use this markscheme
Indicative content guidance
The indicative content below is not prescriptive and candidates are not required
to include all of it. Other relevant material not suggested below must also be
credited.
Candidates are required to study their local place and a contrasting place, which
may be in the UK, or elsewhere. Answers which do not make detailed reference
to these places are likely to be self-penalising. Large areas lacking a local context
(e.g. London/Ethiopia) are likely to lack the ‘relevance and accuracy’ required for
Level 3 as generalisations will be inevitable. Answers should be marked on their
merits (a ‘London’ answer may build to a more localised discussion).
Answers should focus on deprivation in the two places, and evaluate the
contribution low income makes in each location.
Relevant points may include:
AO1
Deprivation can include economic, social, and environmental criteria.
There are differences in economic activity, which are reflected through
variation in social factors.
An in-depth study of the local place and a contrasting place provide the
context for how and why places vary.
In some regions, economic restructuring has triggered a spiral of decline
with increasing levels of deprivation.
AO2
Deprivation is likely to be discussed through the ‘lack of access’ or ‘living
without’ specific economic, social and other variables. Good answers may
consider the 7 domains of IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation)
Low income should be evaluated as a key reason for deprivation
Other factors should also be considered such as:
Sector and type of employment opportunities, and changes over time.
Government decisions e.g. privatise industry in the past / invest in flagship
regeneration/ provide benefits/subsidise start-ups/improve infrastructure
TNC decisions to relocate/invest in an area
Levels and quality of education available locally and elsewhere
Location: proximity to market/Europe or isolated, or access to physical
resources and infrastructure providing connections to other places.
Tradition e.g. migration seen as route to opportunity
Evaluation should explore the extent to which there is a direct link between
deprivation and low income for either or both chosen places. For example:
Low income can be seen as part of a cycle of deprivation seen through poor
educational achievement, housing, health and for some, crime.
A successful area that undergoes economic growth may not benefit
everybody equally.
Wealth and poverty may be found in close proximity, for complex reasons.
Economic loss is likely to be followed by declines in social/environmental
criteria
Community “grass roots” projects may help reduce deprivation, and be
crucial where government help is limited.
Overall, evaluation is likely to compare the role of income in influencing levels of
deprivation in the places alongside other factors.
use 2021 census data – boscombe and sherborne
and these notes
https://quizlet.com/gb/881703215/regeneration-flash-cards/
these may be of use too
3
(c) For your local place and your contrasting place, evaluate the view that low
income is the most important factor of deprivation. (20 marks)
Sherborne vs Boscombe
Answers
should focus on economic and social deprivation in the two places, and discuss
the links between these and evaluate which are the more important
reasons.
Intro
=
Deprivation
refers to the lack of basic services or objects expected in the 21st Century.
The two types of deprivation are economic deprivation which includes income,
and employment and Social deprivation which includes health, crime, as well as
the quality of the living environment such as the presence of abandoned and
derelict land. Variation in the level of deprivation of places may be
considered through economic and social variables and other factors such
as.
Social
deprivation is composed of two fundamental elements,
in
boscombe is high.
Economic
deprivation is composed of two fundamental elements, income and employment.
Employment is important in creating a healthy local economy. There should be
workers in all sectors of the economy and low unemployment in order to maximise
the positive multiplier effect
However
income is arguably the most significant factor in determining deprivation. This
is evident through the interrelationships between income and social factors/
overall quality of life. For example, Low income may lead to deprivation in
education, health, environment and crime.
This
can be seen as part of a “circle of deprivation”, such as that in Boscombe,
which follows from low incomes.
A
lower income is commonly associated with a lower standard or at least
level of education. However, if your parents or guardians earn less, your
own aspirations and attendance in school may be less, or parents may not
care as much about their child’s education.
Poor
quality housing is likely in less well-off areas like Boscombe and the
houses of multiple occupancy, as incomes are lower. However, higher income
areas such as sherborne often begin to exclude high barriers to housing
which influences social factors.
Health
and quality of life (e.g. life expectancy) may be lower.
Lower
incomes are likely to lead to major differences in opportunity for children and
young people.
Other
=
In
conclusion, There are many interrelationships between economic and social
factors. For example without a strong income life is shit…
Sector
and type of employment
opportunities, and how these have changed. Location (e.g. coastal,
proximity to market/Europe),
physical
resources and infrastructure providing connections to other places.
Government,
business
or international investment or influences. Recession and cuts may reduce
this.
Levels
of education and tradition (e.g. migration seen as route to opportunity).
Social
deprivation follows
on from economic deprivation because:
Low
income may lead to deprivation in education, health and crime.
This
can be seen as part of a “circle of deprivation”, which follows from low
incomes, and can become intergenerational. Poor quality housing is likely
in a less well-off area as incomes are lower. Health and quality of life (e.g.
life expectancy) may be lower. Lower incomes are likely to lead to major
differences in opportunity for children and young people. Social
deprivation can result from economic decline, so a successful area that
undergoes economic change is likely to be followed by social decline
In
regions like Boscombe economic restructuring has triggered a spiral of decline
with increasing levels of social deprivation.
