Human Impacts Landscapes

Overview

This lesson investigates how human activities change landscapes in Australia and Peru. Students will identify landscape features, describe change, and evaluate management approaches, building towards the unit’s comparative focus on “Exploring Landscapes: Australia vs Peru”.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• identify features and characteristics of landscapes in Australia and Peru
• describe how human activities can cause environmental change in places
• use geographical thinking to suggest how places can be managed and protected
• compare similarities and differences between human impacts in Australia and Peru

Success criteria

Students can:

• name key landscape features and explain how they connect to human activities
• describe environmental change using cause-and-effect language (because…, therefore…)
• use evidence from a short case study to support claims
• propose a realistic management action and explain why it would help

Curriculum links

• GELS-DFC-02: Students identify features or characteristics of places and environments
• GELS-PRI-01: Students describe how places and environments change
• GELS-MAN-01: Students demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment
• GELS-APC-02: Students identify ways in which Aboriginal Peoples care for and manage Country

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook (Human impact photo set). Teacher displays 4 images (e.g., riverbank, mine site, farmland, coastal development) and asks: “What human actions might be happening here?” Students quick-write 1 action they notice and 1 possible effect on the landscape.

2. 5–12 min · Activate knowledge (Australia vs Peru framing). Teacher briefly recalls that the unit compares landscapes and human-environment interactions; introduces today’s question: “How do people change landscapes, and how can we manage those impacts?” Students complete a “Compare in my head” checklist: one similarity they expect and one difference between countries.

3. 12–25 min · Direct teach (Geographical language + thinking tools). Teacher models a short example using a simple cause–effect structure and prompts:

• What landscape features do we see? (e.g., river, slope, coastline, vegetation)
• What human activity is occurring? (e.g., mining, farming, urban expansion)
• What change might happen over time? (e.g., erosion, sediment, habitat loss, water quality) Students annotate a teacher-provided template: “Feature → Human activity → Environmental change → Evidence”.

4. 25–40 min · Case study investigation (Stations: Australia / Peru). Teacher sets up two stations with short text plus 2–3 images each (teacher-prepared, no hyperlinks), one for Australia and one for Peru, focused on human impacts (e.g., land clearing/farming and river sediment; mining/quarrying and slope instability; or coastal development and habitat change). Students in pairs rotate or complete one station first, then share with a partner who studied the other country; they fill in their template with at least 2 specific examples.

5. 40–52 min · Management challenge (Design a response). Teacher explains task: “For your country, choose one management action that could reduce harm and increase protection.” Students must consider who benefits, the impact on the landscape, and feasibility. If working with Australia, include a prompt: “How might Aboriginal Peoples’ care for Country guide management?” Students write a 4–6 sentence response using a sentence starter set:

• “The key feature is…”
• “Human activity causes…”
• “This leads to…”
• “A management action could…”
• “It would help by…”
• “In Australia, this could connect to Aboriginal care for Country by…”

6. 52–58 min · Whole-class synthesis (Quick comparative share). Teacher leads a class Venn-style discussion: “Where are the impacts similar? Where are they different? What explains the difference?” Students contribute one comparison sentence and one management idea.

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket (Assessment for learning). Students answer:

• “One landscape feature I identified today was…”
• “One human impact and one environmental change I described was…”
• “One management action I would recommend is…”

Resources

• Printed station sheets (Australia case + Peru case), including images and short descriptive text
• Student “Feature → Activity → Change → Evidence” template
• Sentence starter cards for cause-and-effect and management explanations
• Markers/coloured pencils for annotating templates
• Venn diagram handout or whiteboard space for comparative discussion
• Timer visible to students
• Optional: quick map outlines of Australia and Peru for reference

Assessment

• Formative: teacher observes station discussions for accurate identification of landscape features and correct cause–effect reasoning
• Formative: check templates for use of evidence and specific detail (not generic statements)
• Exit ticket: evaluate whether students can describe environmental change caused by human activity and propose a management action

Differentiation

• Support: provide sentence starters, word bank (feature, activity, change, erosion, sediment, habitat, water quality, management, protect, reduce), and partially completed templates
• Support: offer an “example claim” paragraph model and allow students to underline key evidence in the case study text
• EAL: accept sentence fragments initially; use guided oral rehearsal before writing; highlight key verbs (causes, affects, increases/decreases, leads to, helps)
• Extension supports for confident learners: require an additional layer—“How might change look over time (short-term vs long-term)?”
• Organisation: pair stronger readers with those who need more structure; roles in pairs (Reader, Evidence Finder, Writer, Speaker)

Extension (optional)

• For advanced learners, students add a second management action and compare trade-offs: “What could be an unintended consequence of this management approach?” They then justify which action should be prioritised and why, using at least two pieces of evidence from the case studies.