Landscape Strategies

Overview

In this lesson (14 of 20) students compare how landscapes are managed and protected in Australia and Peru. They use geographic thinking to identify features of places, evaluate management strategies, and explain how these strategies respond to environmental change and human needs.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• identify features of a landscape and describe the pressures affecting it
• explain how different management strategies protect landscapes
• compare management approaches in Australia and Peru using geographic evidence
• propose a strategy that balances protection with community needs

Success criteria

Students can:

• name at least two landscape features and one environmental pressure for each case study
• explain how a management strategy reduces harm or supports sustainability
• use geographic terms (e.g. environment, management, impact, protection) accurately
• justify a proposed strategy with evidence from the lesson data/texts

Curriculum links

• GELS-MAN-01: demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment
• GE4-MAN-01: explain the management and protection of places and environments
• GELS-APC-02: identify ways Aboriginal Peoples care for and manage Country (link to Australia case study)
• GELS-PRI-01 and GELS-DFC-02: describe how places/environments change and identify features/characteristics

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–6 min · Retrieval warm-up. Teacher displays two prompts: “What pressures change landscapes?” and “Name one management strategy.” Students quick-write responses in notebooks, then share one idea with a partner.

2. 6–15 min · Case study mini-brief: Australia. Teacher introduces a short Australia management focus (e.g. protected area rules, water management, caring for Country practices, or reforestation/track protection). Students annotate a simple fact sheet to highlight: landscape features, environmental pressure, and one management action.

3. 15–25 min · Case study mini-brief: Peru. Teacher introduces a short Peru focus (e.g. terracing/soil conservation, protected slopes, re-greening projects, fire or grazing management, or community water protection). Students use the same colour-coding scheme to record features, pressures, and management strategies.

4. 25–38 min · Compare and evaluate. Teacher models a comparison sentence frame on the board:

• “In Australia/Peru, the landscape feature is… The pressure is… The management strategy helps by…” Students complete a Venn diagram or T-table (teacher choice) to compare strategies, then circle the most effective strategy and write one “because” statement.

5. 38–52 min · Action planning: propose a strategy. Teacher gives the class one planning template: “Protect–Support–Monitor”. Students work in pairs to propose a management strategy for a chosen landscape problem (Australia or Peru, or a combined idea). They must include:

• the landscape feature and pressure
• a protection or management action
• how success could be monitored (e.g. erosion levels, water quality indicators, biodiversity signs, reduced damage)

6. 52–58 min · Gallery walk + peer feedback. Teacher sets up stations for pairs’ posters/plans. Students leave one “Glow” and one “Grow” comment using sentence starters: “I noticed…”, “A question I have is…”, “To strengthen your justification, you could…”

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket. Teacher asks: “Which strategy protects landscapes best and why? Answer in 3–4 sentences.” Students submit before leaving.

Resources

• Student case study fact sheets (Australia and Peru) with short data/text sections
• Annotation highlighters or coloured pens (2–3 colours)
• Venn diagram / T-table printable or slide handout
• “Protect–Support–Monitor” action planning template
• Poster paper or digital document for the strategy plan
• Gallery comment strips (Glow/Grow sentence starters)
• Exit ticket slips or an online form (no links)

Assessment

• Formative: observation of annotation accuracy and use of geographic terms during mini-briefs
• Formative: teacher checks comparison tables for clear links between pressure and management impacts
• Summative-in-mini: exit ticket evaluating whether students can explain management and protection with evidence

Differentiation

• Provide sentence starters and word banks (environment, change, manage, protect, pressure, impact, evidence, sustainability)
• Offer scaffolded templates: reduced graphic organiser version for students who need structure; standard version for most students
• For students needing extension support, supply a “model justification” paragraph and ask them to underline the cause–impact link
• For EAL learners: allow responses to include key terms and labelled diagrams; pair with a supportive partner and permit first-draft oral rehearsal
• For SEN/learning difficulties: chunk tasks into shorter segments (features → pressure → strategy → monitoring) with a checklist
• Extension challenge pathway (advanced learners): require a trade-off statement (“This strategy has a benefit and a cost/limitation because…”), and one additional evidence point from the case study

Extension (for advanced learners)

• Add a “What could go wrong?” row: identify one risk or unintended consequence (e.g. restricted access, short-term disruption, maintenance costs) and adjust the strategy accordingly.
• Students write a one-paragraph “compare and justify” response that explicitly links both countries’ strategies to landscape protection and environmental management.