IB ESS HL 1.1 Perspectives Questions
Practise IB ESS HL 1.1 by evaluating how value systems, culture and competing stakeholders shape environmental strategies and sustainability outcomes.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2026
- Course
- ESS HL
- Level
- HL
Exam points
- infer an environmental perspective or value system from personal or stakeholder language, priorities, policies and actions
- explain how cultural, religious, political, economic, media, scientific and lived experience inputs shape environmental perspectives and value systems
- compare competing ecocentric, anthropocentric and technocentric responses to an environmental issue, weighing ecological outcomes, feasibility and stakeholder priorities
- trace inputs through an environmental value system to judgements, choices and policy outcomes, then assess whether the observed action matches the stated values
- explain how a named individual, publication, media example, disaster, agreement, technology or scientific discovery changed environmental awareness and movement or policy action
Covered syllabus points
1.1.1—Perspectives and personal values1.1.2—Factors informing perspectives1.1.3—Values definition1.1.4—Values visibility1.1.5—Values surveys1.1.6—Worldviews1.1.7—Environmental value systems1.1.8—Environmental perspectives classification1.1.9—Changing perspectives1.1.10—Environmental movement influences
Question 1
[Maximum number: 9]
State whether you believe global warming or biodiversity loss represents the bigger threat in the future. Justify your viewpoint.
Expression of ideas
Credit different interpretations of what is meant by "bigger" in this context e.g. bigger can refer to the scale/number of effects, or to how immediate/frightening/concrete the threat may seem, or in terms of whether the threat is to humans or to living systems in general.
Marking guidance:
Award [1] for an explicit statement of their view on which is the bigger threat. global warming is a bigger threat than biodiversity;
biodiversity is a bigger threat than global warming;
Do not credit if the viewpoint is only implied in the response.
Award [8 max] for relevant arguments for why one issue is a bigger threat than the other.
Award [4 max] if response is simply a description of the threat/effects not a comparison with the other threat. e.g. global warming is the bigger threat because:
it will have big effects e.g. melting ice caps/shifting biomes/changing the world's weather/flooding land;
its effects will be more widespread than biodiversity/every country will be affected;
whereas the loss of diversity in, e.g. a tropical rainforest, may have little direct impact on people elsewhere;
larger numbers of people will be affected e.g. Bangladeshi delta region low-lying and densely populated affected by sea level rises;
it will affect a bigger range of human activity, such as food supply/living space, health/disease;
it will lead to biodiversity loss as well (whereas loss of diversity will not cause global warming);
many biodiversity hotspots are particularly vulnerable e.g. coral reefs;
it has a higher public/global profile;
it can lead to significant social consequences e.g. wars / mass migrations;
is harder to solve than biodiversity loss which can be helped by e.g. seedbanks;
current rate of warming is unprecedented, whereas there have been mass extinctions in the past and the biodiversity has recovered;
it may lead to positive feedback loops/potentially devastating tipping points/exponential change;
> e.g. biodiversity is the bigger threat because:
> biodiversity provides/ensures key essential ecological services;
e.g. a balance of atmospheric O2 and CO2 /soil preservation/mineral cycles;
without these there would be no life-supporting conditions on the planet;
once biodiversity is lost it is gone forever;
and whereas global warming may be mitigated by negative feedback mechanisms there are no feedback mechanisms to maintain diversity;
to restore biodiversity it can take very long periods of time;
whereas climatic variations are reversible/happen in cycles (and have occurred in the past);
> from a human point of view, loss of biodiversity may mean loss of critical resources;
> biodiversity provides many forms of natural income, e.g. aesthetic, economic, ecological services;
> at a point in human population growth where resources are possibly limiting;
it is biodiversity that gives living systems the ability to adapt to change;
and the more it is reduced, the lower the chances of adapting to change;
biodiversity is being lost now/threats seem more immediate to people;
there are some positive benefits of global warming but no benefits to biodiversity loss;
Question 2
[Maximum number: 4]
Outline the factors that lead to different environmental value systems in contrasting cultures.
