Environmental Management 0680 | Paper 1 Mock 01 | Principles of Environmental Management

(a) Projected population of the country in 2030 [1]

50 million [1]

(b) Trends shown in the data between 2010 and 2030 [3]

1. The population is growing rapidly, more than doubling from 25 million in 2010 to a projected 50 million in 2030. [1]
2. Total food production is increasing only slowly, from 8 million tonnes to a projected 11 million tonnes (a 37.5% increase over 20 years). This rate of increase is far slower than population growth. [1]
3. As a consequence, food production per person is declining sharply, from 320 kg in 2010 to a projected 220 kg in 2030. The percentage of underweight children is rising from 18% to 30%, indicating worsening malnutrition and food insecurity. [1]

(c) Why food production per person is declining despite rising total production [2]

1. Although total food production has increased from 8 to 11 million tonnes (a 37.5% increase), the population has doubled from 25 to 50 million (a 100% increase). [1]
2. Because the population is growing much faster than food production, the amount of food available per person decreases. In mathematical terms: \(\frac{11\,000\,000}{50\,000\,000} = 0.22\) tonnes = 220 kg per person, compared with \(\frac{8\,000\,000}{25\,000\,000} = 0.32\) tonnes = 320 kg per person in 2010. [1]

(d) Strategies the government could use to improve food security [5]

1. Agricultural research and technology: Investing in the development and distribution of higher-yielding crop varieties suited to local climate and soil conditions, increasing the output from existing farmland. [1]
2. Irrigation infrastructure: Building dams, canals and drip-irrigation systems to ensure reliable water supply for crops, particularly in drought-prone areas, increasing yields in dry regions. [1]
3. Reducing post-harvest losses: Building better storage facilities (grain silos, cold stores) and improving transport links (roads, refrigerated vehicles) to ensure that more of the food produced actually reaches consumers. [1]
4. Family planning programmes: Implementing education and access to contraception to slow the rate of population growth. Reducing the rate of increase in demand gives food production a chance to keep pace. [1]
5. Protecting agricultural land: Introducing planning regulations that restrict the conversion of productive farmland to urban development. Encouraging vertical construction in cities (apartment buildings rather than suburban sprawl) preserves the land area available for food production. [1]

(a) The mode of transport with the highest CO₂ emissions per passenger per km is short-haul flight, at 255 g per passenger per km. [1]

Short-haul flights produce more CO₂ per passenger-km than long-haul flights because a disproportionate amount of fuel is consumed during take-off and climbing, and these phases make up a larger fraction of a short journey.

(b) Comparison of single-occupant and four-occupant car emissions: [3]

• A private car with one occupant produces 170 g CO₂ per passenger per km, while the same car with four occupants produces only 43 g per passenger per km. The four-occupant car therefore produces roughly four times less CO₂ per person. [1]
• This difference occurs because the total CO₂ output of the car is approximately the same regardless of how many people are inside it. With four passengers, that fixed total is divided among four people: \( 170 \div 4 \approx 43 \) g per passenger per km. [1]
• Car sharing (increasing vehicle occupancy) is therefore one of the simplest ways to reduce per-person transport emissions without requiring any change in vehicle technology or fuel type. [1]

(c) How public transport and cycling reduce carbon emissions: [3]

• Public transport vehicles (buses and trains) carry many passengers simultaneously, so the CO₂ emissions are spread across a large number of people. A bus at 89 g per passenger-km is roughly half the emissions of a single-occupant car. [1]
• Electric trains are particularly efficient, producing only 14 g per passenger per km, which is about 12 times less than a single-occupant car (170 g). This is because electricity can be generated from low-carbon sources and electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines. [1]
• Cycling produces zero direct CO₂ emissions, making it the lowest-carbon transport option. For short journeys, replacing car trips with cycling would eliminate transport emissions entirely and bring additional public health benefits through physical activity. [1]

(d) Challenges of reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation: [3]

