TOP HOMEWORKS


This is no top homework - it is a model answer of sorts!!!

Just seen typo on Katrina - but can't be bothered to reset it - 1836 dead as per document 12 months after the event
Model_answer_Katrina_Sidr_comp.png

By Nike

Nike.png

Factors affecting the Siting Factories by Francesca Morphakis

When siting a factory, it is very important to consider a number of factors. Some of these factors could be categorised as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors as they either attract or turn away prospective industry construction and placement. Most aspects taken into consideration are carefully reviewed so as to minimise costs and boost revenue, however, which attributes are prioritised depends on what the factory plans to produce.
Firstly, being situated near raw materials essential for production, for example wood, is very important for heavy industries as they rely on receiving the materials, transforming them into the finished product and then selling them. The further away these bulky raw materials are, the higher the transport costs and therefore the higher the costs of production, decreasing total profit. Hence heavy industries attempt to locate close to the raw materials they depend on. For footloose or light industries (usually high-tech), this is not a constraint and they can, in this aspect, locate anywhere as they aren’t relying on a source of raw materials for production.
Energy was, during the years of the industrial revolution and before the wide scale use of electricity, an important factor to consider; machines require an energy source to work, and when this source was coal, factories would locate along canals as this was cheaper and quicker. Nowadays, this isn’t a problem as almost everywhere has electricity.
Where the factory will be built is the site. Some sites haven’t ever been used in any form and therefore lack communications or other facilities until the factory and its components are actually built, called a greenfield site. The local council usually develops the infrastructure in this area beforehand in order to attract industry to the out-of-town spaces and relieve congestion and pollution in the inner cities. Greenfield sites can be just as expensive, and more so than brownfield sites. On the other hand, brownfield sites have already been developed and house all the communications and infrastructure needed. This can however, be problematic as the existing building has to either be demolished (higher costs) or instead used as a template in which to fit the new industry.
In addition to this, companies have to consider whether or not there is room for expansion, access to road, rail, air and/or sea communications, depending on what they produce, as well as flat land, as this is easier and cheaper to build on than hilly areas. Light industries usually locate where there is an availability of a skilled workforce, whereas heavy industries tend to target areas where there is a large availability of unemployed, low-skilled workers, who are usually willing to work for less. Additionally, for reasons concerning taxes and transport costs, industries generally like to be near their target market.
When opting for an inner city location or an edge-of-town location, companies must consider the following; space for expansion, modern facilities, congestion, rent, parking, infrastructure, grants and their targeted workforce. An inner city factory will be cramped, (usually) out of date, surrounded by congestion and without ample parking. Edge-of-town locations will be spread out, modern, near good communications, eligible for government grants and near the workforce that live in commuter villages and private housing estates.
Furthermore, different industries, such as the secondary or quaternary ones target different workforces depending on what work they need done. A secondary industry usually requires a large number of low-skilled workers, whereas a quaternary industry demands fewer yet more skilled workers. Quaternary industries tend to locate near universities, as graduates are offered jobs and are happy to stay in the area where all their friends and links are. Secondary industries prefer areas where there are ample numbers of low-skilled (sometimes unemployed) workers who will be willing to work for less pay.
Capital is important for certain industries; those which need lots of money and expensive machines require more capital than others when starting off. Although this doesn’t direct the building of the factory in a certain place, it may be linked to where the company can find this money, for example, an investor.
Government policy can, in many cases, be a deciding factor in the siting of industry. In areas of decline, for example, the local council can attempt to regenerate the area by attracting industries through grants, tax reductions and lower rents. This can be seen in south Wales, where the Welsh Development Agency designated areas as Enterprise and Development Areas with Government funding leading to the development of five science parks (where quaternary industries are based) and creating 3000 new jobs; the attraction being financial incentives.
The environment that houses the industry plays an important part concerning image. A well landscaped, new factory attracts clients and workers, who see professionalism and prosperity. Additionally, workers are more likely to want to live in a clean, interesting area with leisure activities.
Finally, different industries require different modes of transport, depending on what they are producing. TNCs and heavy industries are most likely to use the sea to import raw materials or to export goods internationally, whereas footloose industries rely more on air travel, as they produce expensive products anyway, so the extra cost of the air fare is not an issue. Road transport is used by the tertiary industry to deliver products to their markets. Rail is the preferred mode of transport for finished products and has become increasingly popular following the environmental campaigns and awareness. Additionally, siting the factory near to motorways, airports and ports is an easy way of cutting transport costs to and from the factory to the airport or port.