Factors may include:
cultural ie some cultures place a high value on nature and thus have a more ecocentric EVS; religious ie some religions deify certain organisms/landscapes and thus have a more ecocentric EVS;
economic ie some would argue that more economically wealthy societies tend towards a more technocentric/anthropocentric EVS; socio-political ie some would argue that a society with a strong social political movement would tend towards a more anthropocentric EVS; experience/history ie societies that have experienced anthropogenic disasters may become more prone to adopt ecocentric value systems;
Award [3 max] if only one category of EVS is addressed (question asks for "contrasting cultures").
Note: Full credit can be given where candidate gives a specific example to outline link between factor and EVS. However, if factors are simply named/listed without any explanatory outline broadly linking them to EVS, then award just 1 mark for every TWO valid factors identified up to 2max.
Question 3
[Maximum number: 6]
The survey data, shown in Figures 12(a) and 12(b), represents the values of the Brazilian people in respect of global warming, the environment and the economy.
With reference to the information in the resource booklet, to what extent have these values been demonstrated during the recent development of Brazil?
Evidence for:
the population is stabilizing which will benefit the environment; they are employing mitigation strategies that will address issue of global warming / climatic change;
they are improving efficiency of food production limiting area of environment impacted / small increase in amount of arable/agricultural land;
a high proportion of renewable energy/biofuel/hydropower is used that could reduce emissions of GHGs/global warming;
a high proportion of renewable energy/biofuel/hydropower is used that could reduce use of fossil fuels/non-renewable resources/non-renewable natural capital / rapid increase in number of cars using flex fuel / reducing number of petrol/gasoline cars; Brazil has adopted energy efficiency methods/policies; compared to other countries, Brazil still has a relatively low proportion of developed/arable land;
NGOs and other organizations are supporting conservation projects (restoring habitats / encouraging sustainable use of forest resources) in the Atlantic Rainforest; Brazil has maintained a relatively low/stable ecological footprint (despite increase in GDP);
Limitations:
population is not yet stabilized so demands on environment still increasing/urban growth continues;
there are still a significant number of threatened species / high biodiversity loss; there is still land clearance/deforestation for sugar cane/coffee/soy bean/biofuels/commercial logging/urban growth/urban development/infrastructure development/mining; the conversion of agricultural land to growing crops for biofuels is causing problems with sufficient production/availability of food; pollution from mining/manufacture of goods/oil production/commercial agriculture; high proportion of renewable energy still comes from hydropower that impacts environment; energy consumption continues to increase; decrease in biocapacity suggests unsustainable practices / degradation of natural resources / depletion rates are greater than rates of growth / increase in ecological footprint suggest greater use of resources/unsustainability; Brazil has large number of cattle that leads to high production of methane; there are still gasoline only cars in use / there has been a reduction in/there are no ethanol only vehicles;
Opinion/conclusion (examples):
there are clear indications in a number of areas that Brazilians are currently taking global warming very seriously / valuing environment over development; despite the results of this survey, there are clear indications that Brazilians are not taking global warming seriously / there is clear evidence that Brazilians are not valuing the environment over development;
Award up to [4] for evidence for and up to [4] for limitations, with [5] maximum across those points. Award up to [1] for a supported opinion/conclusion, [6] overall.
Accept other reasonable responses supported by information in the resource booklet.
An isolated statement/opinion eg "Brazil is concerned about the environment" should not be considered a valid opinion/conclusion without supporting evidence.
Question 4
[Maximum number: 8]
Discuss why societies have different perspectives on the issue of Global Warming.
