IB ESS SL 1.3 Sustainability Questions

Practise IB ESS SL 1.3 by comparing ecological footprint with biocapacity and evaluating environmental, social and economic evidence for sustainability.

Exam points

Explain and evaluate sustainability by connecting environmental, social and economic pillars with sustainable development, future generations and evidence-based trade-offs.
Calculate or interpret ecological footprint and biocapacity data, including per-capita reserve or deficit, to judge present and future sustainability.
Interpret named quantitative indicators and trends across local, national or global scales to reach a balanced sustainability judgement.
Evaluate resource-use and development strategies by weighing renewal, regeneration, efficiency, technology, imports or exports, environmental effects and social or economic benefits.
Explain and evaluate environmental justice by comparing unequal pollution or resource burdens and deciding whether local or global action best fits the issue, using case evidence.
Evaluate the usefulness and limitations of ecological-footprint and other indicator models for communicating impacts and informing sustainability decisions.

Covered syllabus points

1.3.1—Sustainability definition 1.3.2—Three pillars of sustainability 1.3.3—Environmental sustainability 1.3.4—Social sustainability 1.3.5—Economic sustainability 1.3.6—Sustainable development 1.3.7—Ecosystem collapse 1.3.8—GDP limitations 1.3.9—Environmental justice 1.3.10—Inequality and resource access 1.3.11—Scales of sustainability and justice 1.3.12—Sustainability indicators 1.3.13—Ecological footprints 1.3.14—Carbon and water footprints 1.3.15—Biocapacity 1.3.16—Citizen science 1.3.17—Sustainability frameworks 1.3.18—UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)1.3.19—Planetary boundaries model 1.3.20—Doughnut economics model 1.3.21—Circular economy model

[Maximum number: 2]

Figure:Human activity on and near Inle Lake

Figure:Agriculture of Inle Lake fact file

- Most people living here are self-sufficient farmers and fishermen.
- Houses are built of wood and bamboo on stilts in the lake.
- Inle carp are a staple food; rice is grown on surrounding hillsides.
- Lotus plants provide fibres for weaving; floating gardens use weed from the lake bottom and grow fruits and vegetables such as tomatoes and cauliflowers.
- Floating gardens rise and fall with water levels and use nutrients from the lake.

Using evidence from the figures showing human activity on and near Inle Lake and the agriculture fact file, explain why the people of Inle Lake have lived sustainably until recently.

[Maximum number: 6]

Figure A:Examples of ecosystems in London

Figure B:Examples of ecosystems in London

Figure:Green spaces in London

Figure:Population of deer in Richmond Park, 2013–2017

Figure:Number of deer removed from Richmond Park, 2013–2017

	London	United Kingdom	World average
Ecological footprint (global hectares per capita)	4.5	4.6	2.8
Biocapacity (global hectares per capita)	0.17	1.20	1.60

Table:Ecological footprints of London, the United Kingdom and the world, 2015

Figure:Underground vertical farm

Figure:Rooftop beekeeping

Figure:Annual mean NOx concentrations in London air, 2016

Figure:Recycling rates in London and England, 2000–2015

Material	Proportion recycled / \%
Plastic	10
Paper	57
Aluminium cans	33
Steel cans	45
Glass	51

Table:Proportions of material recycled in London, 2006

Figure:Fact file on London

• The largest city in England.
• London generates 22 % of the United Kingdom’s economy.
• Population of 8.9 million (2019).
• Natural increase rate was 1.13 % per year (2011–2019).
• 37 % of London’s population are immigrants.
• Electricity is generated in power stations outside London.
• London aims to supply 15 % of its energy by local, renewable sources by 2030.

Figure:Fact file on London as a green city

• 47 % of London is classified as green space.
• 33 % is natural habitat in public open spaces.
• 14 % is private domestic gardens.
• 2 % is rivers, canals and reservoirs.
• It has over 8 million trees.
• It has two national nature reserves, three Special Areas of Conservation, 144 local nature reserves and 1602 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.
• Residential areas near a green space have higher economic value.

Figure:Fact file on Richmond Park

• Richmond Park is a national nature reserve and Special Area of Conservation.
• Approximately 630 red and fallow deer live permanently in the park.
• There are no natural predators for deer in Richmond Park.
• Deer numbers in the park are managed to maintain a sustainable population.
• Deer meat is sold and any profits are reinvested into caring for the deer.

