Urban access and housing
Guided practice
8035/3 geographical applications: issue-evaluation skills
Original practice assessment with editable questions and worked guidance.
Access and an urban development decision
Use maps, data and stakeholder evidence to develop a geographical argument. The resources describe one fictional teaching scenario.
Options
Brownfield housing with bus access: £12 million
Reuses developed land
Enables 400 new homes in District A
Remediation costs may increase; affordability needs explicit provision
Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline
Edge-of-town housing: £9 million
Enables an undeveloped site
Enables 600 new homes in District B
May increase car dependence and consume undeveloped land
Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline
Improve access and existing housing: £7 million
Benefits current residents and may reduce displacement
Improves 200 existing homes in District C
Does not enable new homes
Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline
Stakeholder evidence
Tenant representative: New housing should be affordable to existing residents.
Transport planner: Scheduled journey time is only part of door-to-door access.
Local employer: Workers need reliable access at the hours we operate.
Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D
Scroll the diagram sideways to see the full resource.
| From | To | Journey time (min) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | 4 | Open |
| B | D | 5 | Closed |
| A | C | 4 | Open |
| C | D | 3 | Open |
| B | C | 6 | Open |
Resource description
Use only open links. Add stated journey times, rather than measuring the drawing. The route times are a simplified fictional model; waiting, congestion and individual access needs are not supplied. Each district is represented at its lettered node. This does not locate every resident at that point.
District populations and access
| District | Population | Area (km²) | Modelled journey to clinic at D (minutes) | Low-income households (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District A | 18000 | 11 | 7 | 14 |
| District B | 20000 | 8 | 9 | 23 |
| District C | 15000 | 10 | 3 | 26 |
| District D | 34000 | 7 | 0 | 26 |
Resource description
Access time is the shortest open network route from each representative district node to D, excluding walking and waiting. Household percentages cannot be multiplied by population as if people were households.
Housing proposals linked to management alternatives
| Option | District | New homes enabled | Existing homes improved | Infrastructure cost (£ million) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brownfield housing with bus access | District A | 400 | 0 | 12 |
| Edge-of-town housing | District B | 600 | 0 | 9 |
| Improve access and existing housing | District C | 0 | 200 | 7 |
Resource description
These are the same three management alternatives listed below. Infrastructure costs exclude private construction. Current district access is a baseline, not a forecast of access after development.
Management alternatives
| Option | Capital cost (£ million) | Benefit | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brownfield housing with bus access | 12 | Reuses developed land; Enables 400 new homes in District A | Remediation costs may increase; affordability needs explicit provision; Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline |
| Edge-of-town housing | 9 | Enables an undeveloped site; Enables 600 new homes in District B | May increase car dependence and consume undeveloped land; Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline |
| Improve access and existing housing | 7 | Benefits current residents and may reduce displacement; Improves 200 existing homes in District C | Does not enable new homes; Future access changes need a separate forecast; current journey times are only the baseline |
Resource description
Available capital budget: £15 million. Options are alternatives; their benefits cannot simply be added. Operating costs are separate.
Scenario assumptions
No claim is made about the needs of every individual in a district.; Population density is not a measure of deprivation.
2 marks1. Calculate the population density of district A, to two decimal places.
2 marks2. Calculate the absolute modelled journey-time difference between districts A and B to node D.
4 marks3. Explain why these modelled times do not measure everyone’s access to the clinic.
1 mark4. What is needed to calculate the number of low-income households?
- The total number of people living in each district.
- The modelled journey time from each district to the clinic.
- The total number of households in each district.
- The population density of each district in people per km².
9 marks5. Which option would best support housing and practical access to services? Justify your choice using the supplied resources. State your priority, explain the geographical mechanism, compare alternatives and identify evidence that could change your judgement.
Supplementary geographical skill: Choropleth maps
The shading represents a percentage of households, not a total. Each class includes its lower boundary and excludes its upper boundary: a value of 20 belongs in 20–30, not 10–20.
