physical fieldwork Flashcards
what is our physical fieldwork question
how does the cross section of the river tarrell change as we move downstream?
what makes our question suitable for a geographical enquiry
- able to collect primary and secondary data > can draw conc.
- small-scale > short river so can measure along
- low/manageable risk > shallow
- clearly a geographical question - ab a place and appears in syllabus > can test Bradshaws theory
how was our fieldwork practical in terms of access
- on public land so we can access river
- terrain/landscape is not too challenging to walk
- parts of the river on private land + we have permission to visit so we could access all of the long profile
how was our fieldwork practical in terms of safety
relatively shallow so able to take measurements
how was our fieldwork practical in terms of manageability (scale)
river is relatively short so can measure long profile and see differences
what was good ab the location of the river in terms of geography
able to access river from source to mouth so we could test Bradshaws geographical theories there
what was good ab the location of our river in terms of data
- relatively shallow so easy to measure so data is accurate
- all rivers in uk have secondary data
who was our theorist
bradshaw
what did Bradshaw say
- width should increase downstream
- depth should increase downstream
what were the risks with our fieldwork
- drowning in river
- getting cold from spending day in the field
- getting hit by a car
- accidents in river
what action did we take to minimise risks
- areas where the river was too deep we did not take measurements, working in supervised small groups
- bringing spare clothes and warm layers
- cross at safe locations
- bring a first aid kit + mobile phone
justify measuring the width as one of our methods
we wanted to see how the cross section of the river tarrell changes downstream because Bradshaw suggests that rivers on average get wider and deeper. so we needed to measure the width of 10 places along the long profile to see if this happened.
what was good ab our width method
- easy to use
- portable
- simple (method + equipment)
- cheap
- fast
- can look at past data
what was bad ab our width method
- can be inaccurate:
> current would sometimes pull the tape measure
> vegetation in the way so sometimes hard to find edges
> not measuring from undercut (upper course)
overall judgement of width methodology
fairly reliable and successful method w/ accurate data
justify measuring depth as one of our methods
we wanted to see how the cross section of the river tarrell changes downstream because Bradshaw suggests that rivers on average get wider and deeper. so we needed to measure the depth of 10 places along the long profile to see if this happened.
what was good ab our depth method
- easy to use
- portable
- simple (method + equipment)
- cheap
- fast
- can look at past data
- taking a mean of depth
- ruler can float so doesn’t drift away
what was bad ab our depth method
- ruler would often bend at high current areas so the data was unreliable
- distance between measurements was larger in middle course so data is less accurate
overall judgement on depth methodology
fairly reliable and successful method w/ accurate data
justify our use of stratified sampling
we needed to cover the whole long profile so we had to choose sites in the upper, middle and lower course but some of the river was too difficult to access or too dangerous to get into because it was too deep or fast-flowing so we had to choose our sites to an extent.
what was good ab our use of stratified sampling
- could choose 10 sites that cover the entirety of the long profile so we could avoid any private land or dangerous parts of the river
what was bad ab our use of stratified sampling
- creates a bias as ensuring that it was safe may mean picking shallower sites to take data from which could distort data making our river seem shallower than it is
overall judgement of our sue of stratified sampling
fairly reliable + successful method b/c it allowed us to access the river safely + answered the question
justify our use of secondary data using google earth
enables us to see the long profile of the river and plan the sites to show how the cross-section changes downstream - according to Bradshaw, river width and depth should increase downstream
justify using maps in our enquiry
- familiarise myself w/ area of fieldwork before going on field trip
- choose suitable sites for data collection based on accessibility
- add to your primary data
justify using photos in our enquiry
- helps familiarise myself w/ area of fieldwork before going on field trip
- can show important features
- more accurate than a sketch
- may be use to make measurements
what was good ab using bar chart to represent data
same as justify - easy to read the results and see trend
what was bad ab using bar chart to represent data
- doesn’t show the cross section of the river
- can be misinterpreted as it seems the sites are equally spaced out
- answers half the question
overall judgement of bar charts to represent data
fairly reliable
what was good ab using located cross section to represent data
answers question fully and clearly
what was bad ab using located cross section to represent data
can be hard to observe trend and interpret
overall judgement of located cross section to represent data
superior presentation technique
what did the data show
- width increases downstream
- depth slightly increases downstream
how did the data help us answer our question
- our question was how does the cross section of the river tarrell change as we move downstream?
- Bradshaw said that the width and depth of the river should increase downstream so we expect the cross section to increase downstream
- our width showed that the river got wider downstream
- this suggests that Bradshaws model fits the river tarrell
- our depth showed that the river got slightly deeper downstream
- this suggests that Bradshaws model generally fits the river tarrell
- overall the cross section of the river increases as we go downstream,
evaluate our width results
GOOD:
- easy to collect
- cheap equipment
- past data to compare it too
- 10 sites
BAD:
- downstream river wider and current faster so tape measure would drag
- hard to identify where edge of river was when there was an undercut
evaluate our depth results
GOOD:
- repeated measurements 5 times and took a mean
- past data to compare it too (acc.)
- easy to collect so can be done in a day
BAD:
- distance between 5 depth points increased as you go downstream so acc. decreases
- for safety picked shallower sites downstream so river seems shallower in lower course
- anyone standing upstream disrupted the depth
what was the problem with the width method
as the river gets wider the tape measure gets caught in the current
what is one improvement we could make to the width method
in lower course sites have someone hold the tape measure in the middles the tape remains taut
what effect would improving the width method have on our results
makes our results more accurate, narrower downstream than we originally thought
what effect would improving the width method have on our conclusions
makes the conclusion that the width increases more reliable - although narrower downstream, results would still significantly show the river gets wider
what was the problem with the depth method
further downstream gaps between the depth measurements were much larger as we still only measured 5 points across the river
what is one improvement we could make to the depth method
as the river gets wider measure the depth at more than 5 times to reduce anomalies
what effect would improving the depth method have on our results
gives a more acc. cross section and will remove anomalies and give a more acc. depth b/c you’ve taken more measurements
what would improving the depth method have on our conclusions
makes conc. that the depth got deeper more reliable and will allow us to have a detailed cross-section
what are general improvements we could make to the methods
- more sites - longer stretch of river
- do it on a diff. day
- compare data w/ previous data collected
justify our investigation of human interaction
we measured the width + depth of the river under a bridge to see what impact humans might have on these features
what were the results of our investigation of human interaction
river got narrower but deeper
what was good ab our investigation of human interaction
results were fairly acc.
what was bad ab our investigation of human interaction
river was fast flowing here + deep so it was difficult to hold the measuring stick still or read the measurement accurately
overall judgement of our investigation of human interaction
we were fairly sure that the river got narrower but deeper when humans built bridges
