Fieldwork (topic 6) Flashcards
Why did we choose to study Guildford?
Accessible and close (easy access in coach)
Safe
Good size (not too big)
Secondary data to refer back to?
IMD (Index of multiple deprivation) > chloropleth maps
Census
7 domains of deprivation
Living Income Employment Education Environment Health Crime
Why do we sample the area?
As wards are too big so sample each area to be quicker but still get accurate representation of area.
Key question
How does quality of life differ within Parkbarn and Merrow?
Geographical theories and concepts role in investigation
Inform our question and link to primary data found
Quality of life
How happy you are (is affected by many factors).
Summary of Merrow IMD data
Ranked 32,453rd most deprived and so is in top decile of least deprived areas.
Summary of Parkbarn IMD data
Ranked 5,726th most deprived area (out of 32,844) and so is in bottom 20% (2nd decile).
Burgess model
Concentric ring model demonstrating less expensive land further from CBD.
Doesn’t consider other factors (eg colonialism and starting points).
Goes against Guildford.
Noise pollution aspect
Decibel ultra app on iPad
Measured average number of decibels heard while standing in area for 10 seconds.
:) scientific and accurate
Simple way to view representation of geographical pattern within area, spoils area atmosphere, decreasing QOL.
:( measured at off-peak times so is inaccurate overall representation,
Can hold human bias as to where measure noise
Measure for longer?
Litter pollution
Litter survey (observation)
Counted no. of litter pieces seen within area w eyes.
:) quick and simple method,
Litter indicates poorer services and QOL
:( human error could affect
Isn’t measured at peak
Windy day?
Traffic count
Traffic survey (observation)
Counting no. of vehicles going past over 5 min time period.
:) 5 min allows for traffic control methods
:( cul de sacs will inevitably have less traffic
Wasn’t at peak time
Human error
Environmental quality
Survey (observation)
Stratified sampling w each area receiving score of 5 for different aspects of environment.
:) stratified reduces human bias and provides accurate representation of whole area
:( scores could easily be biased
Public perception
Questionnaire Open-ended and closed questions asked of members of the public within area. \:) open-ended provides detail of area Qualitative data \:( locals may be biased as to area Strangers may not know area Some may be hard to survey
Alternate methods to research QOL
Footfall count (less busy as move from CBD? Quieter and so higher QOL)
House prices (Indication as to income levels of area)
Educational attainment (shows education factor of deprivation)
Annotated photos of each area (detailed qualitative data)
Photos from areas in past (development?)
Focus groups (provide perception and stigmas )
Stratified sampling (reduction of bias for each person asked)
What does the secondary noise data indicate?
Demonstrates Merrow w higher levels of noise pollution than Parkbarn by 30 units (linking to main road through it).
Goes against other data collected in which Merrow displays better QOL, noise pollution usually indicates poorer atmosphere. However, can also indicate better transport links (main road and in commute zone), services are more accessible to them. Is representative of Merrow’s 42.9% economically active.
Corresponds w traffic count numbers (higher in Merrow).
Measured at off-peak and held bias as to where decided to measure.
What does traffic count data indicate?
Bar chart displays almost 1/3 more traffic (corresponding w noise pollution levels).
Goes against IMD data w Merrow’s better QOL as traffic decreases safety and green spaces in the area. Although, could suggest better transport links as located on main road w more car owners (higher GDP) and support Merrow’s 42.9% economically active.
By contrast, Parkbarn has limited services.
Human error could affect numbers counted. Measured at an off peak time < similarly to all other recordings taking place.
What does litter data indicate?
Demonstrates more than double litter levels within Parkbarn than in Merrow, suggesting Parkbarn has poorer services and environment (linking to EQA radial). Links to IMD data showing poorer services in Parkbarn. However doesn’t take council homes into account, in relation to Merrow’s large proportion of owned homes (meaning will take more care for environment). Observational survey could be affected by human error.
What does the environmental quality (Barchart) data indicate?
Illustrates Merrow’s environmental quality significantly better than Parkbarn > lower QOL.
IMD domain of deprivation (environment) and EQA secondary radial diagram supports.
Goes against Burgess’ model (both located in commuter zones so should therefore be nicer areas.
1-5 scale promotes bias.
What does the EQA (radial) data indicate?
Demonstrates overall greater average in environmental quality in Merrow.
Parkbarn lacks Cleanliness/buildings appearance/ parking, while having greater levels of noise pollution/graffiti (none of which are higher than Merrow). Correspond w IMD data in which Parkbarn is in lowest decile.
Higher GDP = more owned properties= more care for the environment.
Links to litter surveys.
Shows clear difference between 2 areas.
Method of judgement biased as based on judgement.
Rural area key question
Investigating how and why drainage basin and channel characteristics influence flood risk for people and property along the River Tillingbourne.
River wey drainage basin area
1008 km squared
Why is the river Tillingbourn suitable for a fieldwork investigation?
Local, accessible to collect data in one day.
Shallow, slow, clean (safe)
Shows downstream changes
Risk
Likelihood * severity
Likelihood
The probability of something happening (antecedent conditions/ land use…)
Severity
How intensely a flood could impact the environmental, social and economic factors.
Sample
Selection of data that’s representational of all data collected.
Is done as is quicker and not everywhere is accessible/safe.
Positives of systematic sampling
Representative of whole river.
No bias/ human influence
Negatives of systematic sampling
Site safety/accessibility unknown
Random sampling positives
No bias/human influence
Random sampling negatives
Less variety
Unrepresentative
Safety/accessibility of site unknown
Stratified sampling positives
Know safety/ accessibility of site
Representative of whole river
Negatives of stratified sampling
Biased
Quantitive primary data
Velocity
Depth
Width
Qualitative primary data
Annotated diagram
Location of river Tillingbourne
Guildford, SE of England and London.
Flows east to west from Abinger hammer towards Shalford.
Tributary to rive Wey.
Geographical model supporting downstream trends
BRADSHAW MODEL
Demonstrates discharge, width, depth, velocity and load quantity all increasing (by differing amounts) down the river course.
Roughness, load size and gradient all decrease down the river course.
Measuring river velocity
Why’s this method good?
Place hydroprop w a clear impeller in front of you in river (so as not to obstruct and so affect velocity measured), use stopwatch (Limits human error) to time impeller’s journey to the end of the thread. Repeat *2 on same axis of river.
Is quick, cheap and easy
Improvements of velocity measurements
Human error involved from stopwatch.
Sediment getting caught in hydroprop.
Other teams measuring upstream and so obstructing natural river flow.
Purpose of field sketch
Why was this method good?
Provided rough idea of appearance/structure of river in relation to discharge, is also place/time specific.
Adds context to results and only required pen and paper.
Limitations of fieldsketch
Possible improvement?
Inability to draw accurate diagrams, long, cold and wet conditions when drawing.
Could instead take photos of river and annotate.
Example of systematic sampling used
Depth measurements by measuring every 1/11th of width.
Example of stratified sampling used
Choosing sites that were safe yet representational.
Example of random sampling
Velocity
Hydroprop was placed in random, non calculated area.
Secondary data collected rurally
Chose sites according to map, showing distance downstream.
Secondary data collected by FSC at Juniper hall, adding data to sites we couldn’t visit so had more reliable conclusions.
Context used as to location of area in relation.
Data used from different times of year.
Plotted rural results plotted
Line graph showing positive correlation between cross-sectional area and distance downstream.