Reasons for different perspectives:
Religious/cultural imperatives: eg some societies have cultural beliefs that hold the natural environment in high regard;
so will be opposed to human activity that leads to global warming;
or may value national happiness over economic growth;
may believe global warming stems from western capitalist greed;
eg perspective of Buddhist cultures/first generation Americans;
some are more pragmatic/consumer-oriented/pro-economic development eg Western capitalism;
so may be less concerned with global warming issues / less willing to compromise lifestyles;
Political ideology:
more capitalist societies may rely heavily upon market forces to drive solutions to global warming;
and will value marketable goods over non-marketable services affected by global warming;
so may see global warming as a negative but necessary result of economic growth / be less concerned with addressing the issue;
State of development:
MEDCs can better afford to address global warming issues through more expensive alternative technologies/resources;
MEDCs have more extensive media availability/education and so may have more informed perspectives on global warming;
…or be more sceptical about causes/existence of the phenomenon of global warming;
high profile of science/technology in MEDCs may lead them to seek scientific/technological solutions rather than changes in lifestyle;
LEDCs may prioritise catching up in development with MEDCs rather than environmental/global warming issues;
LEDCs may not have the funding/expertise to address issues of global warming;
Imminence of impacts;
societies already experiencing possible impacts of global warming (eg flooding/severe weather patterns/drought) may be more sensitive to global warming issues;
Geographical location:
Northern societies may welcome benefits of climate change and be less concerned / societies in more vulnerable locations (eg coastal locations/low altitude) may be more concerned;
Marking guidance:
Award [1 mark] for a list of 3 or more general influences similar to those in the headings above.
Award [6 max] to responses that do not identify specific societies (eg Buddhist cultures;
MEDCs;
Northern societies etc)
Accept other reasonable responses of equivalent significance, validity & relevance.
Expression of ideas: [2 max]
Total: [20]
Question 5
[Maximum number: 9]
Discuss the implications of environmental value systems in the protection of tropical biomes.
Answers may include:
• understanding concepts and terminology of environmental value systems, tropical biomes, biodiversity, conservation, habitat v species approach, reserves, ecotourism, flagship species, sustainable development/exploitation, goods/services.
• breadth in addressing and linking environmental value systems with each other and ecocentric values with biorights, wilderness reserves, restrained resource use, etc and anthropocentric values with laws/regulations/quotas, public consultation/agreements, sustainable exploitation, ecotourism etc and technocentric values with economic development, habitat restoration, economic value of natural goods and services, gene banks etc
• examples of tropical biomes e.g. tropical forests, grasslands, savannas, lakes & rivers, coral reefs etc and environmental value systems eg ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, technocentrism, etc and habitat/species protection strategies eg reserves, managed sustainable harvesting, ecotourism, fishing quotas, etc and value systems in specific tropical societies eg rights of nature enshrined in constitutions of Ecuador/Bolivia, human rights to a healthy environment in laws of Costa Rica/Brazil, etc
• balanced analysis of the ways in which different value systems are likely to impact/influence the protection of tropical biomes, acknowledging relevant counter-arguments/alternative viewpoints.
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given eg "Because ecocentric values embrace the biorights of all living species and habitats their implications are bound to be the most fundamentally protective, however, to be practical in current society, more is likely to be achieved in protecting tropical biomes through some compromise with other value systems." NB This is only an example of a possible conclusion. Candidates' conclusions do not have to agree.
The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria given in each of the markbands (although "ESS terminology" has been conflated with "Understanding concepts"). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band.
Section B, part (c) markbands are shown below.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below and is not relevant to the question. |
| 1–3 | The response contains: • minimal evidence of knowledge and understanding of ESS issues or concepts • fragmented knowledge statements poorly linked to the context of the question • some appropriate use of ESS terminology • no examples where required, or examples with insufficient explanation/relevance • superficial analysis that amounts to no more than a list of facts/ideas • judgments/conclusions that are vague or not supported by evidence/argument. |
| 4–6 | The response contains: • some evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • knowledge statements effectively linked to the context of the question • largely appropriate use of ESS terminology • some use of relevant examples where required, but with limited explanation • clear analysis that shows a degree of balance • some clear judgments/conclusions, supported by limited evidence/arguments. |
| 7–9 | The response contains: • substantial evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • a wide breadth of knowledge statements effectively linked with each other, and to the context of the question • consistently appropriate and precise use of ESS terminology • effective use of pertinent, well-explained examples, where required, showing some originality • thorough, well-balanced, insightful analysis • explicit judgments/conclusions that are well-supported by evidence/arguments and that include some critical reflection. |
Section B, part (c) markbands (MS p15)
Question 6
[Maximum number: 9]
To what extent is a technocentric value system more appropriate than other value systems in addressing issues of sustainability?
