Birmingham Fieldwork

Stages in Enquiry
1. 1. Planning stage
  1. Understanding what kind of data collection must be used.
2. 2. Data Collection
  1. Qualitiative
    1. Statistical/Measurements
  2. Quantitative
    1. Observation
3. 3. Data Presentation
  1. Maps, Graphs, GIS, Diagrams (Hand/Computer drawn)
4. 4. Analysis of explanation
  1. Finding trends and using geographical knowledge to make theories.
5. 5. Conclusions
  1. Make summaries of data, refer back to hyposysis
6. 6. Evaluation
  1. Reflect on data collected to make a conclusion
Burgess city model
1. Centre - CBD
2. Inner city
3. Suburbs
4. Urban rural fringe
Steps taken
1. Planning stage
  1. Hypothosis - Quality is better in CBD than inner city
  2. Working outside, land becomes more residential
  3. More people are more likely to visit the CBD than surrounding areas
  4. Location - Suitable because it has many motorway links; despite being 100 miles away, it was easy to travel there. It is not too large like London and so is not as time consuming to investigate.
  5. Risk assessment
    1. Extreme weather/climate, Traffic, Getting lost, uneven surfaces.
2. Data Collection
  1. Random
    1. +ve unbiased
    2. -ve can become biased if attracted to social group
  2. Stratified
    1. +ve Generates representitive results
    2. +ve Comparisons can be made
    3. -ve can be diffcult to determine different statums
  3. Systematic
    1. +ve done in equal intervals
    2. +ve straight forward
    3. -ve may miss certain groups of people
    4. -ve Biased, not all members will be selected
3. Data Presentation
  1. Radar Graph
    1. +ve Easy to read
    2. +ve Multiple can be layered on the same graph
    3. +ve Compares several variables
    4. -ve Only works for certain things
  2. Divided Bar Chart
    1. -ve Difficult to read apart from first bar
    2. -ve Difficult to compare
    3. +ve clearly see the largest bar
    4. +ve can include various data on the same graph
  3. Pie Chart
    1. +ve easy to determine largest slice
    2. +ve Good visual representation
    3. -ve Actual figures must be given otherwise cannot be read easily
    4. -ve lots of small segments makes it hard to read
    5. -ve Very hard to construct
  4. Wordle
    1. +ve Visual
    2. +ve Good for easy questions
    3. +ve good for qualitative data
    4. -ve Cant read exact figures
    5. -ve Bad representation of large data
4. Analysis
  1. Environmental Quality considerably better in CBD than Sparkbrook
  2. Measured on: Litter, Aesthetics, Shop quality, Building quality, Vandalism
  3. Questionaire analysis
    1. Quality declined coming out of the CBD.
    2. 80% believed it was very poor
    3. 20% only saw it as poor.
  4. Conclusion for environmental quality
    1. Traffic was rated worst in CBD. However this could be due to collecting data from main roads. This could have been avoided.
  5. Conclusion for Land use
    1. Hypothisis was correct. Most land was used for retail in CBD. As we came out it became more residential.
  6. Conclusion for Questionaire
    1. Only 1 questioned in sparkbrook, lived there. 2 people questioned in CBD: Most common purpose for visit was work.
5. Evaluation
  1. Environmental Quality
    1. Limitations
      1. Mainly stratified, mainly carried out on roads. Other roads could have been worse.
      2. Subjective - Based on opinion
      3. Some groups may have reversed scoring variables causing unwanted answers.
      4. Score of 3 was chosen often, telling us people were unsure of quality.
    2. Accuracy
      1. Scales were labelled to assure no mistakes were made.
      2. Discussion took place before trip to ensure group rank variables were the same.
  2. Land use
    1. Limitations
      1. Confusion of what categories to place buildings in
      2. Only carried out on certain roads.
      3. Larger amount of data recorded for CBD than sparkbrook, resulting in difficult comparisons.
    2. Accuracy
      1. Discussion on buildings categories.
  3. Traffic
    1. Limitations
      1. Only carried out on main roads
      2. Congestion caused counting mishaps
      3. Pedestrians could have been doubled counted when crossing.
    2. Accuracy
      1. All groups counted for a minute
      2. All groups counted on either side of the road
      3. Every member counted traffic when results were compared.

Next up

Birmingham Fieldwork

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Parth Shetty over 6 years ago