Scroll the diagram sideways to see the full resource.
| District | Reported damage (%) | Households |
|---|---|---|
| A | 9 | 1000 |
| B | 11 | 500 |
| C | 29 | 500 |
| D | 38 | 100 |
Resource description
A–D use these non-overlapping classes: 0 to less than 10%; 10 to less than 20%; 20 to less than 30%; 30 to less than 40%. A has 1,000 households and D has 100 households.
1 mark1. Which class contains district C?
- 10 to less than 20%
- 20 to less than 30%
- 30 to less than 40%
1 mark2. How many households in A reported damage?
1 mark3. What extra information is needed to compare affected-household counts?
- The household total for each district.
- The area of each district in square kilometres.
- The colour interval used in the legend.
- The number of districts in each colour class.
Supplementary geographical skill: Population pyramids
These are broad age categories, not equal five-year bands. The six bars together sum to 100%.
Scroll the diagram sideways to see the full resource.
| Age group | Male (% of total) | Female (% of total) |
|---|---|---|
| 0–14 | 12 | 22 |
| 15–64 | 28 | 14 |
| 65+ | 10 | 14 |
Resource description
0–14: male 12%, female 22%; 15–64: male 28%, female 14%; 65+: male 10%, female 14%
1 mark1. What percentage of the whole population is aged 0–14?
1 mark2. Calculate dependants per 100 people aged 15–64, using 0–14 and 65+ as dependants.
Supplementary geographical skill: Interpret correlation cautiously
Fictional training exercise. Each pair represents a different fictional street measured during the same time window.
| Street | Tree cover (%) | Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| A | 10 | 27 |
| B | 20 | 26 |
| C | 30 | 24 |
| D | 40 | 23 |
| E | 50 | 22 |
1 mark1. What association is shown?
- Positive association
- Negative association
- No association
1 mark2. Why does this association not establish the size of a causal cooling effect?
Original fictional model and resources: GeographyHelp. · Written practice context: https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/geography/AQA-80353-SMS.PDF
Mark guidance
Compare the examples by their geographical reasoning, use of evidence and response to this question. Written guidance supports formative review; official levels and calibrated scores are not assigned.
Source mapping: urban issue evaluation.
Use your own taught place knowledge when the task or course requires it.
The linked template fixes its coherent core resources. Resource type and skill selections control the explicitly labelled supplementary geographical skills.
Assessment context: 8035/3 geographical applications: issue-evaluation skills. Use the resources and geographical understanding to build a reasoned answer. Source used to check the context · checked 2026-10-08
Access and an urban development decision
1. Calculate the population density of district A, to two decimal places. (2 marks)
Check the value, unit and method.
Credit criteria
- 1 mark: Valid method: 18000 ÷ 11.
- 1 mark: Correct value 1636.36 people per km².
Method: 18000 ÷ 11
Worked response
18000 ÷ 11. Result: 1636.36 people per km².
Partial response and credit
A response showing 18000 ÷ 11 has a valid method even if its final arithmetic is incorrect. Retain method credit and check the final value separately.
Misinterpretation to check
Multiplies population by area instead of dividing; this cannot give people per km².
Alternative reasoning
Accept 1636.36 people per km² within the stated precision. A correct final calculation earns full credit without separate working; working can show a valid method when the final result is wrong.
2. Calculate the absolute modelled journey-time difference between districts A and B to node D. (2 marks)
Check the value, unit and method.
Credit criteria
- 1 mark: Valid method: |7 − 9|.
- 1 mark: Correct value 2 min.
Method: |7 − 9|
Worked response
|7 − 9|. Result: 2 min.
Partial response and credit
A response showing |7 − 9| has a valid method even if its final arithmetic is incorrect. Retain method credit and check the final value separately.
Misinterpretation to check
Uses an incompatible denominator or mixes the units before calculating.
Alternative reasoning
Accept 2 min within the stated precision. A correct final calculation earns full credit without separate working; working can show a valid method when the final result is wrong.