This was not really supposed to be part of the homework, but I thought it was a really useful thing to have as reference!
By Mercedes
What is the informal economy? Give examples of where it happens and why.
Informal economy is economic activity that is not monitored by the government or taxed.
In low income countries the informal employment is often in mines, garment factories, picking through garbage for recyclables, etc. In high income countries the informal employment is mostly baby sitting, house cleaning, after school child minding, etc.
Here are two examples for informal employment. In China there are people that wait around on street corners with a bag of tools, such as carpentry tools or paintbrushes. They wait for someone to come and ask them to help paint a wall or put up a shelf. They will follow that person home, do the job and get paid immediately in cash. In Bangladesh, a person with a sewing machine will sit on a busy street waiting for people to pass by and offer to repair their clothes. Informal employment happens because some people are not skilled enough for example they don’t have the necessary qualifications or because they work seasonal jobs or temporary jobs, such as fruit picking. They are usually paid so little that they can’t even pay the tax that is required.


By Ross
With reference to particular examples, explain how and why economic activity changes between places and times. (9) The primary sector decreases in size the higher the GDP of a country, e.g. Afghanistan (80% primary), Malaysia (13%) and Australia (4%).
The Secondary sector is odd; it starts low in LIC’s, rises in MIC’s and then decreases again in HIC’s. This is because; as a country develops it stops selling raw materials cheaply and uses them itself. Therefore becoming richer, the primary sector becomes mechanized, so more people become available for the secondary sector. Then usually when a country becomes a HIC the secondary sector becomes mechanized, pushing people to work in the tertiary sector. E.g. Afghan (10% secondary), Malaysia (36%), Australia (21%). The tertiary sector increases in size the higher the GDP of a country. E.g. Afghan (10% tertiary), Malaysia (55%), Australia (75%).
Over time a country’s economy changes, for example take UK. In 1800, 75% of its economy was primary, but over the years has become mechanized, therefore in 2000 it was 4%. The secondary sector is like a camel’s hump; in 1800 it made up around 15% of the economy, then peaked at 55% in 1900 and in 2000 it was at 27%. This is mainly because during the 1900’s UK produced most of it consumer products inside its own country, but when companies realized it would be cheaper to set up a factory in a different country, the costs would go down. So now most of UK’s manufacturing is done abroad. The tertiary sector has risen from 10% (1800) to 70%(2000), the main reason for this being, both of the others sectors are always reducing their jobs because of mechanization.


By Mercedes


1. Explain why people choose to remain in places where there is a risk from tectonic events.
People choose to remain in places where there is a risk from tectonic events because they may have links to family members and friends, links to culture and religion. They will also probably have local work and it is not always easy to find work elsewhere. Their work may be related to a local industry or local resources, such as tourism, fishing, mining, farming and so on. The land may be rich and fertile for farming. The climate might be good with adequate rainfall and sunshine. They may simply lack the money to move.
An example of people living near a volcano is near Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines. People live near Mount Pinotubo because the land around the volcano is very good for farming because of the volcanic ash and lava that has been deposited there. Another example is in the city of San Francisco which lies on the San Andreas fault line. People live there because it is a comfortable and interesting place to live with good transportation, many cultural activities and museums; it is very beautiful and the climate is good. Also each earthquake has brought safety improvements and buildings there have never been safer.
2. Explain how a country’s level of development might influence the impacts that
storms have on people. Give examples.
A country’s level of development influences the impact that storms have on people because in a poor country the damage will probably be much worse in the first place because building standards are not as high as in developed countries. Then the damage will take much longer to repair as the resources for rebuilding are not available like they would be in a richer country. Another reason might be that there are no early warning systems in poorer countries and little safety measures, such as evacuation procedures and disaster drills to allow people to prepare for a storm’s impact. After the storm has hit, the poorer countries are less able to organize relief efforts to get water and food to the people affected or to temporarily house the homeless. For example, Hurricane Ike hit both Texas in the United States and Haiti but the effect on Haiti was so much worse because Haiti is a very poor country and Texas is a rich state in a rich country. In Texas 37 people are known to have lost their lives while in Haiti the death toll has been estimated at 74. Thousands were left homeless in Texas but an estimated one million people were left homeless in Haiti. After the storm, Haitian officials stated that Haiti would probably have to remain heavily dependent on food imports for at least a year. A Haiti government spokesman said "We don't have enough possibility in terms of resources — economical resources."


