Geography 2021 Paper I 50 marks Mention

Q6

(a) Development-induced displacement poses serious challenges. Mention its causes, consequences and solutions. (20 marks) (b) Describe the role of accessibility and affordability in food security of developing world. (15 marks) (c) The environmental issues are not adequately addressed in the regional planning. Comment. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विकास-जनित विस्थापन गम्भीर चुनौतियों को प्रस्तुत करता है। इसके कारणों, परिणामों एवं समाधानों का उल्लेख कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) विकासशील विश्व की खाद्य सुरक्षा में अभिगम्यता और सामर्थ्य की भूमिका का वर्णन कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) प्रादेशिक नियोजन में पर्यावरणीय मुद्दों को पर्याप्त रूप से सम्बोधित नहीं किया जाता है । टिप्पणी कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Geography questions

Directive word: Mention

This question asks you to mention. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'mention' for part (a) requires concise enumeration with brief elaboration, while 'describe' in (b) and 'comment' in (c) demand analytical depth. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesized conclusion linking displacement, food access, and environmental planning.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Causes of development-induced displacement (dams, mining, SEZs, urban renewal); consequences (livelihood loss, cultural erosion, psychological trauma, gendered impacts); solutions (R&R policies, prior informed consent, livelihood restoration, legal frameworks like RFCTLARR Act 2013)
  • Part (b): Accessibility dimensions (physical connectivity, market access, transport infrastructure, digital food delivery); affordability factors (income-purchasing power parity, food price volatility, subsidy mechanisms like PDS, MSP); their intersection in developing world contexts (rural-urban food deserts, seasonal accessibility in monsoon regions)
  • Part (c): Critique of regional planning's environmental blind spots (sectoral dominance, GDP-centric growth models, weak EIA integration); reasons (short-term political cycles, lack of carrying capacity assessment, weak inter-state coordination); suggestions for green regional planning (ridge-to-reef approach, climate-adaptive zoning, ecosystem services valuation)
  • Cross-cutting: Link between displacement and food security (loss of common property resources affecting tribal nutrition); connection to regional planning failures (environmental refugees, unplanned urbanization)
  • Theoretical grounding: Cernea's impoverishment risks and reconstruction model for displacement; Amartya Sen's entitlement approach for food security; Friedmann's territorial planning for regional-environmental integration

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines development-induced displacement distinguishing it from conflict displacement; accurately applies Sen's entitlement theory to food security; correctly identifies environmental planning gaps in D.P. Dhar, NITI Aayog regional plans; uses Cernea's IRR model and Friedmann's agropolitan development appropriatelyBasic definitions of displacement and food security present but conflates types of displacement or treats accessibility/affordability as synonymous; mentions regional planning without specifying environmental deficiencies; limited theoretical frameworkConfuses development displacement with migration; describes food security only as production without access dimensions; equates regional planning with urban planning; significant conceptual errors or no theoretical references
Map / diagram15%7.5Includes at least two relevant visuals: e.g., map showing displacement hotspots (Sardar Sarovar, Narmada valley; POSCO Odisha; Singur-Nandigram) with affected tribal corridors; flow diagram of food accessibility-affordability matrix; or schematic of integrated regional-environmental planning framework with spatial zoningOne generic diagram (food security pyramid or displacement cycle) without spatial specificity; or map mentioned but not integrated with analysis; labels incompleteNo diagrams or maps; or irrelevant sketches with no explanatory value; poor labeling that confuses rather than clarifies
Indian regional examples25%12.5Rich regional specificity: for (a) cites Sardar Sarovar (Gujarat/Madhya Pradesh), Polavaram (Andhra Pradesh), Jharia coal belt (Jharkhand) with tribal displacement data; for (b) contrasts Kerala's Kudumbashree food markets with BIMARU states' PDS leakage; for (c) critiques Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor or Nagaland's district planning ignoring carrying capacitySome Indian examples but generic (Bhakra Nangal, general PDS mention) without regional specificity; or examples from only one sub-part; no comparative regional analysisNo Indian examples or inappropriate foreign case studies (unless explicitly compared); or factually wrong locations (e.g., placing Tehri dam in wrong state)
Spatial analysis20%10Demonstrates spatial reasoning: displacement's friction of distance from original habitat affecting livelihood reconstruction; food accessibility analyzed through central place theory and market hierarchies; regional planning critiqued for ignoring physiographic boundaries (watershed-based vs administrative boundaries); scale sensitivity (local vs national food systems)Some spatial awareness (rural-urban distinction, regional names) but no explicit spatial theory; descriptive rather than analytical geographyAspatial treatment—discusses displacement, food security, planning as purely social/economic phenomena without geographic dimensions; no mention of location, distance, scale, or spatial interaction
Application / policy20%10Critically evaluates RFCTLARR Act 2013 provisions, National Food Security Act 2013 implementation gaps, and Environment (Protection) Act 1986 in regional planning; proposes actionable solutions: social impact assessment mandating, decentralized procurement, green regional planning legislation; cites NITI Aayog SDG localization or state best practices (Kerala, Sikkim)Lists policies without critical evaluation; generic solutions (better implementation, more awareness) without specificity; or only describes existing policies without gaps analysisNo policy references or outdated/wrong policies; impractical solutions ignoring institutional constraints; or purely theoretical answer with no applied dimension

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Geography 2021 Paper I