Q7
(a) "Climate change is a serious problem to global food security and poverty eradication". Critically examine. (20 marks) (b) Critically examine the significance of the Quantitative Revolution and its influence in the development of Geography. (15 marks) (c) Explain in detail the impact of regional disparities on economic development. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "जलवायु परिवर्तन विश्व खाद्य सुरक्षा एवं गरीबी उन्मूलन में एक गंभीर समस्या है" | आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए | (20 अंक) (b) मात्रात्मक क्रांति की सार्थकता एवं भूगोल के विकास में मात्रात्मक क्रांति के प्रभाव का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए | (15 अंक) (c) आर्थिक विकास पर प्रादेशिक विषमता के प्रभाव का सविस्तार वर्णन कीजिए | (15 अंक)
Directive word: Critically examine
This question asks you to critically examine. 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 'critically examine' demands balanced analysis with evidence-based evaluation across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the interconnected themes; for (a) examine climate-food-poverty nexus with both threats and adaptation potential; for (b) evaluate Quantitative Revolution's contributions and limitations; for (c) analyse how regional disparities hinder or sometimes drive development; conclude with integrated insights on spatial justice and sustainable development.
Key points expected
- For (a): Climate change impacts on crop yields, water stress, and food price volatility; differentiated vulnerability of smallholder farmers in tropics vs. temperate regions; feedback loops between poverty and adaptive capacity
- For (a): Critical counterpoints—CO2 fertilization effect, technological adaptation, and regional winners in agricultural productivity; India's National Adaptation Fund for Agriculture and PM-KISAN as policy responses
- For (b): Quantitative Revolution's core contributions—spatial science, statistical methods, model-building, and positivist epistemology; key figures like Schaefer, Bunge, and Chorley
- For (b): Critical limitations—overemphasis on spatial patterns over social processes, reductionism, and the subsequent humanistic and radical critiques leading to paradigm pluralism
- For (c): Regional disparities as barriers to market integration, human capital formation, and balanced growth; Myrdal's cumulative causation and polarization effects
- For (c): Counter-argument that disparities can drive efficiency through agglomeration economies; India's experience with backward area development programmes and Special Economic Zones
- Integration across parts: How spatial analysis methods from Quantitative Revolution inform understanding of climate vulnerability mapping and regional inequality measurement
- Policy synthesis: Need for place-based approaches combining climate adaptation, regional planning, and targeted poverty alleviation
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 22% | 11 | Demonstrates precise command of climate vulnerability indices, food security frameworks (availability-access-utilization-stability), positivist vs. critical epistemology, and core-periphery models; correctly applies Myrdal's backwash/spread effects and distinguishes food security from self-sufficiency | Shows general familiarity with climate change impacts and regional inequality concepts but conflates food security with food production or presents Quantitative Revolution simplistically without acknowledging critiques | Misrepresents fundamental concepts—e.g., treats climate change impacts as uniformly negative without nuance, or describes Quantitative Revolution as 'modern geography' without methodological specificity |
| Map / diagram | 18% | 9 | Includes at least two relevant diagrams: for (a) global climate vulnerability or hunger hotspots map; for (b) paradigm timeline or spatial model; for (c) India's regional disparity indices or core-periphery sketch; all properly labelled and analytically integrated | Provides one generic diagram (e.g., simple climate change cycle) or mentions maps without sketching; diagrams lack analytical connection to the critical examination required | No diagrams or maps; or includes irrelevant sketches (e.g., random India map without thematic purpose) that do not advance the argument |
| Indian regional examples | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites specific vulnerability of Bundelkhand, Marathwada, or Odisha coastal agriculture; for (b): references Indian quantitative geographers or application in NCAER regional planning; for (c): contrasts Maharashtra's sugar belt with Vidarbha's distress, or analyses Northeast's infrastructure gap with statistical specificity | Mentions India in passing (e.g., 'India faces food security challenges') without regional specificity or conflates national aggregates with regional diversity | Entirely omits Indian examples or provides factually incorrect regional attributions (e.g., claiming Punjab faces severe food insecurity) |
| Spatial analysis | 20% | 10 | Explicitly applies spatial thinking: for (a) analyses geographic differentiation of climate risk (latitude, altitude, coastal proximity); for (b) explains how quantitative methods revealed spatial patterns invisible to idiographic approaches; for (c) examines spatial spillovers, connectivity, and territorial cohesion | Acknowledges spatial variation descriptively without analytical framework; treats regions as containers rather than relational spaces; misses scale interactions | Non-spatial treatment—discusses climate change, quantitative methods, and regional policy as aspatial processes without geographic differentiation or spatial relationships |
| Application / policy | 20% | 10 | Critically evaluates policy instruments: for (a) assesses National Food Security Act, climate-smart villages, and global mechanisms (Warsaw International Mechanism); for (b) reflects on how quantitative methods inform current SDG monitoring; for (c) appraises NITI Aayog's aspirational districts programme and regional planning commissions | Lists policies without critical evaluation of effectiveness or implementation gaps; presents policy as solution without analysing constraints | No policy discussion or generic statements ('government should take action'); fails to connect analysis to governance mechanisms or institutional frameworks |
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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Define 'speleothem'. Discuss the various forms and features of speleothems. (10 marks) (b…
- Q2 (a) Sequential changes in land use and land cover have brought global and regional ecological changes and imbalances. Elucidate. (20 marks)…
- Q3 (a) Plants and animals that exist in a particular ecosystem are those that have been successful in adjusting to their habitat and environme…
- Q4 (a) Rise of surface temperature brings severe consequences. Elaborate the potential changes and threats associated with it in the world. (2…
- Q5 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Analyse the effects of Globalisation on languages. (10 marks) (b) "Shifting global trade…
- Q6 (a) "Culture is a dynamic concept". Elucidate with examples. (20 marks) (b) "Automation is rapidly changing the economies of labour and wil…
- Q7 (a) "Climate change is a serious problem to global food security and poverty eradication". Critically examine. (20 marks) (b) Critically ex…
- Q8 (a) How migration is affected by push and pull factors? Explain how these factors play a role in understanding new settlement patterns. (20…