IB ESS HL 1.2.18 Human Impacts on Resilience Questions
Practise HL questions on human impacts on resilience by evaluating destabilization, resource loss, conservation and sustainable management.
- Syllabus
- First assessment 2026
- Course
- ESS HL
- Level
- HL
Exam points
- Analyse how deforestation, overexploitation and pollution reduce diversity, storages or productivity.
- Evaluate conservation, legislation and sustainable development as ways to protect resilience from human pressures.
- Discuss the extent of human influence on ecological stability using balanced examples and counterarguments.
IB ESS HL 1.2.18 Human Impacts on Resilience Questions question 1
[Maximum number: 9]
Discuss the role of humans in the destabilization of ecological systems.
Answers may include:
• understanding concepts and terminology of steady state and dynamic equilibria, stability, resilience, tipping-points, diversity, storage size, productivity, negative/positive feedback, complexity, community interdependence/interaction, human impacts of overexploitation/unsustainable harvesting, pollution, habitat degradation/destruction, unsustainable development, etc
• breadth in addressing and linking factors that provide stability/resilience eg storage size, diversity, productivity, complexity, etc with human activities that either weaken/reduce them eg overfishing, intensive agriculture, C emissions/global warming, water/atmospheric pollution, deforestation, urbanisation, mining/resource extraction, etc or activities that strengthen/protect them eg legislation setting pollution limits/standards/fishing quotas, sustainable development schemes, alternative/renewable energies, conservation efforts/reserves, etc
• examples of specific negative impacts on stability of ecological systems e.g. overfishing reduces the storage size of targeted fish populations reducing their stability, C emissions lead to climate change that reduces primary productivity of systems, eutrophication will interfere with negative feedback loops in freshwater systems, atmospheric pollutants may eliminate sensitive species of lichen reducing diversity, etc and positive impacts on stability e.g. in-situ conservation protects complexity of relationships in system, agricultural techniques conserving soils maintain high productivity, etc
• balanced analysis of the extent to which human activities promote or prevent destabilisation of ecological systems with acknowledgement of relevant counter-arguments/alternative viewpoints.
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by, analysis and examples given eg "The role of humans in destabilising ecological systems is very diverse, and with the current size and growth of population, the magnitude of that role is becoming immense, calling for urgent and wide-scale efforts to adopt a proactive role in re-stabilising those systems." NB This is only an example of a possible conclusion. Candidates' conclusions do not have to agree. Their value should be assessed simply according to the criteria given in the markband descriptors.
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)
All question bank results loaded