Geo P3 data

Housing decay survey ~ CE

Housing decay survey ~ CE

• 79% good/excellent

• 21% sufficient

Housing decay survey ~ EV

• 100% good/excellent

what does housing decay survey demonstrate

• differences between 2 adjacent areas of EL through the differences in their quality of housing

• lack of investment in CE compared to EV

Env quality survey CE

• mean ~ 24.15

• median ~ 24

• range ~ 31

• IQR ~ 13.5

Env quality survey EV

• mean ~ 6.08

• median ~ 5

• range ~ 19

• IQR ~ 3.5

What does env quality survey show

• lower IQR + range for EV show an overall better environmental quality as there’s less variation in the data

• shows success of regeneration project

dispersion graph to plot env quality is good why

• shows the spread of data

• shows averages

• removed anomalies

• easy to construct

how does this investigation link to a geo theory u have studied

• links to the regeneration plan we have studied

• suitable for this enquiry bc we are able to see the effects of the plan + its success

• can see opportunities + challenges

why was stratford a good location to visit + conduct fieldwork

• easy to access from school ~ no restrictions + easy walking distances between the areas

• good location to show the differences in inequalities as EV has been regenerated whereas CE hasn’t

• can collect wide range of data

  • housing

  • env

• able to collect data in one day

  • limits how much can be collected however + data collected may not be as reliable depending on the day

cross section protected

• 32.5 m² ~ area

• 2.5 m ~ height

cross section unprotected

• 25m² ~ area

• 2m ~ height

what shown

• line graphs show that protected has more sediment showing effectiveness of management strategies

• protected ~ groynes

  • but more sediment closer to the groynes which could lead to inaccurate results + therefore an invalid comparison

• protected ~ sea wall

  • prevents beach extending too far + maintains steeper gradient

• can’t compare lengths of beach as limited to 25m

  • but due to differential erosion we can assume unprotected is longer

• unprotected has smaller CSA as cliff erodes back creating a wider beach

class cross sections protected

• median ~ 30

• mean ~ 29.8

• IQR ~ 12.75

class cross sections unprotected

• median ~ 24

• mean ~ 26. 4

• IQR ~ 10.5

what shown

• protected beach shows wider spread of data showing that the data for the unprotected beach is more accurate compared to the protected beach

• larger IQR for protected shows that the groynes are working bc they prevents longshore drift, creating bigger variations in the CSA

• mean + median useful in removing anomalies

beach sediment protected

• 96% sand

• 4% clay

beach sediment unprotected

• 72% sand, 16% shingle, 12% shingle

pie chart show what

• shows there’s more variation in the sediment of the unprotected beach

• beach sediment being mostly sand for the protected beach show that the seawalls protect the beach by preventing new sediment falling on the beach

beach profiles methodology

• systematic sampling

• relatively quick

• removes bias ~ every 5m

• not very accurate

  • lots of room for human error

  • could’ve used ranging poles instead

• only every 5m

  • smaller intervals would be more precise

env impact assessment

• stratified sampling

• quick

• no equipment needed

• numerical data ~ can be compared easily (quantitative)

• opinionated

  • perception and personal preference (MS)

• 0-5 scale could be easily misinterpreted

beach sediment

• random sampling

• quick, numerical data

• room for human error

  • hard to distinguish what area of a quadrat something may be covering

mean/median/mode/range

• mean ~ considers all values

• range ~ used to identify increase/change

• mode ~ many measurements are the same