Fieldwork Flashcards
Pros of choropleth maps
Give a clear, visual indication of how deprivation varies across a city
Cons of choropleth maps
Only shows data for wards as a whole, ignores variation of deprivation within wards. Seems as though there are drastic and sudden changes at ward borders, ignores gradual changes across borders
Ward def
A division or district of a town/city for administrative or political purposes
First impression of Merrow
From census data and index of multiple deprivation data. I thought it was more developed than Park Barn. I thought that it would be filled with more young people and have more services and better looking buildings with less environmental damage.
Merrow statistics
Yoga. Pilates. Golf. Ballet. Fencing. (More physical activities, better equipment and specialist instructors). 12.8 over 16s with no formal qualifications. Higher total crime rate. 98% better overall. 98% education affluence. 97% income deprivation
First impression of Park Barn
From census data and index of multiple deprivation data. More older adults living there. Quieter. More residential homes. Less services
Park Barn statistics
Word searches. Bingo. Arts and crafts. Low total crime rate. 21.5% over 16s with no formal qualification. 15% income deprivation. 5% education. 61% living environment. 37% barriers to services
Evaluate the secondary sources e.g. Census data and IMD data
Useful because it meant that we didn’t need to go out and investigate each aspect of deprivation ourselves. Saved time. It would have been difficult to gather the information ourselves.
Limitations include that it might be outdated. Things could have changed now. It might be better to research and see things first hand to get a better understanding and opinion of the different wards.
Hypothesis of the urban studies
Park Barn would have a lower quality of life (more deprived)
Merrow would have a better quality of life (less deprived)
Sampling data for urban studies
Stratified then picked random points - each area subdivided into 5 areas, each group given one specific area to investigate with four representative points
Urban fieldwork techniques
Questionnaires, litter count, noise levels, traffic count, environmental quality survey
Qualitative data from urban studies
Questionnaires
Quantitative data from urban studies
Environmental quality survey, litter count, noise levels, traffic count
Describe and evaluate noise levels
We used a decibel app to measure how loud (the amplitude) each point and our given area was. This told us the level of noise, taking into account background noise, cars, any construction nearby, people, animals.
Useful: get an idea of what life is like living in that area in terms of tranquility and peace from noise disturbances.
Limitations: only measured at a certain time of day - some loud trucks and bin trucks were there when they usually wouldn’t be present.
Describe and evaluate environmental quality survey
This included graffiti and vandalism, safety, open spaces, greenery and gardens, street furniture, street cleanliness, exterior appearance of buildings and parking. We ranked each out of five (being really good) at our four representative points.
Useful: this was good as it combined many important factors in determining the quality of the surrounding environment of different points of the area. It also meant that we could personally see first hand and make judgements on how good or poor the environment was.
Limitations: subjective, some disagreements, generalised, some houses were better than others, opinionated
Describe and evaluate litter count
We went to each representative point in our given area and counted every piece of litter we could visibly see around us. We then noted this number down to compare with the other points and the other ward.
Useful: This was a simple and easy way for us to measure the cleanliness of the area.
Limitations: there might have been a rubbish collection that day. More litter as some rubbish might have fallen out the truck.
Describe and evaluate questionnaire
We asked around 10 different people, either on the street or knocked on their houses, at each point of the area different questions about the area. My group only asked people in Park Barn and the other groups asked people in Merrow. The questions we asked included their opinion of the area, how they would describe it, what they liked about it and how they would want it to be improved.
Useful: it was good as we could get an understanding of how the people in the area felt about the place. We got opinions and points of view of people who have experienced first hand what the area is like.
Limitations: subjective, different opinions, some people were too busy to answer our questions, because of this we were only able to ask a few people, not as varied, we asked mostly young college people as they were willing and more approachable.
Describe and evaluate traffic count
We counted all the vehicles such as bikes, cars and buses that went passed us or travelled the roads of our area for five minutes.
Useful: easy, quick, gave us an idea of traffic congestion in that area, how easy it was to travel
Limitations: time of day, most people were already at work or school, not many people on the road at that time, not very accurate
Results for Merrow’s environmental quality
A: 32/45, B: 36/45, C: 24/45, D: 36/45
It was overall above average and fairly good. Not much vandalism, fairly safe, however not much parking spaces or open spaces or street furniture
Results for Merrow
Questionnaire: mostly say more parking, better lit street lamps, like the quietness, good people, people of different cultural backgrounds, close to hospital nurseries and university
Litter: quite a lot
Noise: fairly quiet
Traffic: hardly any
Results for Park Barn
Questionnaire: no results
Litter: hardly any
Noise: fairly quiet (except some construction and rubbish trucks)
Traffic: hardly any
Results for Park Barn’s environmental quality
A: 24/45, B: 31/45, C: 35/45, D: 30/45
Not as good as Merrow
No vandalism, no street furniture, no parking spaces, fairly clean, no noise, hardly any gardens, few open spaces and parks
River studied
River Tillingbourne. Source: Wotton Common. Confluence: Ricer Wey.
59km2 drainage basin, 19km long river
Justification of river study
Less discharge. Safer compared to Thames. Smaller drainage basin. Accessible areas (not all private land). Smaller river - quicker change.
Sampling strategies for river study
Two sites used stratified (primary)
Eight sites of secondary data
Other sampling strategies
Stratified, random, systematic
Justify stratified sampling for rivers
To use our own knowledge to find representative sites. Quicker and safer as it is accessible. But it could be biased
Quantitative data in rivers
Velocity, depth, width. To show downstream changes
Describe and evaluate River width
Use a 30m tape measure. Stretch it across the river between the banks. Make sure it is perpendicular to the banks, taut and just above the water surface with zero where the water starts from the land. Record the width in metres to the nearest cm.
It is a key part to finding the cross sectional area which is used to find river discharge which influences flood risk.
Limitations: tape measure catching g in water, not taut, inaccurate width measured, mud and overhanging vegetation made it hard to see the edge of the banks, or completely accurate width measured, should have taken an average, only measured once, not reliable
Accuracy vs reliability
A: how close something is to the truth
R: can it be repeated to get the same result
Cross sectional area of river
Depth x width
River discharge
Velocity x cs area
Risk
Likelihood x severity
Likelihood
Affected by capacity of river
Factors affecting flood severity
Distance from river, height from river, value of land, value of property
Systematic measurements in river studies
Depth and velocity
Measured at regular intervals
Describe and evaluate depth
Use a metre stick and tape measure to measure the depth at each interval (systematic). Divide the total width by 10 to find out the interval width. There should be 11 measurements in total including the depth at zero. Submerge the metre stick into the river until it reaches the bed. Read off the depth where it touches the surface.
Useful: depth is a key part of finding the cs area which is important to find the river discharge which influences flood risk.
Limitations: measurement of depth taken from the metre rule ignores the gap between the edge of the stick and the 1mm measurement. Might have pressed into the river bed, inaccurate. Only measure once, unreliable.
Describe and evaluate velocity
Used a hydro prop flow metre (impeller blades and stand) - measured in m/s.
Divide total width by 4 to find the intervals. Should be 3 measurements (quarter half and three quarters). Submerge hydroprop into river until the blades are deep enough in the river. Time how long it takes for the blades to move from one end to the other and record results.
Useful: key part in finding discharge which influences flood risk.
River Tillingbourne likelihood of flooding
Unlikely to flood as it is mainly pastoral grassland which is intergranular and highly permeable meaning rain water would sink rather than run off