By Alec

1. Explain why people choose to remain in places where there is a risk from tectonic events. (9)
Firstly, many people choose to remain in places because of the rich soils that occur in most places nearby volcanoes, caused by the minerals found in volcanic rocks. The mineral rich soil helps farmers to achieve higher crop productivity, producing higher quality crops because the extra minerals in the soil help plants to grow to their full potential. The farming industry is an integral part of local peoples lives (mainly in LICs) because this provides the farmers with an income (because they can sell locally or export the crops they grow), it helps feed the farmers and many other people in the area and it is a key part of the economy so there is no reason to move to less fertile soils where less money will be made and there will more chance of famines if volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are generally quite infrequent. Mount Pinatubo is a good example of this where thousands of people rely on farming from the fertile soils found there to make a living and feed themselves and others. Volcanoes also provide very good sources of income from tourism where tourists help to contribute to the local economy by paying for holidays, hotels, leisure activities, etc around a volcano because of the dramatic scenery and landscape. This then provides jobs for local people because they are needed to work in the tourism centres and shops and attractions so that tourists keep coming back and paying for their use so that the country’s economy benefits from more tourism. For example, in Uganda, a country trying to build a stronger tourism industry, uses eco-tourism (where tourists come to see the wildlife, scenery, hiking, safari journeys, etc.) to attract tourists to visit the country (mainly the area around Mount Elgon) and contribute to the local economy so that more jobs are provided for local people to run tourism sites so that there is less poverty because the people there are earning a decent wage, and if the tourism sites are run to a good standard then the country’s tourism reputation will be raised, bringing in even more income. Another factor in people’s reasons for staying, mainly in LICs, is that they are simply too great in number and too poor to move. LICs like Kenya, Congo and Ethiopia, some of the poorest in the world, have people who are starving and cannot afford to buy food or get clean water, let alone get transport, buy a new house and move away from the area – they simply have no choice but to try and make an existence of where they are and what they’ve got.

2. Explain how a country’s level of development might influence the impacts that storms have on people. Give examples. (9)
If a storm equal in magnitude to one that hit a LIC hit a HIC then the main difference would probably be the affects of the storm surge and high winds destroying crops. In an LIC, such as Bangladesh, which has a primary industry that tens of thousands of people rely on for food, if crops were destroyed in most areas, people would starve to death in places where aid could not get to and without aid, famine would spread quickly. However, in an HIC like America, which imports a lot of food and goods, has places where food can be quickly transported from and does not rely on its primary industry to the extent Bangladesh does, the effects of food shortages in the immediate area affected by a storm would be relatively minor. An LIC would also fair worse after a storm because it would not be able to provide very effective treatment for epidemics that may spread (that is until aid is brought into from HICs to help) from the lack of sanitation and lack of medical care available to people. Therefore, many would die, as they would not be able to receive treatment for injuries or for diseases that have been contracted during or after the storm. The Philippines is an example of this where there many have died in the past from lack of medical care and supplies as aid had to be brought in from elsewhere as people there could not cope with numbers or with the seriousness of the conditions of people because not enough equipment was available. In a HIC, like Japan however, helicopters or other transportation could transport people to hospitals that hadn’t been affected by the storms in the area, where people could be treated with better medical equipment, more medical supplies and more hospital workers to tend to the injured. Another difference would be the damage to property in LICs and HICs. In most HICs that have been known to affected by storms in the past, a lot of money is spent on improving or building more storm resistant structures that can with stand damage from the winds and storm surges that damage property. This means there is normally less damage to property and less costs to repair them for people who own them or the taxpayers who have to fund repairs for the government; however, most notably in America, the country spends a lot of money on maintaining roads and buildings and buying expensive new facilities for cities to use and when these are damaged, the costs can be extremely high. In some cases the costs incurred by LICs are higher because they spend less money on protecting property because they are poorer and costs are higher because they are damaged far worse by the storms. However, in some cases LICs can lose less, because most of their property is low-tech and easier and less costly to repair costing taxpayers and people who own property less.