There
are differences in economic activity, which are reflected through variation in
social factors.
An
in-depth study of the local place and a contrasting place provide the context
for how and why places vary.
One
factor of economic deprivation is low income.
Boscombes
spiral of decline was due to seaside decline
P1
= low income
–
more boscombe than sherb
P2
= access to education
–
good – 3 private schools in the area – boys school lots of connections – alan
turing – qatar
In
sherborne 84.6% of the population have some sort of qualification, whereas in
boscombe only 81.2% of the population have some sort of qualification.
P3
= high unemployment
Sherb
= 44.9% employed
Boscombe
= 60.3% employed
P4
= living environment –
barriers to housing and services – house prices are high (25%
above because of the schools – attracts wealthier people – harder for
young people to get on the housing ladder – forced out of area – less
growth for the economy – less workers – rural to urban migration – also
accelerated by the fact there is little to do for young people
Lots old people/ homogeneous population become co-hesive – harder
for minorities
Lots of rich people – mean co-hesive – worsens inequality for
example protest against tesco (a more affordable shop)
Health and deprivation – lots of old people – puts strain on
services
The services are poor such as transport due to it being a rural
town
Conc
=
Sherborne is located in North of Dorset in South west
England. Boscombe is located in the county of Wiltshire south west England
Sherborne population- 10400 (2021)
boscombe population- 10600
AO1
Deprivation
can include all or any of the following themes: economic deprivation includes
income, and employment. Social deprivation includes health, crime, as well as
the quality of the living environment, and the presence of abandoned and
derelict land.
Variation
in the level of deprivation of places may be considered through economic and
social variables and their interrelationships, as well as other factors such as
government investment and infrastructure which determine the function of the
place and therefore differing levels of place attachment and migration trends.
Economic
deprivation, reasons include:
Sector
and type of employment opportunities, and how these have changed.
Location
(e.g. coastal, proximity to market/Europe), physical resources and
infrastructure providing connections to other places.
Government,
business or international investment or influences. Recession and cuts may
reduce this.
Levels
of education and tradition (e.g. migration seen as route to opportunity).
There
are differences in economic activity, which are reflected through variations in
social factors. In regions such as Boscombe economic restructuring has
triggered a spiral of decline with increasing levels of social
deprivation.
Social
deprivation follows on from economic deprivation because:
Low
income may lead to deprivation in education, health and crime. This can be seen
as part of a “circle of deprivation”, which follows from low incomes, and can
become intergenerational.
Poor
quality housing is likely in a less well-off area such as Boscombe where incomes
are lower with only 14.9% in professional work compared to Sherborne where 20.5%
of work is at the professional level despite Boscombe having a greater % of the
population aged 16-64 who are typically economically active. In Boscombe over
70% of residences are aged 16-64 compared to just over 50% in Sherborne however
only 82% of these are employed whereas in Sherborne 86% in this age bracket are employed
Sherborne
wealthier more professional jobs there and more of an elderly population
so payed off mortgages. poor health of elderly
Boscombe diverse community, more ethnically mixed, younger
population, single occupancy homes, less households not deprived. deprivation
is a significant issue despite younger population there is poor health
Boscombe boom to bust
-thrived with the growth of the seaside holiday in 20th
century
-between the wars it was one of Bournemouths
wealthiest areas
-in 1970s 80s there was a decline in traditional
seaside holidays. the areas saw a rise in social problems drug and alcohol
dependency above national average
Regional factors affecting boscombes decline
1974 government reorganisation- didn’t receive enough funding
due to reorganisation of local authorities to make boscombe part of the
bournemouth unitary authority which led to conflicting demands for available
revenue
-centre for drug treatment and addiction.
properties became cheap
-guest houses turned into houses of multiple
occupancy- bringing in lots of people who aren’t earning money and addicted to
drugs creating a cycle of decline as people no longer want to visit on holiday
National factors affecting boscombes decline
-changing perceptions- no longer wanting to go on holiday or
live there
-growth of package holiday companies eg TUI which
makes it cheaper to go abroad. growth of low cost air travel eg easy jet so
decline in tourism and therefore a reduction in revenue
International factors affecting boscombes decline
globalisation- travel is easier, more people know about
different place so tourism abroad instead of in Boscombe
-deindustrialisation
-growth of more international tourist markets
Moreover,
.
Health and quality of life (e.g. life expectancy) may be lower.
Lower
incomes are likely to lead to major differences in opportunity for children and
young people.
Social
deprivation can result from economic decline, so a successful area that
undergoes economic change is likely to be followed by social decline.
Evaluation
should explore whether there is direct “control” between economic and social
deprivation for either or both of the chosen places. Most are likely to agree
that this is the
case.
Other
factors that might be considered are:
Government
investment in interventions like Free School Meals, London Challenge, youth
groups drug rehabilitation and support for young mothers can challenge social
deprivation. And Infrastructure which determines the function of the
place –
which
determine the function of the place and therefore differing levels of place
attachment and migration trends.
Overall,
evaluation is likely to stress the crucial role of the economic strength and
resilience of the places, and the extent to which government intervention has
helped or ignored the needs.