• There are currently no commercially viable zero-emission alternatives to kerosene-based jet fuel for long-distance flights. Electric batteries are far too heavy relative to their energy storage capacity to power large aircraft over long distances. [1]
• Sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), made from biomass or synthesised from captured CO₂, exist but are still expensive to produce and are manufactured in very small quantities compared to the volume of conventional jet fuel consumed globally. [1]
• Global demand for air travel is growing rapidly, particularly in developing countries where a rising middle class increasingly expects to fly. Even when individual aircraft become more fuel-efficient, the overall growth in the number of flights offsets these efficiency gains, a phenomenon known as the rebound effect. [1]

(a) Sector using the most water in Country Y [1]

Agriculture (82% of total water use). [1]

(b) Comparison of water use patterns [4]

1. Country X uses far more water per person per day (580 litres) than Country Y (45 litres), roughly 13 times more. [1]
2. In Country Y, agriculture dominates water use at 82% of the total, whereas in Country X, industry is the largest sector at 51%. [1]
3. Country X uses a much higher proportion of water for industry (51%) compared to Country Y (10%). [1]
4. Domestic use is a higher percentage in Country X (16%) than in Country Y (8%). In absolute terms, this gap is even greater: 16% of 580 litres = 93 litres per person, versus 8% of 45 litres = 3.6 litres per person. [1]

(c) Reasons for the differences in water use patterns [5]

1. Country X has higher industrial water use because it has a more developed manufacturing and energy sector. Industry requires large volumes of water for cooling, processing and cleaning. [1]
2. Country Y uses most of its water for agriculture because a larger proportion of its population depends on farming for food and income. Irrigation in developing countries is often less efficient (e.g. flood irrigation rather than drip irrigation), further increasing water use per hectare. [1]
3. Country X has higher domestic water use because households have more water-using appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers and showers, and may also have swimming pools and gardens requiring irrigation. [1]
4. The much higher total consumption in Country X reflects greater wealth, better water infrastructure (piped mains, treatment plants) and higher overall water availability. [1]
5. Country Y may have limited access to piped water, particularly in rural areas. Without infrastructure to deliver water to homes and factories, less is available for domestic and industrial use, concentrating consumption in the agricultural sector. [1]

(a) Two producers in the food web [2]

Any two from:

• Algae [1]
• Water plants [1]

Producers are organisms that carry out photosynthesis and form the base of the food web. Detritus (dead organic matter) is not a producer.

(b) One food chain containing the invasive crayfish [2]

Water plants → invasive crayfish → perch → heron [2]

Other valid chains are acceptable, such as: detritus → invasive crayfish → dragonfly → heron, provided each link follows a correct feeding relationship shown in the food web.

(c) How the invasive crayfish could reduce lake biodiversity [6]

1. Competition for food: The crayfish feeds on multiple food sources (algae, water plants, detritus), directly competing with native species such as water snails and mayfly larvae for these resources. This competition can reduce the populations of native species. [1]
2. Direct predation: The crayfish may prey directly on native invertebrates, killing them and reducing their populations below sustainable levels. [1]
3. Habitat destruction: By consuming and destroying water plants, the crayfish removes habitat that other organisms depend on for shelter, breeding and food. Fewer plants means fewer niches for other species. [1]
4. Competitive exclusion: If native crayfish species are present, the invasive species may outcompete them for food and territory, potentially driving them to local extinction. [1]
5. Knock-on effects through the food web: As populations of native prey species decline, organisms at higher trophic levels (such as perch and dragonfly) that depend on those prey may also decline. [1]
6. Overall biodiversity loss: Native species are outcompeted, preyed upon or lose their habitats. The net result is a reduction in the total number of species the lake can support, as the invasive crayfish dominates resources that previously supported a more diverse community. [1]

(a) Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) involves pumping a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into deep shale rock formations to create fractures that release trapped natural gas or oil. [1]

The well is drilled vertically and then horizontally into the shale layer (typically 1000-3000 m below the surface). The sand props the fractures open so that gas can flow to the surface.

