IB ESS HL 3.003.9 Perspectives and Strategy Choice

[Maximum number: 9]

Justify the role of different environmental value systems (EVSs) in deciding between species based and habitat based conservation strategies.

Answers may demonstrate:
• understanding concepts & terminology of ex situ/in situ conservation; ecocentric/anthropocentric and technocentric value systems; biorights; intrinsic value; deep ecology; cornucopian values; stewardship; keystone species; flagship species; reserves; zoos; breeding/re-introduction programmes; gene banks; etc
• breadth in addressing and linking a range of in situ/ex situ conservation strategies with different value systems/perspectives on the nature of living things/species.
• examples of different value systems; different perspectives on living things and different in situ & ex situ conservation strategies.
• balanced analysis evaluating the relative merits and demerits of different value systems and their perspectives on in situ v ex situ conservation.
• a conclusion that is consistent with, and supported by analysis and examples given e.g. While ecocentrics are more likely to value the hands-off approach possible with in situ conservation there are certain cases where a natural habitat is so degraded the only way forward for conserving a given species is the more technocentric ex situ conservation.

The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria 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 (official MS p18)

IB ESS HL 3.3.9 Perspectives and Conservation Strategy Choice Questions

Exam points

IB ESS HL 3.3.9 Perspectives and Conservation Strategy Choice Questions question 1