Conclusion/Evaluation

Question 1

How could the enquiry be improved?

Answer 1

• Only 3 sample sites not sufficient and none done in middle and lower course. Comprehensive selection of sites from source to mouth needed.
• several visits needed throughout the year to get average set of results or examine annual changes in the river regime.
• Ensure equipment used was going to be able to give more accurate results. Chain smaller for wetted perimeter? Calliper for B-axis measurements?
• Make comparisons with other rivers.

Question 2

Could the fieldwork be of use to other people?

Answer 2

• HYDROLOGISTS: identify areas of potential flood risk & prepare appropriate defences/control methods
• INSURANCE COMPANIES: may decide insurance prices for homes and companies
• WATER COMPANIES: could identify times of year when water could be extracted or not for other purposes such as farming.

Question 3

How has the enquiry improved your understanding of the topic area?

Answer 3

-That no variable is independent of the other one. For example, there is a positive relationship between velocity and hydraulic radius.
-That differing processes are more dominant in certain parts of the rivers, which produce different landforms
EG: lateral erosion at site 3 created a meander, & the issue of channelisation at Malton leading to increased velocities compared to site 7.
-That channel characteristics are linked to valley cross profile.
-That humans can play an important role in determining channel characteristics

Question 4

Did the answers match the theory/summarise your findings?

Answer 4

• Velocity DID increase as we moved downstream-however anomalies with site 1 and 2 and site 6- include figures
• Channel width and depth increased.
• Hydraulic radius increased from the source.