Fieldwork Flashcards
What is the Human enquiry question
To what extent does traffic management contribute to the sustainability of Cambridge city centre
What is the Physical enquiry question
How have groynes affected longshore drift at Hunstanton
Justification of Physical Question
We know from classwork that groynes are designed to trap material which is transported by longshore drift. This is because groynes are built at 90° to the beach, working against the natural process. As the prevailing wind causes the swash to approach the beach at an angle, the sediment is carried with it. Once the sediment hits the groyne, it can travel no further and is then deposited. Over time this material accumulates, causing the width of the beach to increase. This should also cause the beach to be higher on one side of the groyne
Locaton of Physical Fieldwork
- 2 hours away on the coach
- 80 miles to the North East of Bedford. North Coast of Norfolk
Justification of Physical Fieldwork Location
- Accessibility - Can get there in 2 hour on the coach - closest coastline to School
- Low Risk - Low chances of accident/injury at this location
- Hunstanton has one area with groynes and another area without groynes so comparison can be made
Risks
Slips, Trips and Falls - How to reduce
Physical - Hunstanton
Wear appropiate footwear with good grip
Risks
Cold and Wet Weather - Hot and sunny
How to Reduce
Physical - Hunstanton
Wearing Warm and waterproof clothes
Have a hat, water and sun cream
Risks
Drowning in sea
How to Reduce
Physical - Hunstanton
Don’t go into the sea and stay 1m away from the sea when taking measurements
How was the Beach Height at groynes test done
- Measure distance from top of groyne to beach using metre stick
- Repeat this at top, middle and bottom (1m from sea) of groyne and on both sides of the groyne
- Systematic sampling -every 3rd groyne
- 3 groynes in total
Why was the Beach Height at groynes test done
It will be measured to look at the longer-term trends in LSD at Hunsanton and how groynes work against the natural processes of longshore drift. We hope to demonstrate that the sediment is built upon the side from which the prevailing wind approaches it.
What were the problems with the Beach Height at groynes test
- Only measured 3 groynes - relatively small sample
- Some groynes selected by sampling method were damaged and the data collected from these generated anomalies
- Measurement closest to sea was not at end of groyne due to H&S requirement
What were the improvement for the Beach Height at groynes test
- Collect data from more groynes to represent a wider sample of data - time constraints need to be considered
- This would mean any anomalies from damaged groynes would have a less significant impact on overall data
How was the Beach Width test done
- Measure the distance from the bottom of the cliff face/sea wall to 1m from the sea by pacing out the distance
- Systematic Sampling - Do this at the same time as measuring bench height at New Hunstanton. Old Hunstanton, every 150 paces (this is approx. distance between groynes)
- 6 in total, 3 where there are groynes and 3 where there are no groynes
Why was the Beach Width test done
We wanted to see how the groynes had affected LSD. We did this in an area without groynes and we expected a narrower beach because a lack of groynes would mean that there was nothing to interrupt the transportation of material down coast. We repeated this at an area with groynes and hoped to see the groynes trap sediment and therefore make a wider beach, therefore showing how groynes affect LSD
Problems with the Beach Width test
- Each width was measured at different times in the day - morning for New Hunstanton and afternoon for Old Hunstanton. Therefore, the tide had started to come throughout the day - reducing the amount of beach that could be measured
- Inconsistent and variable pace length, therefore not uniform and inaccurate data. The long-distance meat using a metre rule/tape measure was not practical - 200m+ distances
Improvements with the Beach Width test
- All beach widths to be collected at the same time. This would require data to be collected by 6 individuals (one for each width) at a set time - therefore difference in the tide would have no impact on beach width.
- Use trundle wheel to promote accurate data collection instead of pacing
How was the data for the Beach Height at groynes presented
Bar graph (3 separte graohs to represnt the average of top, middle and bottom of groynes)
Why was bar graphs chosen to represent the data for the Beach height at groynes done
So the data from the north and south side of the groynes could be easily compared. A mean was calculated to remove any anomalies and the 4 graphs side by side showed the overall trend for groyne hieght data at New Hunstanton
What were the limitations of the data presentation method for beach height at groynes
The data was based on the average of the top, middle and bottom of the 3 groynes and therefore the bars maybe misleading and could be skewed by any anomalies in the data. This may mean one of the bars is either higher or lower than it should appear
How was the data presented for the Beach Width test
Located proportional symbols. For our 6 locations along the coast, locate a bar at each place to represent the width of the beach. Use squared paper
Why was the data presented the way it was for the beach width test
We want to visually see how the width of the beach varies across the coast. We expect that the beach will be wider in the area that has groynes
What are the limitations for the data presentation for the Beach width test
The only slight negative was the scale we had ti use beause we had a wide range of data. Therefore, knowing the exact beach width without measure the line was difficult
What does describe mean
Quote ‘raw date’ figures
What does analysis mean
Use %, means, modes, medians, IQR.
