URBAN ENVIRONMENTS FIELDWORK

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
full-widthCall with Kai
GameKnowt Play
New
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/15

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

16 Terms

1
New cards

Enquiry Question:

How is the inner urban environment of London perceived by residents and visitors?

2
New cards

What was the geographical concept investigated?

  • Urban land use & change (Burgess Model / Hoyt Model).

  • Urban regeneration (e.g. King’s Cross redevelopment).

  • Perceptions of space and environmental quality within the inner city.

3
New cards

What were the hypotheses?

  • H1: Environmental quality improves with distance from the city centre..

4
New cards

Where was the fieldwork carried out?

  1. Oxford Street – commercial CBD area.

  2. Elephant & Castle – redeveloping zone.

  3. King’s Cross – regenerated inner-city area.

5
New cards

What were the aims of the fieldwork?

  • To assess how perceptions of environmental quality vary across inner London.

  • To evaluate how urban regeneration affects residents’ and visitors’ experiences.

6
New cards

What primary quantitative data was collected?

Environmental Quality Surveys (EQS):

  • Rated factors (litter, noise, condition of buildings, etc.) from 1–5.

  • Scores:

    • Oxford Street = 16/30

    • Elephant & Castle = 19/30

    • King’s Cross = 25/30

Pedestrian Counts (10 minutes at 1pm):

  • Oxford Street: 210

  • Elephant & Castle: 135

  • King’s Cross: 160

7
New cards

What primary qualitative data was collected?

Structured Questionnaires:

  • 20 participants per site (residents + visitors).

  • Asked about safety and cleanliness perceptions.

    • Safety: Oxford Street 60%, Elephant & Castle 45%, King’s Cross 80%.

    • Cleanliness (1–5): Oxford St 2.5, Elephant & Castle 3.0, King’s Cross 4.1.

8
New cards

What primary qualitative data was collected?

Annotated Photographs & Field Sketches:

  • Recorded evidence of urban redevelopment and regeneration.

9
New cards

What secondary data was used?

  • King’s Cross redevelopment plans (from local council reports).

  • Google Maps & historical photographs (to show urban change over time).

10
New cards

What risks were identified and how were they managed?

  • Avoided high-crime areas; used Google Maps for safe route planning.

  • Stayed in busy, well-lit public spaces.

  • Checked weather forecasts before data collection.

11
New cards

How was the data presented?

  • Bar charts: Environmental Quality Scores comparison.

  • Pie charts: Safety perceptions (% feeling safe).

  • Annotated photographs: To highlight regeneration evidence.

  • Field sketches: To show land use and environmental conditions.

12
New cards

What patterns and trends were found?

  • King’s Cross: Highest EQS (25/30) and best safety rating (80%) → linked to regeneration success.

  • Oxford Street: Busiest area but lowest EQS (noise, litter).

  • Elephant & Castle: Mixed perceptions due to ongoing redevelopment.

13
New cards

How does the Burgess Model apply to your findings?

  • The Burgess Model partly applies: environmental quality increases outward from the CBD.

  • However, regeneration (e.g., King’s Cross) changes this pattern — inner areas can improve due to redevelopment, not just distance.

14
New cards

What were the strengths of your fieldwork?

  • Combination of qualitative and quantitative data gave balanced results.

  • Three contrasting central locations provided good spatial coverage.

  • Effective use of secondary data (maps, plans) strengthened reliability.

15
New cards

What were the limitations?

  • Small sample size (only 20 questionnaires per site).

  • EQS scores subjective (may vary between participants).

  • Data collected at one time of day — not representative of all conditions.

16
New cards

How could the fieldwork be improved?

  • Increase sample size and number of sites.

  • Use sound meters or air quality monitors for objective data.

  • Collect data at different times or days for better reliability.