(b) Two environmental concerns associated with fracking: [2]

• Groundwater contamination: The chemicals used in fracking fluid can leak into underground aquifers (water-bearing rock layers) through cracks in the rock or through faulty well casings. If these chemicals reach the water table, they can make drinking water unsafe for human consumption. [1]
• Induced seismicity: The injection of high-pressure fluid into rock, and the subsequent disposal of large volumes of contaminated wastewater into deep injection wells, has been linked to small earthquakes. While most are too small to cause damage, some have been strong enough to be felt and to damage buildings. [1]

Other acceptable answers include: very large volumes of fresh water are required; surface disturbance and habitat loss from well pads and access roads; methane leakage from wells contributes to the greenhouse effect; difficulty of safely disposing of contaminated flowback water.

(c) Why some governments allow fracking while others ban it: [2]

• Governments that allow fracking may prioritise energy security and economic benefits. Fracking creates jobs, generates tax revenue and reduces dependence on imported fossil fuels. In countries with large shale reserves (such as the USA), fracking has significantly boosted domestic energy production. [1]
• Governments that ban fracking may prioritise environmental protection and public health. They may judge the risks of water contamination, seismicity and landscape damage to be unacceptable. Some may also have sufficient energy supply from other sources (renewables, nuclear, imported gas) and therefore see no need to accept the environmental risks. [1]

(a) One plant species found in the lower marsh zone [1]

Any one of: glasswort [1] or cord grass [1].

These are pioneer species that colonise the most seaward part of the salt marsh, where conditions are harshest due to regular tidal flooding and high salinity.

(b) Pattern of zonation in the salt marsh [3]

1. Different plant species are found at different distances from the sea, forming distinct zones (this is called zonation). [1]
2. The lower marsh, nearest the sea, is colonised by salt-tolerant pioneer species such as glasswort and cord grass. These species can withstand regular immersion in salt water. [1]
3. Moving inland towards the upper marsh, species diversity increases and less salt-tolerant plants such as rushes and shrubs appear. These species benefit from the higher ground, which is flooded less frequently. [1]

Zonation occurs because the frequency and duration of tidal flooding decrease with distance from the sea, creating a gradient of environmental conditions. Each zone supports species adapted to its particular level of salt and water exposure.

(c) Adaptations of lower marsh plants to salt water flooding [4]

1. Salt-excreting glands: specialised glands in the leaves actively pump excess salt out of the plant's tissues, preventing toxic salt concentrations from building up internally. [1]
2. Succulent leaves and stems: thick, fleshy tissues store freshwater, which dilutes the internal salt concentration and helps maintain the water balance within the plant's cells. [1]
3. Extensive root systems: deep or spreading roots anchor the plant firmly in the soft, unstable mud and allow uptake of water from the waterlogged substrate. [1]
4. Aerenchyma: large air spaces within roots and stems allow oxygen to diffuse down from above-water parts of the plant to the roots, enabling aerobic respiration even when the roots are submerged in waterlogged, anaerobic mud. [1]

(a) Species identification from Table 4.1: [2]

• Most commonly detected: Wild boar, detected at 48 out of 50 camera stations with 2,450 total detections over 12 months. [1]
• Rarest: Pangolin, detected at only 2 camera stations with just 5 total detections. [1]

(b) Why large predators like the tiger were detected at very few stations: [2]

• Tigers are apex predators that require very large territories (often over 100 km²) to find enough prey. This means they are naturally spread very thinly across the forest, and any individual tiger would only pass through a small number of camera trap locations. [1]
• As top predators, tigers are naturally much less abundant than the herbivores they prey on. The ecological principle of energy transfer between trophic levels means that each successive level supports roughly 10% of the biomass of the level below, so there are far fewer tigers than deer or wild boar. [1]

(c) Two advantages of camera traps over direct observation: [2]

• Camera traps can operate continuously, 24 hours a day, and are particularly effective at detecting nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn/dusk-active) species that researchers would rarely see during daylight surveys. Many tropical mammals are most active at night. [1]
• Camera traps do not disturb the animals, so they record natural behaviour patterns. Human observers can alter animal behaviour through their presence (noise, scent, movement), introducing bias into population estimates. Camera traps avoid this observer effect entirely. [1]

(d) The Critically Endangered classification and threats to pangolins: [3]

