Planning the Field trip -
In this chapter I will go over all the different techniques and methods (methodology) of this investigation. During the trip to Whistable, we used several different techniques to gather and record data. But I will only talk about the data collection that is relevant to long shore drift as that is what I am focusing on.
But before the trip there were several safety points that we had to go over, such as that stay with the group, listen to your teachers and follow the signs. The teachers even had to visit the area where we were going to go to make sure that is was safe and secure for us to have a trip there. The local council was informed that we would be there as well as the coast guard, also essentially the pupils had to get their parents consent. Further more, the teachers took along with them first aid kits in case someone gets hurt. It contains plasters, bandages and a 25 meter throw line which is fluorescent and can float on water, as well as the staff are first aid trained - all these things are a legal, health and safety necessity.
During our trip, we collected data on the Whistable Coast by doing several data collecting techniques. There we did the techniques in a way that is to remove any unfairness and biased that could occur while gathering data. First of all, each group was allocated a section in which to work in; this was allocated to each group in a RANDOM fashion. For example when we did the beach material collection, I closed by eyes and walked around and then picked up a pebble- this was to eliminate any biased that could have occurred when I chose the pebbles to measure. Another example would be when I did the questionnaire; I asked any person I saw no matter what and if they agreed to answer. This was to eliminate any chance of unfairness am biased.
The data collection methods relevant to Long shore drift + one original data collection technique are:
- Beach Profiles- In this technique, we attempt to find the angle or steepness of the shore the further away it gets from the sea wall. We did this by having one person at the sea wall holding an angle measurer at arms length, and another person moving back 2m after every recording. The person with the angle measurer would aim into the other person’s eyes and when it was aligned, he would release the trigger and mark the angel shown.
The reason we chose this method is because it is very quick and quite an accurate method of finding out the angle of the shore. Each measurement only took a couple of seconds to record. We did this in three different places – near the east groyne, in the middle and near the west groyne, this was so we could check for the direction of long shore drift.
While doing it we had a couple of problems, such as that the weather was very bad- it was very windy and cold which made it very hard to work with- we could not overcome this problem and just simply had to put up with it, also it was quite hard to get the angle measurer in the same place each time- to overcome this problem we double checked each measurement by doing each one twice to make sure we got the same result. I will display this data in a line graph as it will clearly show the angle of the beach increase and decrease the further away from the sea wall. Risks during this experiment would not be much, you could trip over the sea wall as it is quite low down and you could fall over walking over the beach ridges. This links to my hypothesis in that that this will tell us how the beach flows and in what direction.
- Long shore Drift Survey- This is the most relevant investigation we did in relation to my hypothesis. This experiment is a very good way of proving the existence of Long shore drift in Whistable. We did this by throwing a dog biscuit into the water; we then counted ten seconds and the measured how far it had travelled, in what direction it had travelled in and what overall pattern it travelled in. We did this twice in two different locations to see if there was any difference.
During the experiment, we encountered problems, such as that it was very difficult to keep track of the dog biscuit as it was so small and has a similar color to the waves, this mean that our data may not be accurate. We overcame this problem by doing it twice and getting and average out of the results. This also meant that our pattern of travel may not be accurate also, so we used the same pattern as it described in a text book (the general pattern of travel of LSD). Risks during this experiment would be very minimal- you could possibly get hit by a wave if the waves at
that time were very rough and you could fall over on the shingle.
The link to my hypothesis is that this test actually shows the existence of long shore drift on the Whistable coast and since my hypothesis is on the existence of long shore drift – there is a very clear link.
- Wave Survey- I included this experiment as waves are and important part of Long shore drift. This was a simple data collection technique which counts the frequency of the number of wave’s breaking on the shore. This can show how fast/ the rate of long shore drift is at Whistable- the higher the frequency, the faster the rate of LSD in Whistable
To do this we simply counted the number of waves that broke on the shore in front of us, we did it three times to get a more varied set of results and did this in two locations to see if there was any difference (it was done in the same two places as the LSD survey). The link to my hypothesis is that this test actually shows the existence of long shore drift on the Whistable coast
The link to my hypothesis is that it can tell us the rate of erosion, as long shore drift runs on the waves; the wave survey would have some relevance to my hypothesis. The frequency of waves can tell you the rate of LSD- a high freq would mean faster LSD and vice versa.
-
Groyne Measurement- This was another experiment that will really help me prove the existence of long shore drift in Whistable. This data collection should show the transportation effect of LSD and that it carries beach material along the coast. We carried this out by using a meter ruler and measured the top of the groyne to the beach level. We did this on both sides of the Groyne. The link to my hypothesis is that this experiment will show me which direction LSD is travelling in. The direction in which LSD is travelling, the side of the groyne facing that side will have a lower measurement than the other side. This is because if LSD is travelling from west to east- the west side of the groyne should have more material than the other side due to Long shore drift. We measured it every 1 meter away from the sea wall. We didn’t have any problems during this experiment as it was quite straight forward. A risk during this might be that some could get hurt if the ruler was mishandled. give us more evidence of long shore
- Bi- Polar Survey- This is my original data collection technique. In this I simply do a comparison with different locations that I have visited during the trip. I will compare them on different things such as mount of litter, amount of shops, how built up the area is etc. It will be done on a scale from -5 to 5 with -5 being the worst and 5 being the best. The link to my hypothesis is that there is actually little link between this test and my hypothesis, the reason for doing this test is to add some originality to the project as this was a test I conducted on my own and was not part of the list of tests that we had to do.
Chapter 3 – Data Presentation and Analysis
In this chapter I will display and present the data that I have mentioned in the data collection section. I will display this information into things like graphs and pie charts to collect and compare information. I will include photos to support my presentation and will use the data to prove my theory of the existence of longs ore drift in the Whistable coast.