3. Explain why these modelled times do not measure everyone’s access to the clinic. (4 marks)
Use this guidance to compare the evidence and reasoning in your answer.
What a developed response includes
- Interpret the relevant pattern using precise resource evidence.
- Develop the geographical relationship asked for.
- Answer the question with a supported conclusion, addressing the evidence limits where relevant.
Worked response
In increasing density order, District C: 1500 people per km², 3 minutes; District A: 1636.36 people per km², 7 minutes; District B: 2500 people per km², 9 minutes; District D: 4857.14 people per km², 0 minutes. The four nodes do not show a single monotonic density–journey relationship. This is a four-node spatial comparison: D has a zero journey because it is the destination, not because all its residents have immediate access. District A has 1636.36 people per km² and a representative-node journey of 7 minutes to D; District B has 2500 people per km² and 9 minutes. Density measures population per area, while the route model measures travel time on open links. Residents also need to reach those nodes, pay fares and travel when services operate. The low-income shares, 14% and 23%, describe households, so they cannot be multiplied by resident population to count low-income households. The four nodes do not show a single monotonic density–journey relationship.
Partial response and credit
The representative-node journey from District A is 7 minutes.
Misinterpretation to check
The journey between district nodes is the door-to-door travel time for each resident.
Alternative reasoning
A longer modelled route could still offer better practical access if it runs more frequently or accommodates mobility needs; neither factor is measured here.
Reviewing answer quality
Developing an answer: Identifies relevant details, but relationships or the answer to the exact question remain unclear.
Connected reasoning: Uses accurate evidence to explain geographical relationships and addresses the question.
Sustained reasoning: Selects and connects evidence, weighs a credible counterargument and reaches a supported judgement where the command requires it.
Teacher coverage notes
- Interpret the resource pattern or outcome — The four nodes do not show a single monotonic density–journey relationship. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access)
- Explain the relevant geographical relationship — The four nodes do not show a single monotonic density–journey relationship. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access)
- Assess what the evidence establishes — The four nodes do not show a single monotonic density–journey relationship. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access)
Judge the geographical argument against this question. The checklist and examples support formative review; they do not allocate official levels or calibrated written marks.
4. What is needed to calculate the number of low-income households? (1 mark)
Compare each option with the resource.
Credit criteria
- 1 mark: Select: The total number of households in each district.
Worked response
People and households are different denominators.
Partial response and credit
This selected-response item has one keyed answer.
Misinterpretation to check
Check the unit, denominator and scope of each interpretation.
Alternative reasoning
Use the displayed resource to reject the other interpretations.
5. Which option would best support housing and practical access to services? Justify your choice using the supplied resources. State your priority, explain the geographical mechanism, compare alternatives and identify evidence that could change your judgement. (9 marks)
Use this guidance to compare the evidence and reasoning in your answer.
What a developed response includes
- Select accurate resource evidence to support the stated priority.
- Explain how the intervention changes a geographical process or outcome.
- Develop a fair comparison and counterargument.
- Reach a judgement that respects funding, uncertainty and who benefits.
Partial response and credit
“I would choose the option called Brownfield housing with bus access because it could help.” This names an option. Add a cost, explain how it would help and compare it with an alternative.
Misinterpretation to check
The cheapest option must help every household equally. Capital cost alone does not establish effectiveness or the distribution of benefits.
Brownfield housing with bus access
I would choose brownfield housing to prioritise new homes on previously developed land. Its £12 million capital cost fits the £15 million budget, leaving £3 million. The proposal enables 400 new homes in District A. Reusing developed land can add homes within the existing settlement and limit expansion onto undeveloped land.
For £9 million, housing at the settlement edge could increase housing supply. For £7 million, improvements to existing homes could improve conditions for current residents. Remediation and affordability provisions affect who can live there; baseline journey times do not forecast access after development. The tenant representative wants affordable homes. New or improved housing will help that group only if residents can afford it.
I would reconsider if remediation absorbs the funding or housing does not reach the intended households.
