King's Cross Fieldwork Flashcards
retail diversity index for King’s Cross
0.78
How does retail diversity vary across King’s Cross
most shops fall into the category of commercial, entertainment, services
Caledonian road is similar however there are more professional, vacant, personal services
There are more convinience shops on Caledonian road compared to king’s cross and other services
However there isn’t a significant difference.
THEY BOTH REFLECT THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE - young workes with money to spend in KC and lowr income in CR (+ethnically diverse community)
what is the retail diversity index for Caledonian road/
0.85
What types of shops are in KC
high value goods for wealthier clientel
How did people percieve QoL to vary in King’s Cross (questionnaire)
most people agreed that shopping, the local economy, and quality of life, environmental quality were better in regenerated King’s cross
However they feel that there is more hosing available in Caledonian road and the sense of community is much higher Caledonian Road.
What conclusion can we get from the land use survey?
although retail diversity is slightly lower in coaldrops yard, the type of shop suggest a more affluent mobile clientel (shop value is highger) (as 0.7 is still decent and reflects retail diversity). therefore, the fieldwork data supports the hypothesis that QoL is higher in KC
What conclusion can we get from the EQS data?
overall, data suggests environmental quality in regenerated KC is higher (av. scores around 65+) than CR (less than 55) which supports the hypothesis that environmental quality is better in regenerated KC
What conclusion can we get from the photographs?
overall, photographs from KC show KC is green, clean, expensive highrises (quality of housing), atmospheric lights, well maintained, commercially thriving, smooth ground, accessible - suggests ease and convenience therefore higher QoL. In caledonian road, Cthere are more green spaces, commercially thriving areas, transport links visible but seem to be less maintained, older buildings- less invested in so the data supports the hypothesis to a certain extent.
What conclusion can we get from the questionnaire data?
most people agreed that local economy, shopping, quality of life in KC however general concensus was that there was more housign available and sense of community in caledonian road. Fieldwork supports hypothesis
63% aggree QoL better in KC
5 out of 7 categories QoL is better in KC
give a geographical explanation for our conclusions
one reason regenerated kings cross is more developed is because the area had more investment (in housing, cleanliness). The regenerated area is used for wealthy young individuals, trendy, for people to be continously attracted to so more investment (PURPOSE).
here you cant talk about transport links bringing buisness and links because the areas are not distinguishable in that way.
evaluate Retail Diversity Index, describe the method and sampling strategy, what worked well/limitations + to be improved next time (and which affect RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, VALIDITY)?
grouping shops into certain categories using tally charts (RICEPOTS) and marking it on a map and calculating diversity
stratified sampling strategy - 2 locations which are researched before hand
systematic- every shop, RDI
WWW- it was simple, sampled the appropriate area (V), easy to categorise - ricepots (A), RDI is an objective numerical comparison (A),
limitations- people might group different shops into different sections creating varying results (A), Ricepots was limited as shops coudl fit into 2 categories (A), no distinction between income (A)
next time? - more similar sample size?, new category system inclusing cost (A)
WWW/EBI with RDI?
WWW- it was simple, sampled the appropriate area (V), easy to categorise - ricepots (A), RDI is an objective numerical comparison (A),
limitations- people might group different shops into different sections creating varying results (A), Ricepots was limited as shops coudl fit into 2 categories (A), no distinction between income (A)
evaluate Environmental Quality (EQ) survey, describe the method and sampling strategy, what worked well/limitations + to be improved next time (and which affect RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, VALIDITY)?
EQ survey method- you scored an area based on various factors such as congestion, green space
strategy - random (locations), statified (locations in which random locations are picked)
WWW - geolocated (A), simple and gave a good overview of area, removes bias from random sampling (A), stratifies allows for sites to be reprasentative of multiple queations (R), questions reflected a variety of EQ factors (V)
limited - it was subjective so varying results could be produced (R+A), squares were large (R)
next time - area could be more specific with smaller areas, using sounds and airpollution aswell which are not subjective, having a discusion at the beginning to get expectations (A)
evaluate Photographs, describe the method and sampling strategy, what worked well/limitations + to be improved next time (and which affect RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, VALIDITY)?
method- taking photos of an area which was surveyed
strategy- random, stratified overall
WWW- gives a good overview of an area which can be looked at later (you can find things not seen at first glance), geolocated (A), analytical in nature (R), contextual data to EQS (V)
limited-only captures one aspect, info can be skewed (limits what se can analyse), some groups didnt take photos which were reprasentative (A)
next time - take more photos, panoramas, photo spheres, include sounds, media, video (AAAA)
WWW/EBI eqs survey
WWW - geolocated (A), simple and gave a good overview of area, removes bias from random sampling (A), stratifies allows for sites to be reprasentative of multiple queations (R), questions reflected a variety of EQ factors (V)
limited - it was subjective so varying results could be produced (R+A), squares were large (R)
photographs WWW/EBI?
