← Interacting natural processes in a New Zealand environment

Where to find real, usable figures for your case study

These are illustrative sketches of the KIND of case study a strong answer builds — not a substitute for your own researched, current, real figures, which the schedule explicitly rewards over anything generic.

Sources for real, quotable figures

• GNS Science for tectonic rates (fault slip rates, uplift rates, earthquake magnitudes and dates).
• NIWA for river discharge, rainfall, and climate data by region.
• Regional council hazard and state-of-the-environment reports for erosion rates, coastal change, and monitoring data.
• DOC or a national park visitor guide for named landforms, glacier retreat figures, and geological history of a specific reserve or park.

✕

A well-known landform name is not the same as case study evidence

Naming "the Franz Josef Glacier" or "the Alpine Fault" correctly identifies your environment, but is not itself evidence. The evidence is the RATE, the DATE, or the MEASURED figure attached to it — without that, even a correctly-named case study stays at Achieved. Exam-style Turning a landform name into quantified case study evidence You have chosen the Franz Josef Glacier as your environment. Turn the bare name into comprehensive case study evidence. Add a rate: the glacier has undergone significant retreat over recent decades, interspersed with shorter advance phases driven by high-precipitation years. Add a mechanism: retreat exposes newly unloaded rock to rapid weathering and mass movement, while meltwater feeds the braided river system below. Add a date or event: a documented advance phase in the 1980s-90s, followed by rapid retreat in the 21st century, gives you a concrete before/after to argue temporal variation from. ✓ The name alone identifies the environment; the rate, mechanism and dated event together are what make it comprehensive, integrated case study evidence.

Practise just this