Human Fieldwork Enquiry: Title: Investigating Variations (Differences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Human Fieldwork Enquiry: Title: Investigating variations (differences) in the urban quality of life, in Boscombe, Dorset. AIM: To investigate the variations in quality of life in the urban area of Boscombe. Hypotheses: 1. The quality of life will become worse as you move away from the sea front. 2. The regeneration of Boscombe seafront has improved the quality of life for residents and tourists. Why did we choose this location? The town of Boscombe, on the south coast of England is one the most deprived places in the UK. It would therefore be a good place to investigate the differences in quality of life. This was also a suitable location to study as it was; 1. Small enough an area to see differences in quality of life. 2. Local to our field study centre, giving us sufficient time to complete some fieldwork. 3. The area had been risk assessed, so we knew that we would be safe conducting the fieldwork. How and why did we collect data in Boscombe? Primary Data collection Method Justification Problems Urban Land use Starting at the seafront, From completing a It was confusing transect I walked along a transect (line,) from the to do. I couldn’t transect towards town, seafront to the town, I always tell when recording the different could cover a large area the land use had categories of land use. I of Boscombe and see changed. recorded the land use, how the land use every time it changed changes. Some land uses and recorded the were above the number of paces By recording how many ground. I didn’t between each different paces between each know whether to category of land use. land use change, I could include these or (e.g. residential, identify changes in land not. industry, commercial, use by distance from the entertainment, open sea front and draw a It was space, unused space.) graph more easily to sometimes Each category was given represent this. This difficult to a letter; e.g. R for would show if there decide which residential and then a were differences category the sub group; e.g. terraced between the sea front building went or flats.) Or E for and the town. into. (e.g. was it entertainment / leisure accommodation and then tourist By selecting different for tourists or accommodation, categories of land use, I locals?) restaurants, pubs, can see if certain types indoor sports as sub of land use dominate in It took a long categories. Boscombe (e.g. tourist time and was I also considered who accommodation.) This quite dull! the land use was aimed may mean that local at; e.g. residents, people are not seeing tourists or both. housing being built for them. (Affecting their quality of life.) Environment Quality I completed an By scoring different Environmental Index environmental quality aspects of the quality surveys index at 5 places (of environment, it made are very equal distance) along a me look more closely at subjective. My transect. I included all my surroundings. opinion may be the buildings I could see very different to and scored different It was a simple scoring someone else. aspects of the system, which was easy (e.g. a local environment; from -3 to to do and a “snapshot” resident.) +3, ticking the relevant of the state of the boxes for each criteria. environment could be The results (e.g. maintenance of seen. would vary on buildings, danger from different days traffic, litter, air By comparing 5 different and at different pollution, disabled locations, I could identify times of the day. facilities.) I then added if the quality of life up all my scores to get a changed from the sea total score for the front to the town. environment at each location. Pedestrian count I carried out a I did this 5 times at equal I had to be pedestrian count 5 spaces, to identify how accurate in my times along my transect busy different parts of counting. route. These were Boscombe were. equally spaced along the I had to be safe route. (Known as Busy places may suggest and not step into systematic sampling.) a better quality of life. the road, while I worked with a partner Deserted places may not completing my and we recorded the be so attractive to visit. counts. number of people in both directions over 5 Just because minutes, recording this places are busy, as a tally. do not mean they are nice. (e.g. the town centre!) The results could be very different at different times of the day or week / season. (e.g. summer holiday.) Traffic count I carried out 5 traffic Traffic can have an I had to stay safe counts, along my influence on quality of and not step into transect, at the same life. Busy roads are not the road, when places as my people as safe or a pleasant as recording the counts and pedestrianised areas. traffic. environmental quality surveys. (Systematic By recording over a 5 Sometimes the sampling.) I recorded minute period, the traffic was the amount of traffic in results can be multiplied stationary or I a tally. (e.g. buses, cars, up to see how much missed vehicles. bikes, lorries.) I counted traffic there could be in one direction and my an hour. The results could partner the other over a be very different 5 minute period. By recording bikes and if I did these buses and not just cars, counts in holiday whether transport is season. sustainable and accessible to all can be assessed. Photos I took photos along my The photos provide I had to have a transect, to show evidence and a reminder good camera. changes in the quality of to me of what Boscombe life and changes in the looked like. I could I had to be land use and built annotate (label) them to sensitive and not environment. show relevant features. take pictures (e.g. paint peeling or with people in broken glass. ) These them. labels would highlight evidence of deprivation The light / or a declining built weather could environment. affect the quality of my photos. Photos may only show “part of the story”– e.g. just out of shot, may be a homeless person or litter! Questionnaires I conducted 5 To fully understand the Boscombe town questionnaires in both differences in quality of centre was not a the town centre and life, it is important to ask safe location and along the seafront of local people their views. we were Boscombe. We then reluctant to collated all our By asking residents to interview people individual results score their answers, it there. It wasn’t together, to get more was simple to do and really reliable data. easy to record. representative We interviewed people of the whole by doing random By adding up a total population and sampling, depending on score, areas could be was not truly who looked compared. The town random! approachable and had centre may have seen Some people time! more dissatisfaction refused to The questionnaire was from residents than the answer our based on the “MORI seafront for example. questionnaires Satisfaction with Life” or answered poll. Residents were inappropriately. asked to score each Some people lie answer between 1 on surveys or (worst) and 5 (best) and misunderstand at the end a total score the questions. out of 100 was given. The closer to 100, the more satisfied residents were. Aspects such as a sense of neighbourhood, environmental quality and satisfaction with the local police force or local parks were asked. Quantitative data = collecting numerical data. (e.g. scores – environmental quality, satisfaction with life data, traffic and pedestrian counts. Qualitative data = don’t involve numbers or counting. They are more subjective; e.g. photos, sketches, land use surveys or interviews. Risk assessment: Risk How did I overcome it Getting lost somewhere unfamiliar Stayed with the group. Followed a map. How did I process and present my data? Land Use: Divided graph. I drew a graph to show the different land uses in Boscombe along a transect from the sea to the town. (see separate sheet.) This showed visually, what the dominant land uses were and whether land use changed as we walked towards the town. From this I could conclude if there were a range of land uses available to the residents of Boscombe or if the land use was predominantly of a tourist nature. I could have also completed a colour coded “GOAD” map of Boscombe to show different land uses but this would take a lot longer. Environmental Quality Surveys: Bar graph. I drew two bar graphs to show the environmental quality of two sites along my transect. One at the sea front and one in the town. This allowed me to compare the environment and determine if regeneration of the sea front had improved the environment. I also completed a line graph to show how the total scores for the environment changed as we walked away from the sea front. I adapted my method by putting the two surveys on the same graph, to make it easier and clearer to compare. By having positive and negative scores, the graph looked quite effective, as you could see which aspects were good and which were bad. (e.g. litter and building maintenance were much poorer in the town than along the sea front.) I could have presented my data in a dispersionn diagram and worked out the mean, mode and median but with only 5 sites, I didn’t think this would be that representative of the environment. With more time, I could have completed more surveys.