Comparing Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Sidr by Emma

Hurricane Katrina was a category 3 storm by the time it reached landfall, whereas Cyclone Sidr was a category 4. This means that the effects of the storm were considerably more severe for Bangladesh with its wind speeds of more than 200km/h; than they were for New Orleans with winds speeds of around 175km/h.

Similarities-

  1. Both disasters caused a significant number of deaths; most of the deaths were of elderly people.
  2. Both disasters caused the damage and destruction of thousands and thousands of houses.
  3. Both areas struggled to deliver relief to the affected people: New Orleans because of the flood waters that covered most of the city, and Bangladesh because the people were so spread out, thousands were on remote islands that were difficult to reach, and so did not receive vital supplies when they needed them.
  4. Both disasters caused significant job losses; in New Orleans, a year after Katrina the New Orleans workforce has shrunk by 30%. In Bangladesh acres of farm land was lost and all of the crops that were on that land, the main job to do in Bangladesh is farming and with most of the farmland destroyed by the cyclone, this means thousands of people were without a job.
  5. Both areas had very little communication with the outside world after the storms: New Orleans didn’t because the area was flooded so the roads were out of use, also the telephone lines were down, as were the radio and TV stations. Bangladesh had some communication with the outside world but people on the remote islands had none. This meant that people were unaware what was happening, if they were being evacuated, when aid was arriving and where to get it from!

Differences-

  1. All of the damage in Bangladesh was caused by the cyclone; however in New Orleans there was very little damage created by the hurricane, most of the damage was caused by the levees that broke and that flooded 80% of the city, this could have been avoided had the levees been properly maintained.
  2. Because of the damage done to the farmland and crops, there was a big food shortage in Bangladesh, and no way of growing any more, especially for all the people on the remote islands, people were starving. However for people in New Orleans there was no danger of them starving, everyone was being evacuated out of the city, and plenty of aid was being given out at last.
  3. There were a lot of water bourn diseases being caught in Bangladesh because some people had no clean water to drink, so they had to drink dirty water which made them ill. For people in New Orleans plenty of aid was being delivered and people were being evacuated, however this was a few days after the hurricane hit, luckily most people that had stayed, had enough water for the days before the relief arrived.
  4. In Bangladesh we know that on remote islands people didn’t have TVs or radios, so those people had no communication with the main land and therefore didn’t know that a cyclone was heading straight for them, boats were sent to some of these islands to warn the residents of the imminent storm, however not all islands were warned so the people on them had no idea what was heading for them, this meant that the people on the islands didn’t prepare for the storm, either by evacuating or getting to safer ground, because of this some of the people on the islands died. Whereas in New Orleans everyone knew about the storm, as most people had radios ect. and the storm was well publicised. A mandatory evacuation was later ordered, so official personnel went around houses making sure people had gone. There was no way that people couldn’t have known about the hurricane. If people hadn’t known then thousands more people would have died.


Similarities and differences between the impacts of Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Sidr on their respective countries by Alec

Hurricane Katrina was a category 3 storm by the time it reached landfall whereas Cyclone Sidr was a category 4. This means that the effects of the storm were considerable more severe for Bangladesh (wind speeds of more than 200km/h) that they were for New Orleans (at around 175km/h.)