Answers may demonstrate:
- understanding concepts & terminology of technocentrism; anthropocentrism; ecocentrism; valuing components of biosphere & natural capital; social/economic/environmental sustainability; environmental indicators; ecological footprint; EIA; pollution management strategies; biodiversity conservation; access to clean fresh water; access to food; aquaculture; sustainable development goals; industrialization; commercial high-input food production systems; soil degradation; soil conservation; urbanization; catalytic converters; scrubbers; carbon capture technology; mitigation/adaptation strategies; GMOs; drought-resistant crops; coastal defences; CFC alternatives; shifting to renewable resources; hydropower/nuclear/wind/solar; electric vehicles; vertical farming; increasing carrying capacity; environmental degradation; resource depletion;
- breadth in addressing range of technocentric values/strategies/developmental projects/policies and linking them with responsible use and sustainable management of resources & different aspects of sustainability.
- examples of technocentric values, strategies, developments, policies addressing issues of sustainability, like pollution, environmental degradation, economic inequalities, social conflicts.
- balanced analysis evaluating extent to which technocentric strategies manage to effectively address issues of sustainability AND comparing them with corresponding strategies based on different EVSs.
- a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by analysis and examples given e.g. Technocentrism emphasizes economic development, scientific progress and technological solutions rather than self-restrain, respect to tradition and changes in behavior, which are usually considered the safer road toward sustainability. However, commitment by technocentrists to sustainable development has led to impressive technological developments and innovations that allow responsible and sustainable use of resources.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below and is not relevant to the question. |
| 1–3 | The response contains: • minimal evidence of knowledge and understanding of ESS issues or concepts • fragmented knowledge statements poorly linked to the context of the question • some appropriate use of ESS terminology • no examples where required, or examples with insufficient explanation/relevance • superficial analysis that amounts to no more than a list of facts/ideas • judgments/conclusions that are vague or not supported by evidence/argument. |
| 4–6 | The response contains: • some evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • knowledge statements effectively linked to the context of the question • largely appropriate use of ESS terminology • some use of relevant examples where required, but with limited explanation • clear analysis that shows a degree of balance • some clear judgments/conclusions, supported by limited evidence/arguments. |
| 7–9 | The response contains: • substantial evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts • a wide breadth of knowledge statements effectively linked with each other, and to the context of the question • consistently appropriate and precise use of ESS terminology • effective use of pertinent, well-explained examples, where required, showing some originality • thorough, well-balanced, insightful analysis • explicit judgments/conclusions that are well-supported by evidence/arguments and that include some critical reflection. |
Assessment criteria for the 9-mark extended response
Question 7
[Maximum number: 7]
Explain the role of two historical influences in shaping the development of the environmental movement.
eg Rachel Carson - Author of Silent Spring (1962);
Silent Spring documented/highlighted the problems caused by the widespread use of synthetic pesticides;
focus was placed on the activities of chemical companies;
explained impact of use of insecticides/pesticides on birds of prey;
led to widespread awareness amongst (American) public of environmental issues/bioaccumulation/biomagnification;
was a focal point for the social/environmental movements of the 1960s;
inspired many other environmentalists;
led to ban on DDT for agricultural uses;
inspired the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
eg Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of 2011;
a natural disaster/earthquake/tsunami led to the biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant;
estimates vary about the number of people affected by the disaster/no direct deaths initially/over 600 deaths by workers/thousands with increased risk of cancers;
as the disaster was able to happen in a "developed" country like Japan, many societies came to the conclusion that nuclear power could not be "safe";
this has led to increased public pressure to phase out nuclear power generation;
eg Germany sped up plans to close nuclear reactors/over 90 % of Italy voted against government plans to expand nuclear power/Switzerland also decided to phase out nuclear power;
Award [1max] for correctly identifying/naming two historical influences. Award credit for valid statements that describe the personality/event; explain how it has influenced the movement; and explain exactly what gave rise to the influence. If more than two events/personalities are addressed credit only the highest-scoring two.
Award [4max] for each explanation of how historical influences shaped the development of environmentalism up to max of 7 marks.
All question bank results loaded