Topic 6 fieldwork Flashcards
Human fieldwork location
Bournemouth:Boscombe East(Shelley Park) and Boscombe West(Churchill Gardens)
Primary data
Data collected yourself e,g, counting the number of cars per one point
Secondary data
Data someone else collected and you used e.g. maps
Quantitative data
Involves numerical data e.g. a bar chart
Qualitative data
E.g. a photograph, film, information that can’t be measured
Enquiry question(for human fieldwork)
How and why are there variations in quality of life for different areas within Bournemouth?
Secondary data we chose in this investigation?
Census data(2011 for Boscombe East and Boscombe West)
Why are Boscombe West and Boscombe East suitable for the enquiry question(human fieldwork)?
We chose this enquiry question as part of our human fieldwork investigation, because Boscombe West and Boscombe East are suitable sites for our study, as they’re geographically close(only a mile apart), but have very different levels of deprivation. This we onow through the census data
e.g. from 2011, Boscombe West is 336th most deprived, but Boscombe East is 22,482th most deprived
Furthermore, from the 2022 Office National Statistics,Boscombe East has health better than 84% of areas in England, while in Boscombe West the health is better than only 1% of areas in England.
Methods used to collect primary data(data collected yourself)
We used a quantitative test to measure EQS environmental quality
We used a qualitative test for a perception of how quality of life was different in Boscombe West and Boscombe East, with an annotated photo
Quantitative test measuring environmental quality
Systematic sampling - we measured on a main road in both areas and one N/S street and one E/W street in both Boscombe East and Boscombe West
We did 3 enquiries in Boscombe East and Boscombe West
We measured 7 different factors: noise, greenery and open space, conditions and housing, services
, safety if alone, litter, graffiti/vandalism, traffic
We measured using a bi-polar scale between -2(very bad) and +2(very good) and had a description of what a -2 and +2 would be
We added up all the scores for the factors and found an average EQS for both areas
Qualitative test -Perception of how quality of life was different in Boscombe East and Boscombe West
Systematic sampling - Before we went to each area we placed a dot
in the middle of the map of Boscombe East and Boscombe West
We then found the closest building/street to this dot and took a photo.
We annotated the diagram with factors like: house type, house density, house quality, green space, traffic, proximity to services, air quality as we thought these would show us how we perceived
Presentation techniques
Radar graph used to show EQS environmental Quality, with an average EQS
Annotated photo of Quality of Life in Boscombe West and Boscombe East
Conclusions(how and why are there variations in quality of life for different areas within Bournemouth)?
The primary data collected backs up the secondary data showing there’s a big gap in the quality of life between Boscombe East and
Boscombe West in Bournemouth. Our average EQS in Boscombe East was +1.5, compared to -0.15 in Boscombe West(between a possible min/max score of -2 to +2) showing the environment’s better in Boscombe East for 5 out of 7 factors measured.
Boscombe West scored worse for building quality, litter and vandalism and safety due to high density terraced housing and the areas High Multiple Occupancy Buildings that have historically been built there.Our qualitative photos showed the problems in building quality in Boscombe West with damage to brickwork and windows, no front gardens and no spaces to park cars,and this links in with poor health for people due to air/noise pollution, meaning low wealth. In contrast, Boscombe East have low density detached houses with excellent parks in the area and trees alongside the roadside meaning clean air. This meant, for noise, building condition, litter, greenery and safety Boscombe East scored the top score of +2.
Issues with EQS Environmental quality(quantitative method)
A -2 to +2 scale not accurate enough to measure how good/bad an area was
Subjective scores - based on own interpretation area, people have different views
Having zero as a middle score isn’t the best option
Alternatives to EQS environmental quality(quantitative method)
-5 to +5 for a scoring system
Could have used traffic count to get actual data instead of using traffic noise
Don’t have zero as a middle point
Could have used noise meter - more accurate than judging how noisy the area is
Issues with using annotated photos(qualitative method)
Only one photo taken - may not be representative of the area
Our backround affects how we judge and view the area
Alternatives to using annotated photos
Use people from different backrounds to undertake the same task
Complete questionnaires to find out about resident views, run-down areas may have an excellent community spirit
Could have done this on different days - as sometimes poor weather could damage buildings
Systematic sampling
Collecting data in an ordered or regular way, useful for where you measure changes frequently
Stratified sampling
Where you choose samplings from different groups to get a good overall representation e,g, useful for collecting people’s perceptions, include people of different age groups in your sample