Are there any patterns?
Are there any anomalies?
What does explain mean
Give reasons for your data, this needs to be supported with geographical understanding
Which was the direction of LSD at Hunstanton
LSD was going from south to north
Description of beach height at groynes results
- Groyne 1: Middle of it: N 51cm - S 125cm
That is the distance from top of groyne to the sand so the north side has more sand.
This is one example that the sand was higher on the north side of groynes
Analysis of Beach Height at Groynes Results
Overall mean - N 89cm S 101cm
This mean shows that the beach is built up on the North side of each groyne
Explanation of Beach Height at Groynes Results
The beach sediment at Hunstanton accumulates on the north side of the groyne due to waves colliding with the groynes at an angle, causing the deposition of sediment. This leads to an increase in the height of the beach and further friction, resulting in more sediment being deposited on the north side. An anomaly in the data was found at the middle of the second groyne, where the beach height was greater on the north side than on the south side. This may be due to the groyne being damaged at that point, which prevented sediment from being trapped as expected.
Description of the Beach Width Test
Found that the beach was wider where there were groynes (New Hunstanton)
* With Groynes (New) - 440, 465 and 472
* Without (Old) - 265, 273 and 262
Analysis of Beach Width Test
- Mean width at New -459
- Mean Width at Old - 267
Explanation of Beach Width Test
The beach at New Hunstanton is wider than Old Hunstanton because of the groynes. The groynes decrease wave energy, trap sediment and increase deposition, leading to the build-up of deposited material and the increase in the beach’s width over time. In contrast, Old Hunstanton has no groynes, resulting in little deposition due to the LSD drift, and most sediment being transported along the coast, leading to no further sediment being added to the beach.
Conclusion of the whole thing
Physical - Hunstanton
Groynes have impacted Longshore Drift (LSD) by trapping sediment carried by waves, which has led to a wider beach. Evidence from New Hunstanton shows a mean of 459 paces compared to the beach north of Old Hunstanton with a mean of 267 paces. The groynes have slowed down the waves and reduced energy, causing sediment to be trapped and deposited, resulting in a wider beach. Groynes have also affected LSD by trapping transported material, leading to a greater beach height on the north side of the groyne. This is because the groyne has slowed down the wave and increased deposition, which removes some sediment from the transportation process.
Problems of Data Collected and Method of LSD Direction Test
We only know the direction of LSD on that day and this may not be representative of LSD and prevailing wind
This might mean the direction of LSD is not south to north and in fact the normal direction of LSD is north of south the complete opposite
To What Extent is the Conclusion of LSD Direction Test Reliable
The conclusions are reliable because it may be the normal direction of LSD but cannot be 100% without repeating data collection at different times
Problems with Methods and Data Collected for Beach Height at Groynes Test
- We only measured the beach height at 3 groynes and there were many other groynes (over 30) that we didn’t measure
- These 3 groynes may not be representative of the other groynes at New Hunstanton and as such the data were collected may be inaccurate. If we were to measure other groynes it may show that the south side of groynes had a higher beach
To what extent is the conclusion reliable of the Beach Height at Groynes Test
The conclusion that Groynes have affected LSD by traping the transported material is only partly reliable because it is based upon a relatively small amount of data, which although is consistent, may not fully represent all the Groynes at New Hunstanton
Problems with Methods and Data Collected for the Beach Width Test
- We measured the beach width at the groynes at a different time than when we measured the beach width at the beach with no groynes. This meant that the tide was out when we were at New Hunstanton whereas it was in at Old Hunstanton
- As the tide had gone out when we measured the beach at New Hunstanton (groynes) it was not a fair comparison because less of the beach was covered by sea. Therefore the distance of 192 paces which is the difference between the average beach width for New (groynes) and the average width for Old may not be representative of the true difference because the tide had come in
To What Extent is the Conclusion Reliable for the Beach Width Test
The conclusion that groynes have reduced longshore drift based on the beach being wider on New Hunstanton than the beach Old Hunstanton might not be fully reliable as this could have been just as the tide was out and not because the groynes had caused more deposition and built up the beach, making it wider
Justification of Human Question
We know from the specification that transport strategies can be used to reduce traffic congestion and improve an urban area’s sustainability. less traffic, particularly less stationary traffic leads to reduced air pollution and an improved environment. A reduction in traffic congestion leads to more economic efficiency for commuters and the transport of goods. Transport strategies such as pedestrianisation lead to safer roads for pedestrians which has many socio-economic benefits
Cambridge
Justification of Location