Figure:Urban agriculture in London

• Approximately 9 % of London’s land area is used for agriculture.
• Most commercial farms are on the edges of London, in the “green belt”.
• There is increasing interest in urban agriculture, such as vertical farming and rooftop gardening, including beekeeping.

Vertical farms:
• Vertical farms exist underground and inside empty industrial buildings.
• They produce vegetables such as salad leaves, lettuce, spinach and herbs.
• Compared to traditional UK agriculture, vertical farms use up to 70 % less water and no pesticides.

Urban beekeeping:
• There are over 1000 beekeepers in London.
• There is a higher density of bees in London than in rural areas of the UK.
• London’s bees have more diverse food sources and are healthier than rural bees.
• An 11 km “bee corridor” of wildflowers has been created in north London.

To what extent is London a sustainable city? Refer to the information provided in the resource booklet in your answer.

Sustainable [4 max]:
i. recycling of SDW will reduce CO₂ from decomposition, reducing EF;
ii. recycling of SDW will reduce space required for landfill, reducing EF;
iii. vertical farming increases biocapacity / repurposing brownfield sites/empty industrial buildings means land does not need to be cleared for agriculture (increasing sustainability)/increases productive land area;
iv. urban agriculture reduces importation of food which reduces carbon dioxide emissions from transportation;
v. no pesticides means a reduction in toxification of soil/water, increasing sustainability;
vi. bee-keeping helps protect/raise healthy bees which are needed for biodiversity of plants;
vii. reduction in water use for vertical farming increases sustainability;
viii. air pollution control measures will reduce negative impact on human health and vegetation;
ix. large amount of green space/habitat for biodiversity;
x. aiming to produce 15 % of energy from renewable, local sources, which increases sustainability/reduces EF;
xi. deer are managed to ensure environment remains healthy;
xii. money raised from selling deer meat goes to conservation increasing sustainability/protection of habitat;
xiii. there are over 8 million trees/ 47 % is classified as green space, providing oxygen/ acting as a carbon sink/trees clean air of pollutants, which increases sustainability;

Not sustainable [4 max]:
xiv. EF is larger than biocapacity, which means it is not sustainable;
xv. recycling requires energy and produces air pollution, which increases EF;
xvi. low recycling rates (compared to rest of UK)/lower than 35 %, so not sustainable / only paper and glass have more than 50% recycled;
xvii. growth in population will increase demand for land (housing) and energy, so improvements may be counteracted by increased population;
xviii. green spaces are fragmented / green spaces are divided by urban barriers, so wildlife cannot move freely between habitats;
xix. central London suffers from high levels of air pollution, which is not sustainable;
xx. deer numbers rise rapidly and then crash, suggesting numbers are exceeding carrying capacity, which is not sustainable/habitat is being damaged;
xxi. only aiming for 15 % energy from renewables, which isn't using resources wisely;

Conclusion [1 max]: While many aspects of the urban management of London contribute to its sustainability such as use of vertical farming that helps to conserve water, the vast population in a relatively small area means that its environmental footprint far exceeds the area of the city.

Do not credit 'EF of London is greater than world average EF'. A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument), supported by evidence and makes a clear value judgement. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.
Award [5 max] for both sustainable and non-sustainable reasons.

[Maximum number: 6]

Year	Percentage of forest cover
1940	$76 \%$
1962	54\%
1987	22\%
1998	43\%
2010	53\%

Table:Variation in forest cover in Costa Rica between 1940 and 2010

Figure 8(a): Economic activity (GDP) in Costa Rica by sector

Figure:Economic activity (GDP) in Costa Rica by sector

Figure 8(b): Land used in Costa Rica for pineapple production between 1961 and 2013

Figure:Land used in Costa Rica for pineapple production between 1961 and 2013

Figure 8(d): Growth in international tourism in Costa Rica (1988-2016)

Figure:Growth in international tourism in Costa Rica (1988-2016)

Figure 9(a): Electricity generation in Costa Rica by energy source (1990-2016)

Figure:Electricity generation in Costa Rica by energy source (1990-2016)

Figure 9(b): Total energy consumption in Costa Rica (including electricity) between 1990 and 2016

Figure:Total energy consumption in Costa Rica (including electricity) between 1990 and 2016

