2025 JPJC Prelim P2 Answer Scheme

H2 Geography Paper 2 Suggested Answers Section A Cluster 4 Fieldwork 1 A group of 12 students decided to investigate the flood risk in Bangkok, Thailand. More specifically, they were keen to understand the threat experienced by people in different flood risk zones. They visited fifteen households in each flood risk zone over three days —Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—and interviewed one member from each household using a questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire were then compared across the three flood risk zones. Resource 1 shows the flood risk zones in Bangkok, Thailand. Resource 2 shows the questionnaire used in the investigation. Resource 3 shows the results of Question 6c in the questionnaire compared between the three flood risk zones. . (a) Suggest a suitable hypothesis for the fieldwork investigation and state two reasons why it is at a suitable scale. [3] Award 1 mark for suitable hypothesis for the fieldwork investigation Award 1 mark for each reason why the investigation is at a suitable scale, to maximum of 2 marks. • Hypothesis: “Residents living in higher flood risk zones in Bangkok are more likely to experience severe flood-related threats.” • The study is conducted at a local scale within Bangkok, allowing manageable comparison of three distinct zones by a group of 12 students. • The scope focuses on perception and impact at household level, which is appropriate for student-led data collection using questionnaires. (b) With reference to Resource 1, explain the benefits of collecting data at the three sites shown. [4] Award 1 mark for each explanation of the data collecting benefits, to maximum of 4 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each explanation, where applicable. • The three sites represent a gradient of flood risk—high, moderate, and low—which allows for a comparative analysis of spatial variation in flood threats. • Coverage of different land uses (e.g., areas near levees, industrial plants, and airport zones) offers varied contexts for interpreting threat perception. • Including the Chao Phraya River floodplain and levee-protected canal areas enables students to assess how proximity to engineered defences influences perceptions. • Data collection across these zones allows the identification of patterns and anomalies, enhancing the analytical depth of the study. (c) Suggest two ethical issues students should consider when conducting this investigation. [5] Award 1 mark for each suggestion of ethical issues when conducting the investigation, to a maximum of 5 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each suggestion, where applicable. • Students must explain the purpose of the study and obtain verbal or written agreement from participants before starting the questionnaire to ensure participants willingly contribute data.

2 • Personal information such as names and addresses should not be recorded or disclosed. Responses should be kept anonymous to protect the privacy and dignity of the individuals surveyed. (d) Suggest how students can improve their sampling for the investigation. [6] Award 1 mark for each suggestion on how to improve the sampling for the investigation, to a maximum of 6 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each suggestion, where applicable. • Divide each flood risk zone into smaller sub-areas (e.g., near levees vs further inland) and ensure proportional representation from each, improving coverage and reducing location bias. • A larger sample size (e.g., 25–30 per zone) enhances statistical reliability and reduces the influence of outliers or unrepresentative responses. • Ensure representation across key demographic groups (e.g., elderly, families with children, business owners) so findings better reflect differences in vulnerability and perception across population segments. • Rather than choosing households by convenience, students could survey every nth house (e.g., every 5th house along a street), reducing bias in selection and increasing objectivity. • Survey at different times of the day and week including weekends and evenings allows students to reach working individuals who may not be available during weekday hours. (e) Explain the strengths and limitations of the questionnaire shown in Resource 2. [6] Award 1 mark for each explanation of a strength or a limitation. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each explanation. Award a maximum of 2 marks for explanation of either strength or weakness only. • Questions such as 6c use a Likert scale, allowing quantifiable data for analysis and comparison across zones. • The inclusion of open-ended Q5 provides qualitative insights into residents’ comparative perceptions beyond their own zone. • The structure includes both objective and subjective elements, covering past experiences and future expectations. • Some questions (e.g., Q2) rely on respondent’s personal understanding of flood risk, which may be inaccurate or uninformed. • The questionnaire lacks socio-demographic data (e.g., age, income, household size), limiting the ability to identify vulnerable groups. • Questions on impacts (e.g., 6a–6h) may produce overlapping or ambiguous interpretations without clear definitions of terms (e.g., “services”). (f) Using Resource 3, explain what the results suggest about the threat experience of the people living in each of the three zones. [6] Award 1 mark for each explanation of the threat experience, to a maximum of 6 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each explanation, where applicable. • All 5 respondents from the high-risk zone rated flood threat to internal house/property as “1 – Very unlikely”, which contradicts the official classification of high flood risk and suggests a very low perceived threat despite the high hazard zoning. • This perception may be influenced by visible or effective mitigation infrastructure, such as the levee near Khlong Prapa or engineered defences in Ayutthaya, which instils confidence in flood protection.

3 • All respondents in the moderate-risk zone gave no ratings at either extreme (“5 – Very likely” or “1 – Very unlikely”), which may indicate uncertainty or low awareness of flood threats in their area, reflecting a lack of direct experience or exposure to flood events. • In the low-risk zone, one respondent rated the likelihood of internal flooding as “5 – Very likely”, while two others rated it as “1 – Very unlikely”, suggesting a wide variation in threat perception among residents despite being in the same risk zone. (g) Evaluate the effectiveness of this investigation in understanding the threat experienced by people in different flood risk zones. [10] Possible Approaches: Candidates could use Resource 3 to judge how well the questionnaire reflects actual flood threat. While the Likert-scale allows quantifiable comparison, results such as all high-risk respondents selecting “very unlikely” and one low -risk respondent choosing “very likely” reveal a mismatch with official flood risk (Resource 1), limiting accuracy in capturing real experiences. Sampling weaknesses — only 15 per zone, no demographic data, and weekday-only collection—further reduce representativeness and reliability. Nonetheless, the investigation has strengths, including clear spatial comparison across zones and structured indicators of perception. Stronger responses should note, however, that the lack of triangulation with physical evidence (e.g. past flood events, elevation, drainage) restricts validity. Improvements would require larger, more representative samples and integration of both perception and physical data. Levels marked using Generic Level Descriptors for H2 fieldwork evaluative questions.