Similarities in the impacts of the two storms:

  • Both tropical storms caused many deaths, 1836 from the category 3 and 2997 from the category 4 (Sidr, the category 4 cyclone, killed more but this is to be expected as it was a more dangerous storm).
  • Both the countries fishing/sea agriculture industries were hit badly, prawn farms being destroyed in Bangladesh and the oyster population of Louisiana.
  • Both countries struggled to repair damage to infrastructure and property and relied on aid to help injured, although Bangladesh was more reliant than U.S. due to its LIC status.
  • Water supplies were polluted by storm surge (it allowed chemicals and sewage in) so water had to be flown in with aid.
  • Homelessness, a lot of houses were destroyed or damaged and people had to either stay in temporary shelters (mainly in Bangladesh) or find new accommodation (Americans, if they had enough money, would have to stay in hotels or other accommodation overnight – those who couldn’t had to go to the Superbowl and find shelter).

Differences in the impacts of the two storms:

  • There were a lot less people than expected killed during cyclone Sidr because of their extremely efficient evacuation plans that they put in place (Bangladesh have a separate ministry for disasters because they hit the country so much, so they were well prepared for another disaster). However, hurricane Katrina killed and devastated the region – most notable with its storm surge –worse than would be expected of a HIC because they should have had more resources at hand to deal with evacuating people and therefore more people should have been saved.
  • Transport that was available was utilised by the authorities to warn people to evacuate and get to safety in Bangladesh whereas in America, school buses were left to sink and rust in car parks that became flooded which could have been used to help people escape the impending danger.
  • Bangladesh was heavily reliant on receiving aid for medical supplies, food, clean water etc. because their crops had been destroyed and most of the precious little drinking water that the country had had was contaminated. America on the other hand, didn’t have such a large primary industry (which is common in many LICs), so it could ship food and supplies in from elsewhere which could be ordered in relatively quickly or get food from the surrounding areas that weren’t so badly hit.
  • The transport system of America where the hurricane hit was damaged extremely badly, with 100 miles of highway 90 being destroyed whereas in Bangladesh where most people walk or use less technological means of transport, such as little boats and elephants, the system was resumed relatively quickly and people could be transported to the most needy areas to provide aid.


On this occasion I have not chosen the very best - that might scare those of you who are struggling a bit too much! But here are 2 good, sound examples of what I want

Robbie Clements
Delete as applicable:
1. I am : use the virtual data
2. I am look at: measure channel features
3. The river set of data I am going to use will be from the Darent River data.
4. (Not water quality)
What is your hypothesis?
The Velocity of the river:
I think that the velocity of the river will decrease because the further down the river you travel, the wider it becomes, which causes the water to spread out more, which slows the velocity.
The width of the river:
I think that the width of the river will increase as you travel further down the river because over time the banks of the river will have been eroded by corrosion.
The size and shape of the bedload:
I think that the size of the bedload nearer the mouth will be smaller because they will have been eroded by attrition, which will have made them smaller. The size of the bedload nearer the source will be bigger because the bedload will not have been eroded by attrition as much. The shape of the bedload nearer the mouth will be smoother because they have been eroded by attrition and the shape of the bedload nearer the source will be more angular because they will not have been eroded by attrition as much.


Daisy.A.Salmon
1. I am going to collect my own data
2. I am look at water quality
3. The river I am going to use is called the Loue and it runs through the village Coulaures, Dordogne, France.
The river is long, flat and quite deep.

4. The water quality is good in some places but not in others. In the shallow (1cm - 1meter deep), non readied and non shaded areas it is very good water quality, being clear enough to see to the bottom, whereas, in the deep (2meters – 21/2 meters deep), readied and shaded areas you can only see about half-a-meter down.

I think that the water quality is good in some places but not in others because if there are trees above the water in one area, leaves/nuts/branches might fall in, therefore, they rot, therefore, they will reduce dissolved oxygen into the water, whereas, in an area where there are no trees above there will be no leaves/nuts/branches this will increase the dissolved oxygen into the water.

I think that I would find that the scales on each of the tests would be different because different sites on the river vary (e.g. reeds, no reeds, tree above the site, no tree above the site, etcetera).