Human Fieldwork

Question 1

Title of Human Fieldwork

Answer 1

An investigation into the impact of regeneration of Leeds Dock

Question 2

Hypothesis of Human Fieldwork

Answer 2

The environmental quality of the regeneration will increase as you get closer to Leeds City Centre

Question 3

Why and how was the area regenerated?

Answer 3

It was derelict due to deindustrialisation, global shift and globalisation

Regenerated blue spaces
Urban greening
Flagship museums (Royal Armouries)
High quality residential apartments

Question 4

What data did we use?

Answer 4

Primary
Quantitative

Question 5

What was our methodology?

Answer 5

Systematic Sampling - Quick and easy method where samples are taken at regular intervals - in our case every 150m along the transect line that stretches from the city centre to the edge of the regeneration site

1. Create a quantitative environmental survey table
2. Mark 8 sample points every 150m onto a map along a transect
3. At each sample site:
   Use the environmental quality survey table to score each site 1- 5 on each criteria
   Agree on collective data (mean)
   Calculate a total score for each site /40

Question 6

What is a transect line?

Answer 6

A line which is drawn through the area being investigated. It is used to study changes in an area

Question 7

4 risks

level

reduce

Answer 7

Being involved in a road collision whilst crossing
Low risk
Always use a pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man

Drowning
Low risk
Stay away from edge of the water

Industrial accidents
Low risk
Avoid dangerous areas

Slips trips and falls
High risk
Appropriate footwear

Question 8

Why is Leeds Dock a suitable location to collect data about regeneration?

Answer 8

Accessibility - students can go there and collect data and come back within a day

Relatively safe - Away from dangerous areas

Availability of data - the site has a range of survey points available with enough variation within locality to make conclusions relating to the hypothesis

Question 9

What is an Environmental Quality Survey?

Answer 9

Takes into account a set number of criteria against which the researcher gives a score.

For each criteria, paired, opposite words are used to create a likert scale which the researcher uses to place their opinion - subjective

Once the analysis is complete a total value can be calculated by using a sum of the individual scores - allowing easy comparisons between locations

Question 10

Evaluation of likert scale method?

Answer 10

Creates scores which are highly subjective to reader’s opinion.

This can lead to inaccurate comparisons if there is inconsistent grading between locations

Question 11

What are the limitations to the human fieldwork method?

How can we tackle this

Answer 11

Subjective - create a mean score of the classes data

Opinions can change over time - conduct a pilot test and then go and do the study

All the variables are weighted equally although some have more relevance to the hypothesis than others eg. lighting of streets carried too much weight
Adjust weighting.

Difficult to quantify some of the criteria eg. Condition of roads and pavements - Use images to represent different scores or use decibal app to measure noise

Question 12

How did we present our data?

What is it?

Answer 12

Proportional symbol map showing total environmental quality score per location

Proportional symbol maps scale the size of simple symbols proportionally to the dat value found at the location.

The larger the symbol the more of what you’re measuring exists at the location

Question 13

Limitation of data presentation?

Answer 13

Only shows a total score and not the individual break downs.

Is not precise or easy to extract data from

Question 14

Advantages of data presentation?

Answer 14

Portrays a clear trend that answers the hypothesis of our investigation

Question 15

OVERALL CONCLUSION FOR HUMAN

Answer 15

Overall, when considering if the environmental quality of the regeneration will increase as you get closer to the city centre I can see that it does. For example sample site 1 scored 34/40 (closest to the city centre) while sample site 8 scored 18/40 which was furthest away.

However, the trend along my transect was not consistent with sample site 4 achieving the highest score of 40/40 due to it having:
Excellent quality buildings
No dereliction
Good quality roads
This shows regeneration has different impacts and different places within the regenerated area

From my data I have decided to accept my original hypothesis.

Question 16

How reliable is the conclusion?

Answer 16

Methodology:
Reliable as it provides simple quantatitive data that is easy to interpret and is accurate as close to the true value. This is because we calculated a mean of all our data to remove subjective opinion bias.

Reliable as 8 sample sites is relatively large. Decreases the impact of anomalous results. However increase number of sample sites to make it even more reliable

Unreliable - no repeats

May not be reliable as all criteria are waited equally although not all as relevant to each other when answering the criteria. - Lighting weighted too heavily .

May not be reliable as no pilot test, so opinions change over time which influenced are grading making it inconsistent and therefore unreliable.

Presentation
Reliable as shows us a clear trend in relation to our hypothesis

However it only shows the total score (incorrectly weighted) which may decrease reliability

Question 17

Did we satisfy the aim of our enquiry in human fieldwork?

Answer 17

Yes as we discovered score decreased as distance increased from Leeds city centre