2025 VJC prelim P2 SMG

VICTORIA JUNIOR COLLEGE JC2 PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION P2 2025 H2 GEOGRAPHY PAPER 2 9173/02 MARK SCHEME Section A Qn Answer Marks 1 (a) Explain one strength and one weakness of the hypothesis. Award 1 mark per identification of strength of weakness and an additional mark for elaboration of each strength and weakness. Some possible answers Strength The hypothesis is measurable, since residents’ perceptions of whether nature- based flood management features (like bioswales) lower flood risk can be directly surveyed. It connects local experiences to the park’s design purpose, providing valuable insight into community confidence in flood mitigation. Weakness [Lack awareness] Residents may lack awareness and knowledge of the nature based flood management features in the park , so their views may not accurately indicate the effectiveness of the features. [Lack of objectivity/ recency effect] Perceptions may be influenced by recent rainfall events or flooding experiences, rather than effectiveness of the nature based flood management features. [Indirect link to effectiveness of nature -based flood management features] The hypothesis is about residents’ feelings of safety, which may not directly correspond with the actual functioning of nature -based flood management features. [Sampling bias] Responses might not represent the whole community (e.g., only vocal residents respond, or newer residents may not have experienced past flooding). Accept any other plausible response. AO1 [4] 1 (b) With reference to Resources 1 and 2, explain the usefulness of conducting a site audit. [4] Award 1 mark per usefulness, up to a maximum of 2 mark per use identified. [Keeping a record / site familiarisation ] A site audit allows the students to systematically record the location, type, and condition of flood management features in the park. [1] In this investigation, it helped them identify and map bioswales before the wet-day visit, ensuring they knew exactly where to return

for follow-up observations. [1] This increases the efficiency and focus of the wet-day fieldwork and ensures data is collected from the same sites for direct comparison. [Basis of comparison] The audit also provides a baseline record of dry -day conditions,[1] which can be compared against wet-day observations. [1] [Provide context] The audit also gives context for interpreting survey results, [1] as students can relate residents’ perceptions to the actual presence and condition of flood management features in the park.[1] AO1 1 (c) Describe some risks the students could have encountered in conducting the geographical investigation and suggest how these risks can be minimised. [6] Award 1 mark per risk identified, 1 mark for elaboration of risk, and 1 mark per suggestion. Most risks are to occur on the wet day, particularly due to intermittent rain. Wet ground surfaces may result in slipping: • Risk: During the wet-day visit, paths and grassy areas near bioswales could be slippery, increasing the chance of injury. • Minimization: Wear appropriate footwear with good grip and avoid steep, muddy, or waterlogged slopes. Exposure to intermittent rain and rising water levels in Alkaff Lake: • Risk: The intermittent rain on the wet day may not be light, and water levels in the lake may rise faster than expected. This puts the student at risk. • Minimization: The students should watch out for the public broadcast system in case a warning comes on, and be ready to move to higher ground. 3. Interaction with wildlife or insects • Risk: Working near marshes and wetlands may bring students into contact with mosquitoes, bees, or snakes. • Minimisation: Apply insect repellent, remain vigilant, and avoid disturbing wildlife habitats. AO1 1 (d) Explain the limitations of the sampling method used by the students. [4]

Award 1 mark for each limitation identified and 1 mark for each elaboration, up to a maximum of 2 marks. (Accept 2 or 3 limitations) [Sampling bias] Convenience sampling only surveys people who are easily accessible — in this case, park users. [1] This means the results may not represent the views of all Bidadari Estate residents, especially those who rarely visit the park.[1] [Lack of representation] Because the sample is drawn from the park, it may over-represent certain groups [1] (e.g., younger or more active residents) and under-represent others (e.g., elderly residents or those living farther away), reducing the representativeness of the findings.[1] [Recency effect on perceptions] The opinions collected may reflect the immediate experiences of park visitors rather than broader perceptions of flood risk in the community, [1] which can limit the validity of conclusions about residents’ overall attitudes toward nature-based flood management, especially since the surveys were carried out on a dry day.[1] AO1 1 (e) Using Resource 3, suggest 3 improvements to the questionnaire survey. [6] Award 1 mark per identified flaw and 1 mark per suggestion. [Clearer demographic profile for efficiency of analysis] Instead of just “Gender/Age,” ask for specific categories (e.g., Male/Female/Other, and age ranges like 18–25, 26–40, etc.).[1] This allows for easier analysis and comparison of responses across different demographic groups.[1] [Assumptions of prior knowledge in Q2] “Do you think Bidadari Park is designed differently from other parks in Singapore?” assumes all park users know what other Singapore parks are like. [1] This could be turned into an open ended question instead, to allow for respondents to suggest some differences they could have noticed. A possible question could be: Which aspects of Bidadari Park’s design do you find unique or different? [Variable interpretation of options] For Q5/6, the options provided are quite subjective, and each respondent could have different interpretations of the options. As much as possible, students should actually quote the questions that need improvements. AO2 1 (f) Using a suitable data representation method, present the results to Question 6 in the questionnaire survey in Resource 4 and justify your choice. [6]

Award 1 mark each of title, both axes, legend, up to a total of 2 marks. Award 1 marks for accuracy of graph drawing, and 1 mark for overall shape. Comparison: It allows easy comparison of the number (or percentage) of respondents in each category. Visibility: You can clearly see which perception is most common (e.g., “Effective”) and which is least common (“Very ineffective”). Simplicity: Respondents’ perceptions are easy to interpret visually without implying exact numerical differences between categories. AO2 1 (g) Evaluate the validity of this study in assessing how nature -based flood management features have lowered flood risk in Bidadari estate. [10] Validity (does it answer the hypothesis?) • The study focuses directly on nature-based flood management features (bioswales, marshlands, wetlands, retention pond) in Bidadari Park, which are relevant to the hypothesis. • Studying flood risk perception of residents aligns with the hypothesis about how residents feel about these features. • Observing bioswales on both dry and wet days provides insight into how water is actually managed and how visible the effects of flood mitigation are under different conditions. Weaknesses: • Limited scope of features: Focusing only on three bioswales may not capture the effectiveness of the park’s full flood management system (e.g., Alkaff Lake, marshlands, terraced wetlands). This could reduce validity because results may not generalize to the whole park or its effect on the wider Bidadari Estate.

• Indirect measurement of flood reduction: Observing bioswales and pooling gives an indi