Figure 9(c): Consumption of crude oil in Costa Rica by sector (2016)

Figure:Consumption of crude oil in Costa Rica by sector (2016)

Figure 10(b): Ecological footprint and biocapacity per person in Costa Rica (1961-2016)

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity per person in Costa Rica (1961-2016)

- Costa Rica pledged to become carbon neutral by balancing carbon dioxide output with carbon dioxide input.
- Since the mid-1980s, national methane emissions have decreased and a twenty-year ban was placed on oil exploration in 2002.
- Government encourages public transport, lower-emission vehicles, electric/biofuel/hybrid/hydrogen vehicles, renewable electricity and carbon offset schemes.
- The world's first certified carbon-neutral coffee producer was established in Costa Rica.
- For 2017, carbon dioxide emissions per person (1.45 tonnes) were above the regional average for Central America (1.18 tonnes).

forest policy
- PES pays landowners to plant trees in deforested areas and manage land sustainably.
- In 1996, deforestation of mature forest was banned.
- The goal is to achieve 60% forest coverage.

With reference to the information in the resource booklet, to what extent has Costa Rica's aim to become carbon neutral led to a more environmentally-sustainable nation?

Evidence for:
(i) carbon off-setting has increased afforestation/reforestation/tree planting / forestation has increased carbon sinks / forestation has contributed to mitigating climate change/reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels;
(ii) afforestation/reforestation/increase in protected area has increased biodiversity/natural habitat for wildlife;
(iii) afforestation/reforestation has increased natural capital/goods and services;
(iv) most electricity comes from renewable sources of energy rather than non-renewable sources (can be used up / exhaustible) / most electricity comes from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels hence produces less carbon dioxide emissions/has a lower EF;
(v) use of electric/hybrid/biofuel/hydrogen vehicles limits carbon dioxide emissions / increase use of renewables/electric transport could improve air quality in urban areas;
(vi) use of public transport limits individual car use and reduces overall carbon dioxide emissions/could improve urban air quality/has a lower EF;
(vii) certified carbon neutral coffee farming may mitigate impacts of intensive (cash crops) agriculture / certified carbon neutral coffee farming may support businesses which have a smaller carbon footprint;

Evidence against:
(viii) there are emissions of other greenhouse gases from farming (eg methane from cattle/beef production / nitrous oxide from using fertilizers or manure);
(ix) increase in land area used for intensive agriculture (pineapples) reduces biodiversity;
(x) there is high use of fossil fuel / transport sector depends on fossil fuels / the transportation of importing fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide;
(xi) ecological footprint (EF) is beyond the carrying capacity / EF is greater than biocapacity;
(xii) despite increased forestation the biocapacity has continued to decline which is not sustainable / biocapacity still appears to be declining which is not sustainable;
(xiii) large tourism numbers may cause damage to the environment eg roads may fragment habitats / building development for tourism may lead to habitat destruction;
(xiv) tourists that travel to Costa Rica can produce high levels of greenhouse gases/carbon dioxide emissions through plane travel;
(xv) growth in agriculture leads to deforestation / there is still some loss of mature forest to agriculture / difficult to enforce ban on deforestation;
(xvi) in future, the country will eventually run out of space for carbon off-setting by planting trees and therefore this is not a sustainable practice;
(xvii) hydropower has a detrimental effect on the environment eg blocks migratory routes for fish, causes siltation behind the dam wall and reduces flow of nutrients/sediments downstream contributing to coastal erosion/lower diversity;
(xviii) (despite carbon zero policy/efforts to reduce $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ levels) the levels of $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ emissions for Costa Rica are above the regional average;

Conclusion/opinion:
For example: Although Costa Rica produces most of its electricity from renewable sources, non-renewable resources are still used eg oil which is a finite resource and is not sustainable for the future;
Despite reducing loss of forest/increasing sinks for carbon, the biocapacity continues to decline and hence overall Costa Rica is not sustainable; While Costa Rica still has some issues relating to emissions of GHGs through agriculture/transport, it is moving in the right direction towards environmental sustainability with its tree planting campaigns/increase in protected areas and cleaner air due to renewable energy sources;

Award up to [4] for evidence for and up to [4] for evidence against; [5] maximum across both sides. Award up to [1] for a supported conclusion.
Do not credit only 'PES results in more tree planting'.
A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) and supported by evidence. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.
Accept other reasonable responses supported by the information in the resource booklet.

