Human Geography: Population, Migration and Social Geography
What this domain tests
This strand asks you to model population structures and migration flows and then judge their social consequences for spaces - in Hamburg's inner-city districts, in shrinking rural regions of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, or in comparison with a country of origin. The exam rewards explicit use of models and indicators, plus a spatial analysis of segregation.
Core rules and concepts
- Population dynamics: natural change (births − deaths) plus net migration. The demographic transition model describes the sequence from high birth and death rates through a transitional phase to low both; it is descriptive, not predictive, and must be adapted for countries with stalled fertility or migration-driven growth.
- Age structure: broad-based pyramid = high fertility and short life expectancy, typical of phase 2; urn shape = ageing, typical of post-transitional Germany. Dependency ratios (young + old over working-age population) translate structure into economic burden, but ignore real labour participation.
- Migration theory: push–pull factors explain motivation but not selectivity; Ravenstein's laws note that most migration is short-distance, stepwise, and that long-distance movers are disproportionately from urban and better-educated groups. Lee's model adds intervening obstacles. Segmented assimilation and chain migration explain why flows persist after the original driver fades.
- Social geography: segregation can be measured with indices such as the dissimilarity index (share of a group that would have to relocate for even distribution). Gentrification proceeds in stages: pioneer in-migration, rent gap closure, displacement of lower-income households, and changed retail and school composition.
- Carrying capacity and population policy: Malthusian and Boserupian positions (scarcity-driven versus innovation-driven adjustment) frame debates on food security.
Worked example with reasoning
Task: a Hamburg district shows rising rents, a falling share of families with children, and a rising share of single-person households. Explain with a model. Reasoning: this is classic invasion–succession leading to gentrification. In-migration of higher-income singles and couples raises purchasing power for housing; the rent gap between current and potential use makes modernisation profitable; low-income families bear relocation costs and leave; school and retail structures adapt to the new composition; the process is self-reinforcing until the rent gap closes. Quality answer distinguishes change of composition from displacement and proposes measurable evidence (Mietspiegel data, migration balance by age group, school enrolment).
Traps that cost marks
- Reciting the demographic transition model as if every country must pass through each phase.
- Treating push–pull as a full explanation without selectivity or intervening obstacles.
- Confusing segregation (spatial distribution) with discrimination (behavioural mechanism).
- Describing gentrification as "nicer buildings" rather than as rent-gap-driven displacement.
- Using total population change without disaggregating natural change and migration.