Unit 12 - Essays - Degraded Environments Flashcards
(4 cards)
‘Physical factors are the greatest constraint on improving the quality of degraded environments.’ With reference to one or more examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Climate and physical geography are major limits (Burkina Faso & Mali)
Semi-arid Sahel → low and variable rainfall, high evapotranspiration.
Thin, sandy soils easily degraded; frequent droughts make recovery fragile.
Dry conditions reduce tree regrowth and water retention.
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Physical irreversibility of degradation (Aral Sea)
South Aral Sea too shallow and saline to restore; irreversible desertification.
Aralkum Desert expands, with toxic dust and ecosystem collapse.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Human factors often more limiting (Delhi)
Poor governance, rapid urbanisation, and lack of coordination slow progress.
Solutions (e.g. waste management, river clean-up) are blocked by political delays and corruption, not physical limits.
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Lack of funding and resources more critical (Burkina Faso)
Restoration methods like Zaï pits and agroforestry work but need NGO support.
Without external funding, sustainable land use can’t be scaled.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Physical and human factors often interact
In Mali, water degradation worsens when poor infrastructure meets dry climate.
In Aral Sea region, bad water management + climate stress = collapse.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Physical constraints are serious, especially in semi-arid and desert zones, but human limitations (e.g. funding, governance, cooperation) are often more decisive in whether degraded environments can be improved.
‘Population pressure is the main cause of environmental degradation.’ With reference to one or more rural or urban environments, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Overpopulation drives rural land degradation (Burkina Faso)
High birth rates → over-cultivation, deforestation for fuel, short fallow periods.
Grazing pressure leads to soil compaction and erosion.
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Urban population growth worsens degradation (Delhi)
Rapid growth = overcrowded slums, sewage overflow, traffic emissions.
Air and water pollution tied to high population density.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Mismanagement and poor planning are larger issues (Aral Sea)
River diversion by USSR, not population growth, caused degradation.
Inefficient irrigation and cotton monoculture continue despite population stabilising.
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Physical vulnerability and poverty also matter (Mali)
Climate change + lack of water infrastructure = degraded conditions.
Rural populations grow, but the key constraint is lack of safe water access.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Population multiplies existing problems
Population pressure often accelerates degradation when combined with poor planning or fragile environments.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Population pressure is a major driver, especially in LICs and megacities, but underlying problems like bad governance, climate stress, and poor technology are often more direct causes.
‘There are always solutions to the problems faced in attempts to improve degraded environments.’ With reference to one or more examples, how far do you agree with this statement?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Local-scale solutions are available and effective (Burkina Faso)
Zaï pits, stone bunds, agroforestry = low-cost, replicable.
Evidence of improved yields and soil fertility (e.g. Yatenga).
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Technical fixes can work in urban settings (Delhi)
Waste-to-energy plants, green corridors, sewage upgrades.
Yamuna Action Plan, odd-even car bans show some effect.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Political and economic barriers block scaling up (Aral Sea)
No unified regional water-sharing plan.
South Aral Sea is beyond recovery; solutions only help parts (e.g. Kok-Aral Dam in North).
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Some damage is irreversible or unaffordable (Mali)
Water sources polluted or dried; infrastructure too costly.
Conflict zones prevent NGO access or long-term improvement.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Solutions exist but depend on will, funding, and context
Where community engagement, aid, and tech align → success (e.g., afforestation in Aralkum, Burkina Faso).
Without that, degradation continues despite available solutions.
Conclusion – Judgement:
There are solutions, but they are not always available, affordable, or politically supported. Solutions are context-dependent—not universal.
‘Successful protection of environments at risk depends on overcoming constraints.’ With reference to one or more examples, how far do you agree with this statement?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: When constraints are addressed, success follows (Burkina Faso)
With NGO training and tools, farmers improved fertility using traditional methods.
Constraint = funding and education → once overcome, land restoration works.
Paragraph 2 – Agree: Funding and cooperation enabled revival (Aral Sea – North)
Kok-Aral Dam worked due to international aid and political will.
Fish returned, microclimate improved in parts of Kazakhstan.
Paragraph 3 – Disagree: Failure to overcome constraints leads to poor outcomes (Delhi)
Pollution control hindered by poor coordination and lack of enforcement.
Projects fail when governance and public awareness aren’t addressed.
Paragraph 4 – Disagree: Some constraints are environmental or irreversible (South Aral Sea)
No amount of investment can restore completely dried or salinised land.
Climate and geography limit recovery options.
Paragraph 5 – Mixed: Success is proportional to the scale and type of constraints
Some barriers (e.g. funding, technology) are solvable.
Others (e.g. geopolitical tension, arid climate) are harder to overcome.
Conclusion – Judgement:
Success depends heavily on overcoming key constraints, especially governance, cooperation, and funding, but not all constraints can be overcome—limiting protection in some cases.
