IB Geography SL Extended Essay Example

The topic is communicated clearly and geographically, with a specific place and relationship already established. The phrasing signals a focused urban investigation rather than a general city description, which gives the report a strong sense of purpose from the start.

The research question is relevant, but “across Singapore” is too broad for a single 12 km transect. The student should narrow the spatial extent and define exactly what counts as “land value” so that the question matches the evidence actually collected.

The method would be stronger if the student explained how the transect was made “random” while still starting at the CBD. A brief note on the selection rule would improve transparency and help the reader judge whether the sampling approach is genuinely unbiased.

This is a workable procedure, but the student does not define the categories or the decision rules for classification. Without clear criteria for land-use and building-height tallies, another reader could not replicate the method reliably.

The student explains the data-collection process clearly here, which helps the investigation feel traceable and methodical. This kind of procedural clarity makes the later graphs easier to interpret because the reader knows what the counts represent.

The methodology would benefit from stating exactly what each graph compares and why those specific variables were selected. Explicitly linking each graph to the research question would make the research design feel more deliberate and easier to follow.

The student shows strong place-specific knowledge by naming the CBD components rather than using a vague label. This makes the background more credible and demonstrates understanding of Singapore’s urban geography rather than generic CBD theory.

The concept is oversimplified here. The Hoyt model explains sectoral urban structure, not simply where “people live” based on income, and “country” should be “city.” The student should tighten the terminology to avoid weakening later model application.

This is a broad claim that needs more precise support or qualification. The student should distinguish what the master plan actually controls—zoning, density, and permitted uses—from a wider claim about all of Singapore’s development outcomes.

The student could strengthen this explanation by separating the URA’s planning tools into distinct functions: zoning, density control, and land-use allocation. That would show more secure understanding and make the background easier to apply later in the analysis.

What evidence in the transect data actually shows “balanced land use throughout the country,” rather than just a managed mix at the four sampled sites? The student should test whether the conclusion is broader than the data can support.

The student applies the model too confidently. Four sample points are not enough to prove that Singapore “follows the Hoyt model structure,” and the wording turns an observation into a city-wide claim. The student should present this as a tentative pattern, not a definitive structural match.

The student uses the observed data to describe a clear spatial pattern, which is exactly the kind of application needed in this section. This works well because the claim is anchored in a named site rather than remaining abstract.

This causal claim is too sweeping for the evidence presented. The student would need direct supporting data showing decentralization effects before concluding that it has produced “balanced land use across the country.” As written, the argument moves beyond what the transect demonstrates.

The transportation explanation is plausible, but it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The student should connect this claim to specific transport evidence from the transect or to a source that directly links transport access to land-use choice.

The analysis would be stronger if the student linked “land efficiency” to one measurable indicator, such as building density, mixed-use percentages, or land-use diversity. That would turn a general statement into a supported analytical point.

The price graph is not yet being analysed in a comparable way. Because it mixes property types and locations across a long time span, the student should avoid treating it as direct evidence of land value at each transect point without clarifying the categories and time basis used.

The explanation is plausible, but the student should be careful not to infer business behaviour from proximity to a highway without evidence. A stronger approach would compare traffic data, frontage quality, or direct land-use observations before claiming that businesses avoid the area because of low footfall.

This is a stronger evaluative point because it notices a complication in the pattern instead of forcing all sites into the same trend. Recognising that accessibility to amenities can offset distance shows more sophisticated analysis.

This conclusion is not fully justified because the sentence gives a trend claim without showing the comparison clearly enough. The student should refer to the actual counts from the table or figure when making this statement so the reader can verify the size of the change.

Does the observed height pattern genuinely prove the Hoyt model, or could it also reflect planning controls and land-price differences independently of the model? The student should consider whether the model is explanatory or just descriptively similar.

The conclusion is strongest here because it qualifies the main pattern instead of making it absolute. The student shows good evaluative thinking by acknowledging that distance matters, but that other variables also influence land use and land value.

The report is well organized, and the table of contents shows a clear academic structure with the main sections in a logical order. This supports readability and makes it easy for the reader to navigate the investigation.

The inclusion of a distinct methodology section is effective because it separates procedure from analysis. That organization helps the reader understand how the data were collected before seeing the results.

The graph title is too general for the amount of data being compared. The student should specify the property categories and locations more precisely so the graph immediately tells the reader what is being measured.

This figure is useful, but the report should cross-reference it more explicitly in the surrounding analysis. Clearer signposting would help the reader understand exactly how the heat map supports the discussion of property values.

The figure numbering and labeling need closer checking. The heading on the chart does not clearly match the figure title, which can confuse the reader and make the comparison harder to trust.

The visual could be clearer if the student added a short note identifying exactly which bars represent high-rise and low-rise buildings at each site. Better graph labeling would make the pattern easier to read at a glance.