[Maximum number: 3]

Figure:Fact file on Switzerland’s dairy farms

• There were over 27000 dairy farms in Switzerland in 2022, which produced 4 billion kg of milk per year.
• The average farm has 26 cows and is often family owned and operated.
• Cows have both cultural and tourism value in the Alps.
• Cows are taken to the alpine meadows for grazing in the summer, and down to the valleys for shelter during the winter.
• Methane gas from cow digestion contributes $6.2 \%$ of Switzerland's total greenhouse gas emissions.
• When cows eat fresh grass from alpine meadows, methane emissions are reduced when compared to eating hay (dried plants).
• Alpine meadows are carbon sinks.
• The Swiss dairy industry involves local production, processing and consumption.
• In 2021, wolves killed six calves in Vaud and two adult cows in Graubünden.

With reference to Figure 7, explain how Swiss dairy farming can be considered sustainable.

a. farms are small and most are family-owned which supports the local economy/creates jobs in the local community / dairy farming supports local/rural economies (economically sustainable) / production and processing is local which contributes to the local economy;
b. Farms are small/family owned which maintains traditions/culture of Switzerland/is socially sustainable;
c. Cattle are moved each season to a different location allowing for grasses/soil to recover/preventing overgrazing/preventing soil erosion (increasing environmental sustainability);
d. Grazing in the alpine meadows/eating grass produces less methane/GHG emissions (than eating hay) (increasing environmental sustainability);
e. Alpine meadows used for dairy farming are carbon sinks (increasing environmental sustainability);
f. Production, processing and consumption are local, reducing $\mathrm{CO}_{2} / \mathrm{GHG}$ from transport (increasing environmental sustainability);
g. Eating locally produced food reduces the ecological footprint/enhances food security (of Switzerland) (increasing environmental sustainability);

Note to examiners: Do not accept a 'reduction in pollution/emissions'. Do not accept 'cows provide cultural value/tourism that generates income'. Do not accept 'small/family farms are more ethical'.

[Maximum number: 6]

Figure:Tavy — traditional slash-and-burn agriculture in Madagascar

Figure:Agroforestry — an alternative to traditional tavy farming

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity per person in Madagascar

Figure:Deforestation hotspots within MaMaBay in 2009

Figure:Tourism multiplier effect

Figure:Fact file on Madagascar

- Figure: Fact file on Madagascar: Madagascar is the fourth largest island in the world and had about 24 million people in 2016.
- Crude birth rate was 32.1 per 1000 and crude death rate 6.7 per 1000 in 2016.
- Main employment sectors are agriculture, fisheries and forestry; most people rely on traditional subsistence farming.
- Forests are cleared for traditional farming, valuable timber and charcoal; soil erosion is serious, with up to 363 tonnes/ha/year lost in some areas.

Figure:Fact file on MaMaBay

- Figure: Fact file on MaMaBay: MaMaBay includes Makira and Masoala National Parks and Antongil Bay.
- Forest within the Antongil Bay watershed contains about 50% of the island biodiversity.
- Antongil Conservation aims to preserve forest diversity, develop ecotourism, and create alternative farming methods/income for local people.
- The bay has 11 whale species, 19 shark species, over 110 fish species and 3 turtle species, and is an important humpback whale breeding ground.
- Threats include high/illegal fishing, mangrove depletion and sediment from river inputs.

Figure:Fact file on ecotourism

Madagascar biodiversity makes it attractive for ecotourism. The tourist industry was predicted to grow 1.1% per year and support 912000 jobs, 13.2% of total employment, by 2025.

To what extent could development away from traditional lifestyles lead to greater sustainability in Madagascar?

