Human and physical geography enquiry (Durdle door and Lulworth cove)

Question 1

What was the focus? (thing to remember to write in exam)

Answer 1

To investigate the effect of visitors on environmental quality of Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door

Question 2

When did we collect the fieldwork?

Answer 2

3rd march

Question 3

What were the weather conditions?

Answer 3

Sunny with few clouds and no rain

Question 4

What was the hypothesis?

Answer 4

Durdle Door and Lulworth Cove will be popular with visitors. Visitors will have a negative impact on the environmental quality of Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door.

Question 5

What were the risks and how were they managed?

Answer 5

• Cliff edges: We were not allowed closer to the cliffs than the staff.
• Crossing roads: We had to follow the PGL road crossing system.
• Trips, slips, and falls: Wear appropriate footwear and inform students of unstable areas on the footpath to avoid.

Question 6

Why is Lulworth estate a good location for the fieldwork? (and rhyme)

Answer 6

• Has natural beauty so is popular with visitors.
• Easily accessible due to parking facilities and footpaths that stretch between Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door as well as connecting to car parks.
• Within travelling distance of the PGL centre.
• There are facilities in place to accommodate visitors (seating, toilets, parking)
• Pew, View, Brew, Drive through

Question 7

What did we investigate? (and how)

Answer 7

• Footpath erosion: Using a quadrat and a tape measure, record percentages of vegetation, soil, and exposed rock. Do this in the middle of the path, as well as 2m on the left and right of the path.
• Visitor numbers: Count the number of visitors that pass a certain point in 5 minutes.
• Litter count: Count the number of pieces of litter you can spot.
• Environmental and landscape quality: Ranking a site according to features like litter, natural beauty, etc.

Question 8

What were the problems / advantages with each method?

Answer 8

• Footpath erosion was good because we could measure percentages with the quadrats.
• Footpath erosion was bad because we didn’t have time to repeat the method for increased accuracy.
• Litter count was bad because we did it over the whole path, not an even area.
• The EQS and LQI surveys are subjective.
• We couldn’t survey enough sites so we couldn’t apply our methods consistently.