• Critically Endangered means the species faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future. It is the most severe IUCN category before Extinct in the Wild and Extinct, indicating that without urgent intervention, the species may disappear entirely. [1]
• Pangolins are the world's most heavily trafficked mammals. They are poached for their scales, which are used in traditional medicine in parts of Asia despite having no proven medicinal value (the scales are made of keratin, the same protein as human fingernails). [1]
• Their forest habitat is being destroyed by logging, agricultural expansion (particularly palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia) and infrastructure development. As forests shrink and fragment, pangolin populations become smaller and more isolated, making them even more vulnerable to poaching. [1]

(e) How camera trap data could inform a conservation plan: [4]

• The data reveals which species are present and their relative abundance. Species with very few detections (pangolin: 5, tiger: 12) can be identified as priority targets for specific conservation measures such as anti-poaching patrols. [1]
• Detection patterns across the 50 camera stations can identify which areas of the forest are most important for key species. If endangered species are concentrated in certain zones, patrol routes and ranger stations can be positioned to protect those areas most effectively. [1]
• The 12-month dataset provides a baseline for population monitoring. Future surveys using the same camera stations can be compared with this data to measure whether conservation actions (anti-poaching patrols, habitat restoration) are producing measurable results. [1]
• Understanding species overlap and activity patterns helps managers identify critical habitats that serve multiple species. For example, areas where both elephants and tigers are detected may be important corridors connecting habitat patches and should be protected from development. [1]

(a) The no-take zone (Zone A) is positioned directly over and surrounding the coral reef. [1]

This placement ensures the most ecologically sensitive habitat receives the highest level of protection.

(b) Why coral reefs are areas of high biodiversity: [2]

• Coral reefs provide a wide variety of habitats and niches due to their complex three-dimensional structure. The branching coral, crevices, overhangs and sandy patches between coral heads each support different communities of organisms. [1]
• This structural complexity supports organisms at many trophic levels, from photosynthetic algae and coral polyps at the base, through herbivorous fish, invertebrates (sea urchins, starfish, crustaceans) and small predatory fish, up to large predators (groupers, sharks). Coral reefs support approximately 25% of all marine species despite covering less than 1% of the ocean floor. [1]

(c) Two differences between management rules in Zone A and Zone B: [4]

Difference 1:

• In Zone A (no-take zone), all fishing and extraction of organisms is completely prohibited. No marine life may be removed, whether commercially or recreationally. [1]
• In Zone B (regulated fishing zone), fishing is permitted but controlled through regulations such as catch limits, minimum fish sizes, seasonal closures during breeding periods and restrictions on gear types (e.g. banning trawl nets). [1]

Difference 2:

• In Zone A, boat access and anchoring may be restricted or prohibited to prevent physical damage to the coral reef from anchors dragging across the seabed. Only research vessels with special permits may enter. [1]
• In Zone B, boats are permitted but may be restricted to certain types or sizes, and may be required to use designated mooring buoys rather than dropping anchors to minimise seabed damage. [1]

(d) Short-term and long-term effects on fishing communities: [6]

Short-term effects:

• Fishing communities lose access to some of their traditional fishing grounds within the MPA, particularly the no-take zone. This directly reduces the area available for catching fish, potentially lowering income. [1]
• Fishers may need to travel further from the port to reach areas outside the MPA boundaries, increasing fuel costs, time at sea and the risks of fishing in unfamiliar or more exposed waters. [1]
• Some fishers may need to retrain or find alternative employment (tourism, aquaculture, boat maintenance) during the transition period, which can cause economic hardship and social disruption. [1]

Long-term effects:

• Fish populations within the protected area are expected to recover and increase in both numbers and size over time. As populations grow, adult fish and larvae move beyond the MPA boundaries into the surrounding fishing grounds, a phenomenon known as the spillover effect. This can lead to larger and more sustainable catches in adjacent waters. [1]
• Healthier fish stocks mean larger individual fish are caught, which command higher market prices. Overall fishing income may exceed pre-MPA levels as the ecosystem recovers. [1]
• The MPA could attract ecotourism (snorkelling, diving, glass-bottom boat tours), creating alternative income streams for the community. The coral reef and abundant marine life within the no-take zone would be the main attraction. [1]