Arguments for development away from traditional lifestyles:
reduction in tavy agriculture would reduce deforestation/carbon dioxide emissions/soil erosion/soil degradation/ tavy is unsustainable because it results in loss of trees/carbon dioxide emissions/soil erosion/soil degradation / increase in alternative practices e.g. agroforestry could increase sustainability by reducing soil degradation/reducing soil erosion/increasing carbon sink; increase in tourism services could increase investment in conservation / establishing more national parks (to increase tourism) would limit deforestation/protect wildlife; increase in service industry could reduce dependency on agriculture e.g. tavy; increase education opportunities lead to better environmental awareness; increased use of family planning/smaller family sizes could reduce population growth and potentially in the long term lower Madagascar's ecological footprint; migration from rural areas will reduce impact in these areas; traditional beliefs that aye-aye are evil/bring bad luck/pests and should be killed could negatively impact their population/increase their risk of extinction; alternative energy sources such as solar/wind power could be more sustainable than the traditional use of charcoal / use of renewable energy does not deplete resources (e.g. wood/fossil fuels)/produces lower emissions of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases;

Arguments against:
use of alternative farming methods such as intensive farming could lead to soil degradation/loss of nutrients from soil/increase in runoff containing pesticides/nutrients damaging habitats;
migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase deforestation to build more housing;
development of tourist resort/urbanisation could increase loss of mangrove forest/increase edge effect;
migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase water stress in those areas; migration to/growth of urban/tourist centres could increase discharges of sewage effluent that have a negative impact in those areas / sewage waste from tourism could damage reef systems/cause eutrophication within aquatic systems; urbanization/growth of tourist centres could reduce biocapacity/amount of productive land;
increase in tourism/urbanisation could lead to more roads that damage/fragment habitats;
tourism could increase damage to coral reefs through boat anchors/trampling; country does not have systems in place to manage higher levels of solid domestic waste production from tourism / increased littering/waste disposal from tourism could damage habitats/species;
ecological footprint has stayed relatively stable (since 1961);
change in lifestyle is likely to increase consumerism/ecological footprint;
it would take time for land/forest that has been degraded (e.g. through tavy) to become suitable for agroforestry;
food production may become less localized/more intensive;
fewer farmers could lead to dependency on importation of food;

Balanced conclusion (example):
change to agroforestry is likely to increase sustainability but it is not so clear that ecotourism will;

Award up to [4] for arguments for and up to [4] for arguments against, with [5] maximum across both; award up to [1] for a supported conclusion.
A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) and supported by evidence.
Accept other reasonable responses that link changes in lifestyle to sustainability.

[Maximum number: 5]

Climate change is an environmental issue of global concern. Outline one other environmental issue and explain why it is a global problem.

name (e.g. ozone depletion / biodiversity loss / population growth / sustainable development / groundwater depletion/DDT in water);
e.g. Ozone depletion
Outline of issue:
caused by release of CFCs in aerosols/refrigerators / NOx from fossil fuels;
react with ozone to break it up;
causes 'holes' in ozone layer;
lets through ultraviolet/UV radiation;
why it is a global problem:
damaging to wildlife/ecosystems/coral reefs etc.;
...that contribute significantly to global biodiversity;
damaging to marine phytoplankton;
...that is the major primary producer of biosphere;
damaging to human populations around the world;
as it contributes to increased health costs/social and economic impacts of skin cancer and eye damage;
caused by fossil fuel use/increased consumerism of CFC products throughout the world;
and CFCs in MEDCs initially (until Montreal Protocol);
...and still in some LEDCs
e.g. biodiversity loss
Outline of issue:
Biodiversity lost by human activity directly: habitat destruction / pollution / agricultural/urban development / hunting/harvesting;
...and indirectly: global warming / climate change / flooding;
which reduces stability of biosphere;
...and availability of human resources , for example, food/drugs;
why it is a global problem:
Increase in global human population ...;
...leads to development all over the world;
...and increased demands on biotic resources everywhere;
...and higher levels of pollution affecting global systems of atmosphere/oceans;
Survival of ecosystems is important in maintaining global climate;
for example significance of rainforests in managing greenhouse effect;

Marking guidance:

Award [3 max] if either the outline or global argument is omitted.
Award [3 max] if no specific example named, this includes inappropriate examples eg 'pollution' (too broad), 'resource usage' (too vague), 'acid rain' (regional, not global).
If global warming is used as the example award zero credit. However use ecf (error carried forward) for part b and c of the question, if they have reasonable answers and effectively use global warming as the example.

[Maximum number: 6]

Figure:Kākāpō population, 1977 to 2022

Figure:Change in forest cover in New Zealand

Figure:Agriculture on the Canterbury Plains

Figure:Cattle numbers, the Canterbury region, New Zealand, 1990-2019

Population	5.11 million
Total fertility rate	1.86 children per woman
Population growth rate	$1.06 \%$
Life expectancy	82.74 years

Table:Population statistics for New Zealand, 2023

Figure:Main sources of energy used in New Zealand, 2021

Figure:Electricity generation in Terawatt hour (TWh) by source in 2020 and projections for 2035 and 2050

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity for New Zealand (1961-2022)

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity for the World (1961-2022)

With reference to the information in the resource booklet, to what extent can New Zealand be considered to be living sustainably?

