Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Aim/Title? |
An investigation into how EQ varies across York. |
|
|
Hypothesis/es? |
- EQ increases w/ distance from city centre - many factors affect EQ. |
|
|
Why is it suitable for geography? |
York is a city, so an urban area, which is a key topic within the GCSE course and Geography in general. |
|
|
Theory behind this? |
- The Burgess Model! - A city usually has a CBD in the centre, then inner city, then suburbs, then the rural-urban fringe. - As you go outwards, there’s more space, better air quality and cheaper land, so bigger houses. |
|
|
Describe the location! |
- York - city towards the north of the country, specifically in the centre of North Yorkshire - Transect line from centre of York in a southern direction to Fulford - 6 sites stretching 2270m away. |
|
|
Why was this area good? |
- accessible by foot - local, so it was known and assessed as safe - easily measurable in one day (was an appropriate scale) |
|
|
Why was a risk assessment important? |
To identify potential dangers in order to prevent or minimise risk. |
|
|
What risks were there? |
Hit by car - cross roads in groups, use pedestrian crossings only. Getting lost - stay in groups of 3+, use the map, don’t **** up. |
|
|
What types of data were there, and were they Qualitative or Quantitative? |
Decibels - Qn Traffic - Qn Distance - Qn Bipolar survey - Ql Epitome words (describey things) - Ql Pictures - Ql |
|
|
How did you do one method? |
Sound Levels: - download sound meter app - have group go silent - record for 30 seconds and take reading - repeat thrice and take average! Bipolar survey: - identified 7 categories - ranged from -2 to +2 - stood still and counted each category - totalled score for each area. |
|
|
How useful were maps, photos, and sketches? |
Maps - could check routes/location, measure distances and show access. Photos - showed characteristics of the area that explained data Sketches - allowed for notes! |
|
|
Justify methods of data! |
- the bipolar survey gave a numerical value to qualities which could then be compared - so we could spot any trends or relationships in the data |
|
|
Sampling? |
The sampling was all stratified - we had prior knowledge of the area and selected a site from each zone based on that. |
|
|
Secondary research? |
- photos from google maps - measured distances |
|
|
How did we present the data? |
Same as river topic - scattergraphs! |
|
|
Effectiveness of data presentation? |
Again, same as in river! - scattergraph shows trends - can plot line of best fit - shows exactly what value data has BUT - raw data only - no reason why - like of BF can be difficult to plot if there’s no real trend. |
|
|
Alternative methods of data presentation? |
Located bar chart! - same as regular bar chart, but the bars are on a map on the locations. -the bars gotta be to scale |
|
|
Describe and explain the results. |
- Overall positive correlation, shown by best fit line. - but not strong - the line is shallow and there are not one but two anomalies. - overall, suburbs and rural urban fringe have more space so better homes and EQ. - but the exception is the inner city where EQ drastically drops from the CBD to the suburbs. |
|
|
Conclusion? |
Hypothesis not necessarily correct - no strong correlation, but had some grounds shown by line of best fit. |
|
|
Limitations? |
- human judgement on the bipolar survey (it’s subjective) - factors like rain and wind affected the decibels meter - no professional equipment. |
|
|
Improvements? |
- Repeat on a day with clear weather! No climate interruptions! - take the opinions of a wide range of people rather than just your own group, as they may be biased. |
|
|
Anything else useful that could have been collected? |
Yes! House prices! They reflect the overall EQ of the area so more expensive house = better EQ! |
|
|
Assess the reliability! |
- results were mostly subjective human judgement. - bad weather affected decibel meter - decibel meter wasn’t professional - however it was digital! Yay! - and representative, with 6 sites over 4 zones and 2270m! - but no real average could be taken! - so overall, a bit ****. |
|
|
Were the results useful? |
Yes, they proved the hypothesis somewhat wrong however it is unclear whether these results were valid or notZ |
|
|
We’re Qt or Ql methods better? |
Ql - bipolar survey, so gave comparable value to each quality of the area. Qt was not as useful as it only gave one average of one quality rather than an overall rating for EQ, which is what we were measuring. The photos were also useful for this reason. |
|
|
Overall improvements? |
- has a longer transect line with more sites - use a professional dB meter instead of a phone - will be more precise and accurate. - do all the noise readings first to try and get them as close together as possible. |
