MGS 2026 GEOG PRELIM P1 MS

1 METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL Founded in 1887 PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION 2026 Secondary 4 GEOGRAPHY Paper 1 Friday 2279/01 21 August 2026 1 hour 45 minutes MARK SCHEME

2 Answer all questions. 1 Cluster 1: Geography in Everyday Life A group of students carried out fieldwork at Mount Bromo National Park, Indonesia. Mount Bromo is an active volcano that attracts many tourists each year. The students were concerned that increasing tourist numbers may damage the fragile volcanic environment. The students tested the following hypothesis: 'The environmental quality of viewpoints at Mount Bromo decreases as the number of tourists increases.' Study Fig. 1.1 (Insert), which shows the tourist area around Mount Bromo. (a) The students decided to carry out a visitor survey on the environmental quality of Bromo National Park at the six viewpoints shown in Fig. 1.1. (i) With reference to Fig. 1.1, explain how the students could sample tourists at the viewpoints to collect the data needed to test their hypothesis. [4] Award 1 mark for each explanation, to a maximum of 4 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each explanation where applicable. ● Many did not explain how to use sampling methods ● Convenience sampling – why? ● Stratified sampling – relevance of age/gender to the hypothesis? ● Many did not explain the reason for using a particular sampling method ● “go to different viewpoints” – which? Possible responses include: ● Students could collect data at all six viewpoints shown in the figure [1]. This allows students to make comparisons between different viewpoints [1 additional mark]. ● Students could use simple random sampling as it is used to remove bias that could stem from the selection of visitors [1]. ● Students can collect data from 10 visitors at each viewpoint by using a random number table to select the visitors [1]. Surveying an equal number of people allows for a fair comparison across viewpoints [1]. AO2 (ii) With reference to Fig. 1.1, state three questions and response options which the students could use for a closed-ended survey to test the hypothesis. [3] Award 1 mark for each suitable question with response options. ● Max. 1m for answers with no response options ● “Where is this viewpoint?” A, B, C, D, E, F ● Open vs closed-ended questions ● On a scale of 1-5, how dirty is this viewpoint? 1: Very dirty, 5: Not dirty Possible responses include: Question: On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate the overall environmental quality at this viewpoint? □ 1 – very good

3 □ 2 – good □ 3 – average □ 4 – poor □ 5 – very poor Question: How much litter did you observe at this viewpoint? □ None □ A little □ Quite a lot □ A lot Question: On a scale of 1 to 5, how crowded is this viewpoint? □ 1 – very crowded □ 2 – crowded □ 3 – moderately crowded □ 4 – slightly crowded □ 5 – not crowded at all AO1 (iii) Suggest how the students could improve the reliability of the fieldwork. [4] Award 1 mark for each suggestion. Award 1 additional mark for further development. ● Some wrote about using random sampling to increase reliability This should be the default method! ● Stratified sampling – how is this relevant to hypothesis / area of investigation? ● “Use stratified sampling to increase sample size” Possible responses include: ● Students could take photographs of the environment at each viewpoint [1]. These photographs can be used later to verify the visitors’ responses about the environmental quality of the viewpoint [1 additional mark]. ● Students could repeat the investigation on weekdays and weekends [1]. This makes the findings more representative of visitor patterns [1 additional mark]. ● Students can increase the sample size [1]. With a larger sample size, this will increase the reliability of responses [1]. AO1 (b) The students also assessed the environmental quality at each viewpoint using environmental characteristics shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Environmental quality characteristics Characteristic Amount of litter Vegetation cover Evidence of soil erosion Evidence of trampling Overall environmental quality

4 The students then counted the number of tourists who stopped at each viewpoint over a 20-minute period as shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.2 Environmental quality score and number of tourists at each viewpoint Viewpoint Environmental Quality Score Number of tourists A -5 168 B -2 136 C 4 118 D 8 28 E 1 105 F 7 46 *A higher score indicates better environmental quality. (i) Study Fig. 1.2, which shows the relationship between the environmental quality score and the number of tourists at the six viewpoints. Using Table 1.2 and Fig. 1.2, complete the graph on Fig. 1.2 and draw a best-fit line. 1m for E 1m for F 1m for best fit line ● Some completely missed this question ● Some did not label E and F ● Keep graph clean with relevant points/lines only Fig. 1.2 AO2 (ii) Study Fig. 1.3 (Insert), which shows photographs of Viewpoint A and Viewpoint D.

5 Using Figs. 1.2 and 1.3, evaluate how well the data supports the students' hypothesis. [6] Award 1 mark for each evaluation on how well the data supports the hypothesis, to a maximum of 6 marks. Award a maximum of 1 additional mark for further development of each evaluation, where applicable . ● “The hypothesis is valid” ● Some responses described data in Figures without explaining how the data supports / does not support hypothesis Possible responses include: Support: ● The data supports the students' hypothesis because as the environmental quality score increases, the number of tourists decreases [1]. For example, Viewpoint A has the lowest environmental quality score (-5) and the highest number of tourists (168), while Viewpoint D has the highest environmental quality score (8) and the lowest number of tourists (28) [1 additional mark]. ● The photographs in Fig. 1.3 support the hypothesis [1]. Fig. 1.3 shows that Viewpoint A is crowded with a lot of littering and land pollution, whereas Viewpoint D has fewer tourists and healthier vegetation with little evidence of environmental damage [1 additional mark]. Don’t support: ● However, the hypothesis is not completely supported because Viewpoint C is an anomaly . [1] ● Although it has a relatively high environmental quality score of 4, it still has 118 tourists, which is more than expected based on the overall trend . This suggests that other factors besides tourist numbers that may affect environmental quality [1 additional mark]. AO3 [Total: 20]

6 2 Cluster 2: Tourism (a) Study Fig. 2.1 (Insert), which shows tourism expenditure by different groups of visitors in Kyoto, Japan in 2019. (i) Using Fig. 2.1, describe the trend in tourism expenditure in 2019. [3] Award 1