Level 1 (1-6 marks)
Describes the social and/or economic effects of flooding. Information likely to be generic – case study named only. Some similarities/differences apparent at top end. Separate accounts.
Level 2 (7-12 marks)
Description of effects of floods is more specific and precise – begins to distinguish between social and economic or this is implicit. Information relates to case studies – ‘rings true’ – some support. Begins to comment – may be tentative/implicit. May be imbalanced to one area and/or category. Similarities/differences are clear.
Level 3 (13-15 marks)
Precise similarities/differences of effects of flooding – distinguishes between social and economic effect explicitly. A balanced account – of areas and categories. Case studies are used in support – reference to facts/figures. Comment is explicit and perceptive.
Candidate A – L3 Answer
The flooding in Carlisle 2005 and in Bangladesh 1998 both had damaging effects. Carlisle being an MEDC suffered relatively more economic damage and was also generally better positioned to cope with the flooding than Bangladesh which suffered both heavy economic damage but particularly high ‘social’ impacts.
In Carlisle only 3 people died due to the flooding whereas in Bangladesh 1070 people died because infrastructure and early warning systems were not there to mount a successful rescue attempt. In Carlisle 3000 were made homeless for up to 12 months and their lives disrupted by being cut off from their usual transport facilities and community networks etc. but in Bangladesh over 30 million were made homeless. This was partly because of the scale of the flooding was worse in Bangladesh but also the flood generally affected peoples’ lives more. Although there was an increased reportage of stress related illnesses in Carlisle such as depression and insomnia the impact must have been much greater in Bangladesh with many losing their entire livelihoods – 670000 hectares of farmland was destroyed. In Bangladesh dead bodies…