Fieldwork Human

Question 1

What was the aim of human field work ?

Answer 1

How successful has the regeneration of Cardiff bay been

Question 2

How did we select a suitable hypothesis ?

Answer 2

SMART:
Specific - focused on only the Cardiff Bay Area
Manageable - the area needed to manageable in time constraints
Accessible - easy and safe access north to south between the 2 areas
Relevant - 2.4 billion to regenerate 1100 hectares of land
Timely - during the working day to speak to members of the public

Question 3

What was the underpinning geographical theory ?

Answer 3

• Need to regenerate rundown brownfield sites
• when we evaluated success we considered soc, env, econ factors
• used the Burgess and Boyt models to analyse data

Question 4

What was our hypothesis ?

Answer 4

H1 - no drop in environmental quality along transect
H2 - wide range of land use that are appropriate for local residents
H3 - response to question air is largely positive

Question 5

Why was our location suitable ?

Answer 5

• through 1850’s huge coal mining industry, caused lots of wealth
• however after WW2 deindustrialisation caused decline in area
• Cardiff bay development Corporation set up in 1987, the project was finished in 2000, so we can access whether aims met

Question 6

What was the importance of risk assessment ?

Answer 6

• can anticipate and mitigate any potential danger in advance

Question 7

What are the risks with our fieldwork ?

Answer 7

falling into the sea - only walk on designated paths and don’t go near locations near the sea to avoid risk of falling
crossing roads - can get hit by bicycles and cars, only cross at designated crossings
getting lost - make sure your in a group of 4 peoples with charged phones

Question 8

What is land use mapping and why did we do it ?

Answer 8

1) divide area into 6 sub-areas
2) we observed and recorded landuse of each building
3) worked in groups and went to different areas
- systematic sampling allowed us to cover the entire area giving us complete understanding, working in groups removed bias
- subjective as identifying landuse can be opinionated
- only 8 categories so some buildings may not have been represented accurately

Question 9

How did we do the EQA ?

Answer 9

1) systematically sampled every 100m along a transect south-north along Bute st
2) calculated an area score based on 10 factors ranked from 1 to 5
Justifications:
- sampling along a transect allowed us to compare the different areas and the extent to which they were regenerated
- systematic sampling allowed us to see a clear special trend down the road
Limitations:
- as we sampled every 100m to save time, might have missed some changes to EQA in between sites
- subjective as it is a score

Question 10

How did we do Questionair ?

Answer 10

1) stratified sampling by gender and aged
2) asked question to understand the successfulness of the project
3) refined and perfected the questions we asked the pubic based off feedback by piers to make sure the data we gathered was accurate
Justifications:
- stratified sampling allowed us to get representative data of wider population, not just one demographic
Limitations:
- time of Sampling, Wednesday afternoon so most people were working, so most people we asked were elderly and visitors
- old lady syndrome

Question 11

How and why did we present data EQA ?

Answer 11

• we used survey 123 to geolocate EQA scores, export this data from all groups to calculate the average score for each area (reduces bias) , we could import into Arcgis where we could overlay the scores over a map with the bigger the circle the better the score
  Justifications:
• overlaying scores on a map allowed us to identify trends quickly and easily
• by adding photos it gave context and explanation to the score
  Limitations:
• may be variation between sampling sites, but if too close sites may be merged

Question 12

How and why did we present questionnaire ?

Answer 12

• asked the public to rank the success from -5 to 5
• using excel, we constructed bar chart for the scores for different age groups
• the score allowed us to evaluate the success for each group
  Justification:
• easily visible trends can be spotted for each group
• stratified sampling meant there was even representation for each group
  Limitations:
• limited meant more elderly people did the survey

Question 13

How and why did we present landuse.

Answer 13

• choropleth map to show different land uses
• Made by colouring in different areas depending on their land use
  Justifications:
• visually effective at the variation in land use
• locational representation allowed large amounts of data to be shown simply and patterns can be easily spotted
  Limitations:
• unclear land uses and overlapping categories would be hard to display on choropleth map

Question 14

What are statistical tequniques?

Answer 14

• mean, mode, median, range, IQR
• could be problematic in data analysis because it would not account for anomalies
• only gives general patterns rather than specific

Question 15

What are the conclusions for Hypothesis 1 (no drop in environmental quality) ?

Answer 15

• Results reject Hypothesis
• around sample site 4/8 (400m from the shore) there was a significant drop in EQA
• the highest EQA was at site 1 with a score of 47/50, lowest was 20/50 at site 7
• trend was clearly supported by photos and proves only partial success of aim to create a suitable environment to work and play
• anomaly: site 8 showed slight increase to 25 due too increased, Residential area was well maintained

Question 16

What are the conclusions for hypothesis 2 (wide range of land uses) ?

Answer 16

• land use survey PROVES a wide range of land uses is present across the Cardiff Bay Area
• choropleth map with a variety of colours can be used as a clear visual indicator that this is the case
• however, due to the majority of these employment opportunities in mermaid quay being low-skilled and low-paid which means this project is only paritally successful
• map may not be representing the variety of opportunities created

Question 17

What are the conclusions for **hypothesis 3 **(response to questionnaire)

Answer 17

• responses were largely positive with all age categories being net positive
• however responses varied with age, elderly rated 4x higher than younger participants
• we can accept this hypothesis but younger people felt the project was only marginally a success

Question 18

Evaluation of the reliability of conclusions (hyp 1)?

Answer 18

+: the variation in EQA enabled us to make insights by comparing it with data sets such as land use, where variation in land use showed higher EQA score when we moved away from mermaid quay the environment drop showed us clearly the partial success of regeneration.
-: subjective, so the extent to which we were able to analyse the differences between specific sites may be limited as individual factors that have varied along the transect cannot be compared reliably
- only 1 transect, due to time constraints, confidence of conclusions are limited as it is not representative of the whole area

Question 19

Evaluate the reliability of conclusions (hyp2) ?

Answer 19

+: systematic sampling means that the selection of sample sites could not have been biased, our conclusions were not as affected by human variation in terms of what area to choose and the specific land use of building, the data upon which we make our conclusions can be trusted
-: only 8 categories, may not be representative of the actual building
- we could have used secondary data from previous surveys to confirm whether most employment occurs in the catering industry

Question 20

Evaluate the reliability of conclusions (hypothesis 3) ?

Answer 20

+: by stratified sampling meant we were able to observe the variation in opinion in different age groups and gender in the area
- comparing the findings to the land use survey may confirm why younger people were less satisfied with regenerations
- refine questions from other groups allowed us to extract answers that help to make the best conclusion
-:
- old people are less critical and more positive
- could have done a pilot study (trial run) of our questions to see whether they gathered helpful responses
- more qualitative data, where we could have recorded reasoning for their opinions
- time we sampled - people were reluctant to answer questions as they were working and were in a rush