent use of directly relevant examples.
2 Responses contain explanations with some gaps or errors in the reasoning. 4–6
Explanations may lack detail or accurate knowledge.
Examples are included but some opportunities to include relevant examples are missed.
1 Responses contain a few general points, which are mainly descriptive, comprising a few 1–3
simple points,
Knowledge is basic and understanding may be poor and lack relevance to the question set.
Irrelevant or no examples are given.
0 No creditable response. 0
3 One side of the argument is better developed than the other. 7–9
Judgements are partially supported with qualitative and / or quantitative information
Conclusion is consistent with the question and candidate response.
7
Level A03: Investigation skills and making judgements Marks
0 No creditable response 0
Indicative content
Candidates should show understanding of the human impacts on the tundra location and evaluate strategies which try to
mitigate the impacts.
A tundra can be defined as: a ‘treeless plain’ which is regarded as one of the coldest and most environmentally challenging
biomes. Although tundra ecosystems can be found at high elevations throughout the world, the term is most commonly
used in relation to the Arctic tundra.
Human impacts may include climate change, tourism, future mineral and oil extraction, impacts on the permafrost, oil
pipelines and scientific research. Candidates should detail the impact so as to analyse the appropriate strategy.
Strategies to include legislation and international agreement, protected areas, prohibited activities such as mineral
extraction, waste management, and tourism control.
Candidates should describe the strategies, explain how they help to reduce human impact on the tundra and make
conclusions as to the relative merits and success of each.
3 Responses contain reasoned explanations with knowledge that indicates a strong 7–8
conceptual understanding of the topic.
Incorporates frequent use of directly relevant examples.
2 Responses contain explanations with some gaps or errors in the reasoning. 4–6
Explanations may lack detail or accurate knowledge.
Examples are included but some opportunities to include relevant examples are missed.
1 Responses contain a few general points, which are mainly descriptive, comprising a few 1–3
simple points,
Knowledge is basic and understanding may be poor and lack relevance to the question set.
Irrelevant or no examples are given.
0 No creditable response. 0
3 One side of the argument is better developed than the other. 7–9
Judgements are partially supported with qualitative and / or quantitative information
Conclusion is consistent with the question and candidate response.
8
1 Response is descriptive. 1–3
Minimal judgement is made, unsupported by qualitative or quantitative information,
Conclusion is inconsistent with the question and candidate response, or no conclusion
made,
0 No creditable response 0