Leatherhead human geography Flashcards
hypothesis
Regeneration of Church street has had a positive impact on Leatherhead.
leatherhead facts
- 40-50 minutes to London by train
- need for more homes, offices and shops
- population: 33,597
why these sites were chosen
urban :
- air pollution
- population growth
- housing shortages
- one regenerated area, three non regenerated areas with plans for future regeneration
Questionnaire
- qualitative
- ask local public questions to get the publics personal opinion of the towns regeneration
- ## purpose it to see publics opinion of town for the longterm
Questionnaire data limitations and improvements
limitations:
- lots of people haven’t lived there long, so didn’t see the change
- biased opinions
- strangers
improvements:
- ask for opinions in a more demographic way to get a more representative result
EQA
- quantitative
- evaluated and scored the environmental state of Leatherheads sites.
- purpose is gives us the understanding of environmental change
EQA limitations and improvements
limitations:
- subjective rule
improvements:
- make the data more accurate by lowering the score scale
Annotations
- Qualitative
- used images showing before and after they had been regenerated and compared them
- purpose is to show the social, economic and environmental changes of the area
Annotations limitations and improvements
limitations:
- wasn’t a 360 view
- photos glamorise bias promotion
- unrealistic budget
improvements:
- take 360 photos
risk assesment
road crossings/ traffic
- cross sensibly to lights to avoid cars
sketchy people
- be sensible approaching people
getting lost
- limiting areas and staying in groups
random sampling strategy
where every member of the population has an equal change of being selected with no human bias
stratified sampling strategy
sample divided into categories with equal number of samples taken from each category
systematic sampling strategy
where observations are taken at regular intervals
data presentation radar graph
shows general pattern, can compare results, but hard to read
data presentation bar chart
easy comparison and clear pattern, but no understanding of demographic background