Edge-of-town housing
I would choose housing at the settlement edge to prioritise additional housing supply. Its £9 million capital cost fits the £15 million budget, leaving £6 million. The proposal enables 600 new homes in District B. Edge development enables new homes. Connections to jobs and services determine whether those homes create practical access.
For £12 million, brownfield housing could add homes on previously developed land. For £7 million, improvements to existing homes could improve conditions for current residents. New roads and services may increase car dependence and land consumption; these outcomes are not quantified in the baseline. The tenant representative wants affordable homes. New or improved housing will help that group only if residents can afford it.
I would reconsider if infrastructure and service provision cannot accompany the homes.
Improve access and existing housing
I would choose improvements to existing homes to prioritise better conditions for current residents. Its £7 million capital cost fits the £15 million budget, leaving £8 million. The proposal improves 200 existing homes in District C. Improving existing homes and access can benefit current residents and reduce pressure to move, even without adding homes.
For £12 million, brownfield housing could add homes on previously developed land. For £9 million, housing at the settlement edge could increase housing supply. It does not increase the housing stock, so unmet demand for additional homes could remain. The tenant representative wants affordable homes. New or improved housing will help that group only if residents can afford it.
I would reconsider if the dominant need is additional housing rather than existing-home quality.
Reviewing answer quality
Developing an answer: Identifies relevant details, but relationships or the answer to the exact question remain unclear.
Connected reasoning: Uses accurate evidence to explain geographical relationships and addresses the question.
Sustained reasoning: Selects and connects evidence, weighs a credible counterargument and reaches a supported judgement where the command requires it.
Teacher coverage notes
- Evaluate the stated priority or proposition — Several options can be defended against a stated priority and feasible funding. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access, Housing proposals linked to management alternatives, Management alternatives)
- Explain the geographical mechanism — Several options can be defended against a stated priority and feasible funding. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access, Housing proposals linked to management alternatives, Management alternatives)
- Compare the available alternatives — Several options can be defended against a stated priority and feasible funding. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access, Housing proposals linked to management alternatives, Management alternatives)
- Reach a conditional judgement — Several options can be defended against a stated priority and feasible funding. (Journey network linking representative district centres to the clinic at D, District populations and access, Housing proposals linked to management alternatives, Management alternatives)
Judge the geographical argument against this question. The checklist and examples support formative review; they do not allocate official levels or calibrated written marks.
Supplementary geographical skill: Choropleth maps
1. Which class contains district C? (1 mark)
20 to less than 30%
29 is at least 20 and below 30. For this 1-mark task, credit the keyed option.
2. How many households in A reported damage? (1 mark)
90
9% of 1,000 = 90. For this 1-mark task, credit the accepted numerical answer in the requested units.
3. What extra information is needed to compare affected-household counts? (1 mark)
The household total for each district.
A high rate in a small population can represent fewer households than a lower rate in a large population. For this 1-mark task, credit the keyed option.
Supplementary geographical skill: Population pyramids
1. What percentage of the whole population is aged 0–14? (1 mark)
34
Add the male and female percentages for this age group. For this 1-mark task, credit the accepted numerical answer in the requested units.
2. Calculate dependants per 100 people aged 15–64, using 0–14 and 65+ as dependants. (1 mark)
138.1
(34 + 24) ÷ 42 × 100. This is an age-based ratio, not a count of employment status. For this 1-mark task, credit the accepted numerical answer in the requested units.
Supplementary geographical skill: Interpret correlation cautiously
1. What association is shown? (1 mark)
Negative association
Higher tree cover is associated with lower recorded temperature in these five streets. For this 1-mark task, credit the keyed option.
2. Why does this association not establish the size of a causal cooling effect? (1 mark)
Other factors such as building density, altitude, shading and surface materials may vary. The sample is small and observational.
Other factors such as building density, altitude, shading and surface materials may vary. The sample is small and observational. Original credit guidance: credit relevant explained reasoning; accept accurate alternatives.