- Accessibility - only 50 minutes by coach
- Has an identifiable, accessible city centre that is not too large
- Low risk - low chance of accident/injury at this location
- Cambridge has lots of examples of traffic management
Risks - Cambridge
Crossing Roads - Risk of Being Hit - How to Reduce
- Safety briefing given by a member of staff
- Roads crossed using pedestrian crossings only
- Teacher pre-trip reconnaissance identified routes with crossings, avoiding busiest roads
Risks
Getting Lost
Human - Cambridge
- Fieldtrip booklet containing maps with key locations and photos of each site
- Orientation briefing by a member of staff
- Mapping software on phones used to save meeting point
- Staff mobile phone number shared with all
Risks
Members of the Public
Human - Cambridge
- Briefing by member of staff on conduct around Cambridge
- Group work, always in groups of 4 or more
- Staff mobile phone number shared and staff patrolling city centre
How was the Traffic Survey Test Done
- 1 person counts motorised vehicles travelling in both directions
- 1 person counts bicycles travelling in both directions
- For a time of 5 minutes
- All types of motorised vehicles are counted
- Stratified sampling across all 7 sites
- Equipment - timer (phone/watch), pen/pencil, data recording table
Why was the Traffic Survey Test Done
We will measure this to find out how traffic changes across the 7 sites. The volume of traffic at each site will indicate the effectiveness of the traffic management schemes at reding traffic congestion across the city centre. From this, we can identify how sustainable the 7 sites are.
We will assume from the bicycle counts that a higher number of bicycles indicates a more sustainable area
Problems with the Traffic Survey Test
- Human error - it is easy to lose count when many cars pass at the same time in different directions
- Traffic lights and pedestrian crossings cause traffic to stand still and reducing the number of cars passing each site
Improvements for the Traffic Survey Test
- Use a clicker counter to log traffic and make the count more accurate
- Have 2 people count in either direction then take a toral, reducing the chance of human error
- Extend the time from 5 to 10 minutes to allow for traffic lights and to create a more accurate representation of traffic numbers
How was the Environmental Quality Survey done
Come to a pragmatic decision on the scoring of the following 4 factors:
1. Pedestrian Safety
1. Road/Pavement Quality
1. Traffic Noise Level
1. Smell
* Score each factor from 5 to -5 with 5 being best and -6 being worst
* Calculate a total for each site
* Stratified sampling across all 7 sites
* Equipment - data recording table, pen/pencil
Why was the Environmental Quality Survey done
We will measure this to compare the quality of the environment across Cambridge city centre. A higher score indicates higher sustainability, particularly if all 4 factors are scored highly. The categories relate to the social and environmental conditions across the city, both are important components of sustainability.
Problems with the Environmental Quality Survey
- Different group members have different opinions on the severity of factors e.g. road noise
- It is difficult to judge factors such as pedestrian safety in such a short period of time
Improvements for the Environmental Quality Survey
- Have the same person in the group make the judgements across all 7 sites
- Hold a standardising session as a group, agreeing on the extremes of each factor
- Use a decibel reading app for an accurate and comparable recording
- Use secondary data such as Road Traffic Accident (RTA) reports and their proximity to each location to make a more accurate judgement of pedestrian safety
How was the Traffic Survey Data Presented
Located proportional symbol map showing data for all 7 sites on one map
* Decide upon a scale for your data e.g. 1cm = 1 person (too large)
* Draw a square to represent this in your key
* Locate each square consistently - centre of square is always on the site
* Draw 7, proportional squares onto your map
* Shade in colour so they stand out
Why was the Traffic Survey Data Presented the way it was
- We wanted to visually see how the number of vehicles varied in different areas of Cambridge City Centre
- By locating these onto a map of Cambridge CC, we could easily see where the highest number of vehicles was and if this matched up with the areas with traffic management/ closer to CC. Also gave spatial information
- We expected that there would be fewer vehicles the closer you went to the CC
What were the Limitations of the Data Presentation Method for the Traffic Survey
The only slight negative was the scale we had to use because we had a wide range of data. Therefore, knowing the exact number of cars without measuring the line was a little difficult
How was the data presented for the Environment Quality Survey
Radar Graphs (1 for each of the 7 sites)
1. Mark your value/score for each category, on the relevant axis.
1. Join these points with a ruler
1. Lightly shade the area created (so you can still read the values)
Why was the data presented the way it was for Environment Quality Survey
- It enables us to visually identify which sites in Cambridge CC have the highest score (those that occupy the largest area). It also allows us to identify anomalous results - as they will be exaggerated on the graph
- By using a series of radar graphs, we can compare the different categories and also different sites, enabling us to identify patterns and trends in sustainability.