WWW- gives a good overview of an area which can be looked at later (you can find things not seen at first glance), geolocated (A), analytical in nature (R), contextual data to EQS (V)
limited-only captures one aspect, info can be skewed (limits what se can analyse), some groups didnt take photos which were reprasentative (A)
evaluate questionnaires, describe the method and sampling strategy, what worked well/limitations + to be improved next time (and which affect RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, VALIDITY)?
method-asking people questions (about the area and King’s cross, 8 questions 7 closed, 1 open) about the area from strongly agree to strongly disagree
WWW- wide variety of results about an area from people who were local to the area, first hand experience which constexualises and gives perspective (V), asks quastions about both factors and impacts of QoL snd the fact that they are both open (gives explanation) and closed (quantitative-simple to analyse) - R+V questions
limitations - people might view their area as more favourable, only in the non regenerated area -> limited representation (R+A), dont know our sample size, done at 2pm - limited students and employees (v+r,a)
next time - next time consult dempgraphic data, do it at king’s cross aswell to get a better overall idea (AAA)
WWW/EBI questionnaire?
WWW- wide variety of results about an area from people who were local to the area, first hand experience which constexualises and gives perspective (V), asks quastions about both factors and impacts of QoL snd the fact that they are both open (gives explanation) and closed (quantitative-simple to analyse) - R+V questions
limitations - people might view their area as more favourable, only in the non regenerated area -> limited representation (R+A), dont know our sample size, done at 2pm - limited students and employees (v+r,a)
evaluate the data presentation: land use maps, describe it, justify it, disadvantages
description- colour coding different areas based on RICEPOTS
justification- gives us a visual representation to see how land is used, easily comparable to other areas, split into sections so you can see what type of people use the area, giveing the index score next to the map as it gives us a numerical comparison
cons-time consuming, you have to be there in person, it can be hard for anyone to put some shops in categories, it is 2D whereas there might be multiple floors, doesn’t tell us actual nature of shops (fine dining vs takeaway)
evaluate the data presentation: GIS located proportional symbols, describe it, justify it, disadvantages
description - map symbols are shaded on a gradient to represent the value of the total EQS score in each location (darker=higher score and vice versa)
justification- easy to compare, colour coding makes it easier to spot trends, visual, allows us to somment on specific locations
cons- scores could be subjective and we don’t know context, you have to do this in person to score the area, overlapping circles makes it difficult to read the data and information on the base map, you might not get a full idea as it is time consuming, doesn’t show full values
evaluate the data presentation: annotated photos describe it, justify it, disadvantages
description - geolocated photos are placed around the EQS and decibel maps to contextualise the EQS and decibel data
justification - simple, visual, you can capture a lot of information and analyse it when you want (highlights specific details), easy visual comparison, geolocating allows us to use data readings aswell
cons - it only gives a small snapshot or an area-limiting, it can be harder to compare than a score because of this, on their own they are not substantial enough to cause a conclusion, subjectivness (e.g., weather, unconcious bias, may just be labels)
evaluate the data presentation: 100% stacked bar chart, describe it, justify it, disadvantages
description - the bars, each of which reflects an aspect of life are divided into several segments to represent to proportional frequency of each response
justification - easy to compare, not complicated to carry out and create questions, organised category make easy comparisons + vertically stacked, % instead of count helps with proportion, 51 participants is a good number + easy to figure out results
cons - results can be skewed if not enough respondants, % could not be appropriate, only shows one aspect of questionnaire, 7 questions is a lot and harder to link to deeper analysis
what is discrete data
values that exist seperately without any progression
what is continous data?
when you have to pass though every value to get to the second value e.g., temperature