Arguments that New Zealand is living sustainably [4 max]:
a. The EF is below the biocapacity of the country and therefore is sustainable;
b. Proportion of energy generated from renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) is high and rising, which reduces GHG emissions/which reduces fossil fuel use;
c. By 2050, all of New Zealand's electricity is projected to be from renewable sources of energy rather than fossil fuels/reducing GHG emissions;
d. New Zealand is attempting to conserve native/endemic species/conservation efforts have increased the numbers of the critically endangered Kākāpō;
e. The EF for NZ is beginning to fall/is decreasing, suggesting that they are trying to live more sustainably;
Arguments that New Zealand is not living sustainably [4 max]:
f. Biocapacity is continuing to decline over time and this is not sustainable in the long term;
g. EF of New Zealand is greater than the overall biocapacity of the world which is not sustainable / New Zealand's ecological footprint per capita remains high (approx. 5 gha/person), indicating overconsumption compared to global sustainable limits ( $\sim 1.6$ gha/person) / EF of New Zealand is much higher than the world average, which suggests they are consuming resources at a high/unsustainable rate;
h. 59%/majority of energy used by New Zealand comes from fossil fuels, which release GHG/contribute to climate change/are finite/non-renewable;
i. New Zealand imports/uses fuel oil which is not renewable/when used produces CO2 which is a GHG/contributes to climate change;
j. New Zealand has a high level of car ownership which produces carbon dioxide which is a GHG/contributes to climate change/contributes to photochemical smog;
k. Continued reliance on high-emission sectors (e.g. agriculture and transport) makes emissions reduction more difficult (despite renewable electricity progress);
l. Livestock farming has grown significantly over time contributing to methane production/water pollution;
m. Intensive (arable) farming uses fertilizers which can lead to eutrophication of rivers / intensive arable farming use pesticides which can pollute rivers/kill non-target organisms/cause soil/water toxification / intensive farming has a heavy use of machinery which results in the combustion of fossil fuels/releases $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ ;
n. New Zealand has lost large areas of forest/deforestation which has increased the risk of soil erosion/loss of habitats/loss of endemic species/loss of biodiversity/loss of a carbon sink;
o. Introduced predator species/invasive species continue to threaten the biodiversity of New Zealand;
p. Some species cannot survive without continued human intervention;
q. Population/immigration is increasing and therefore there will be a greater demand for resources in the future;
r. A high proportion of NZ's (endemic) species are threatened or at risk which suggests they are not living sustainably/that conservation measures have not been successful;

Conclusion [1 max]
For example: Although the ecological footprint for New Zealand is below its biocapacity which makes it appear sustainable, its use of imported oil/fossil fuels means the country is not truly sustainable;

Award [5 max] for pros and cons combined; reserve one mark for the conclusion.
A valid conclusion should be credited if it is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) supported by evidence and makes a clear value judgement. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.
Accept other reasonable responses supported by the information in the resource booklet.

[Maximum number: 1]

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity for New Zealand (1961-2022)

Outline a reason why the ecological footprint of New Zealand has changed between 1961 and 2022, as shown in Figure 8.

a. EF has declined due to reduction in consumption of goods/materials/extraction of virgin materials/fossil fuels;
b. EF has declined due to reduction in waste production due to waste minimization/recycling materials/reusing materials;
c. EF has declined due to reduction in pollution/ $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ emissions due to more efficient manufacture methods/transport/more stringent legislation/reduction in use of fossil fuels/incorporation of more sustainable agricultural practices;
d. EF has declined due to an increase in renewable energy sources;
e. EF has declined due to people switching to diets with a lower impact on GHG emissions;

[Maximum number: 3]

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity for New Zealand (1961-2022)

Figure:Ecological footprint and biocapacity for the World (1961-2022)

With reference to Figures 8(a) and 8(b), compare and contrast the ecological footprint and biocapacity between New Zealand and the World.

All question bank results loaded

Covered syllabus points

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9