- We can then ee if the sites with the largest/highest scores correlate with areas of traffic management and if they do, we can support out hypothesis
Limitations of the Data Presentation Method for the Environmental Quality Survey
- If only one-factor scores over -5 the graph is presented as a single line, making it hard to read as an area graph
- Shading in the bars can cover the axis, making them difficult to read
- A larger area shaded means a better environment, this could be interpreted incorrectly
Traffic Survey Test Description
- The highest traffic count was at site 1 with 98 vehicles
- The lowest traffic count was at site 6 with 23 vehicles
- The main pattern was that the closer to the city centre you were the more cars there were
- There was an anomaly at site 6 with 23 vehicles with none of them being cars as there were no cars allowed so there were only bicycles
Traffic Survey Test Description
- The highest traffic count was at site 1 with 98 vehicles
- The lowest traffic count was at site 6 with 23 vehicles
- The main pattern was that the closer to the city centre you were the more cars there were
- There was an anomaly at site 6 with 23 vehicles with none of them being cars as there were no cars allowed so there were only bicycles
Traffic Survey Test Analysis
Mean - 56
Median - 53
Traffic Survey Test Explanation
The reason that the highest traffic score of 98 vehicles at site 1 is because it was next to a main road and was on the outskirts of the city centre there are also no traffic management schemes.
This helps us understand the overall pattern because there are higher traffic scores where there is less traffic management.
Environmental Quality Survey Description
The highest sustainability survey score was at site 3 with a score of 17
The lowest sustainability survey score was at site 2 with a score of -6
The main pattern was where there was more traffic management there was a higher score such as at site 5 where there was a 5 for pedestrian safety due to there being no cars allowed there.
There was an anomaly at site 7 as it was loud which lowered the score it was loud as it was next to a construction site
Environmental Quality Survey Analysis
Mean - 6
Mode - 12
Median - 8
Environmental Quality Survey Explanation
The reason that the highest sustainability survey score of 17 was at site 3 because it was pedestrian and cycle only and it had a cycle lane to keep pedestrians safe
This helps us to understand the overall pattern because where there is more traffic management there is better sustainability.
The anomaly may have occurred because at site 7 there was a construction site which made it louder and less sustainable.
Conclusion of Cambridge Tests
The investigation found that traffic management contributes to the sustainability of Cambridge City Centre. This is supported by lower traffic counts and higher sustainability scores in the City Centre where there is more traffic management, compared to areas further away with less traffic management, which had higher traffic counts and lower sustainability scores.
Site 6 - 23 vehicles and 12 sustainability score
Site 2 - 6 sustainability score
Site 1 - 98 vehicles
Problems with Traffic Survey Method
Easy to lose count when roads were busy
If there were long sequence of traffic lights nearby - this could cause anomalous results - either increasing or decreasing (Site 1 - 98 vehicles)
Traffic counts were at different times of day and therefore not comparable
Road work - disrupting flow
Problems with the Traffic Survey Data Collected
My results are generally accurate and reliable. This is because I collected data in the same way at each point. However, we collected the data at different times of the day so the difference in result may not be 100% due to traffic management. There was also an anomaly caused by roadworks which reduces the accuracy of my results
To what extent is the Traffic Survey Conclusion Reliable
My conclusion is mostly valid and reliable but I cannot be 100% certain about the role of traffic management. It could be that the lower counts were due to the time of day and therefore I can test my hypothesis but to be fully confident in my conclusion, I would need to repeat the traffic counts at the same times of day
Improvements to the Traffic Survey
- Use a clicker to keep count
- Repeat traffic counts at the same time of day by having a group at each location - remove issue of being busier around rush hour
Problems with the Environmental Quality Survey Method
- Data is subjective - based on opinions
- Hard to use 11 possible scores
- No prior standardisation of scores - one area could be given -5 and the next area was worse therefore the scoring system is flawed
Problems with the Environmental Quality Survey Data Collected
My results are partially accurate and reliable. This is because I collected my data the same way at each point. However, our results are subjective (based on opinions) so the difference in results may not be 100% due to traffic management. When measuring road noise this was done at difference times of day and therefore this could mean my results are less reliable
To what extent is the Environmental Quality Survey Conclusion Reliable
My conclusion is generally valid and reliable but I cannot be 100% certain about the role of traffic management. It could be that my subjective scoring was influenced by other factors than sustainability and therefore I can test my hypothesis but to be fully confident in my conclusion, I would need to have a standardised and objective scoring system
Improvement with the Environmental Quality Survey
- Conduct a pilot study in the local area to work out the parameters of the scoring system
- Use a decibel meter to pre-set noise ranges for each category
- Reduce the scale of the score (-3 to 3) fewer options 0 easier to categorise