-
Beach Profiles: This ‘Area’ graph shows us what the bleach ridge looks like form an angle. I thought that this was the best was to display my information in a 3D visualization to show the angle of the beach. Where it goes up and down- that shows the beach ridge the further along the coast the coast you go. It basically shows the steepness of the coast the further away from the sea wall you go. These results show me several things about the stretch of coast that I worked on. The highest angle out of all of the areas that I did, 20 degrees was the highest and 0 degrees was the lowest. The trend is that it goes continually goes up and down as you go further away from the coast. All three areas were put next to each other on the same graph form easy comparison and to see of they are related and similar, and by looking at it I can tell that they are similar and therefore all three have the same pattern. The reason for this is because the sediment has collected due to the groynes.
This is shown in the photo below:
2.Long shore drift
Location: By West Groyne Distance Travelled: 3m
Pattern of movement: Time Taken: 10 seconds
Direction: East
Location: By East Groyne Distance Travelled: 2m
Pattern: Time Taken: 10seconds
Direction: East
This test was done to show the existence of long shore drift and since my investigation is on LSD, this is by far the best test technique to use to prove my hypothesis. The results show me that long shore drift does exist in Whistable. To explain- when I threw the dog biscuit into the sea it started to move east along the coast in the direction of the prevailing wind. I timed and measured the distance of it to calculate the speed of long shore which is 0.2 meters per second (Speed= distance/ time). I also drew out the pattern of movement it took and compared with the pattern that LSD is supposed to have and it was very similar- therefore this technique is evidence of the existence of LSD in Whistable. The details of my findings are above such as the direction it travelled and by what location I did it in. Also I included a picture diagram annotating LSD. Both areas have the same pattern and similar rate of Long shore drift. This technique is a very good way for me to prove that LSD exists in Whistable as it directly shows evidence of it i.e. making the biscuit move.
- Wave Survey
This was the count or frequency of the waves that broke on the shore of Whistable. I sat and counted the number of waves over 3 different minutes at two different locations – one at either side of the Groyne. Looking at both locations, they have quite similar frequencies so that means that LSD must have the same frequency on either side of the Groyne. The highest wave count I got out of the whole thing was 22 and the lowest was 16 waves. The trend is generally the same no matter what the location when I briefly compared them to other people’s results. These results can show you things like what is the rate of Long shore drift in Whistable, as a high wave frequency would mean faster LSD. Furthermore it can also tell us the rate of erosion, as waves are the cause of erosion- more waves would mean more erosion, also it is known that Whistable has an erosion problem and this high wave frequency is evidence of that- but that is of my topic and irrelevant.
From the graph I can easily compare results and tell that all of them were similar and had an average of around 21 waves per minute.
- Groyne Measurement
This was another important technique that I did to help me prove my hypothesis of long shore drift. This test shows me the effects of Long shore drift- therefore providing evidence for its existence on the Whistable coast. It shows the effect of LSD in that I can transport material along coast. LSD is the transportation of material along the coast, and in the case of Whistable, the direction of transport is east to west. So the groynes being there helps us do that. The aim of groynes is to slow down LSD so that less material is lost due to it. The fact that its there tell me that there is long shore drift, as groynes are only used in area where there is long shore drift.
According to the results, they prove the effects of long shore rift. This is because the direction in which LSD is travelling which I found out from the long shore drift survey- when the dog biscuit travelled form west to east. The side of the Groyne facing that side has a lower measurement than the other side. This is because if LSD is travelling from west to east- the west side of the Groyne should have more material than the other side due to Long shore drift. The picture I took illustrates the point of having more material on one side than the other. It was taken in low tide so it is easier to see the material as there is no water covering it.
The fact that the west side is shorter than the east side shows the west side of the groyne has more material than the east side. The is evidence of the effect of longshore drift.
Evaluation
During our trip, I encountered many problems with collecting data and limitations while doing it. This led to the accuracy and reliability of some of the data being compromised. In this section I will explore problems and limitations I faced during this test.
This table will show all the limitations with several of the methods:
Improvements
Doing these Improvements would have made our project more efficient; also it would be more reliable and have more accurate results.
- Collect more data- this is an easy way to improve the reliability of the results; this could be done by going back to whistable and collecting more data.
- Different data- this will improve the variety of data to compare and have more evidence to support my hypothesis.
- Have better equipment- this would have made our results more accurate for example while measuring the groyne using a laser tape measure would have given a more accurate result.
Evaluation
In this project on coastal processes the hypothesis was ‘Does Long shore drift exist on the Whistable coast’.
The way in which the hypothesis was attempted to be proven was to carry out field work. The fieldwork was the method of the project involving both secondary and primary investigations which included long shore drift surveys where I directly tried to prove the existence of LSD. Other fieldwork we did included Groyne measurements, questionnaires for the public, wave surveys and beach profiles.
The method was carefully designed and followed safety procedures to ensure it was conducted without hazard. The safety issues involved were that since this was a coastal area, there is potential of hazard more so than other places. This is why a teacher had to go beforehand to the site where the trip was, risk assessments were carried out to make sure the environment was safe to go to for children to visit, Further more, the teachers had to be trained in first aid and took along first aid kits in case someone got hurt. It contains plasters, bandages and a 25 meter throw line which is fluorescent and can float on water - all these things are a legal, health and safety necessity. Other safety precautions were such as that stay with the group, listen to your teachers and follow the signs. The local council was informed that we would be there as well as the coast guard; also essentially the pupils had to get their parents consent. Also weather proof jackets were to be worn incase of cold and/or wet weather.
Despite these precautions problems such as the weather and temperature which was very low (all tasks) meant that we had to rush and complete the work with haste- therefore meaning less reliable results, lack of proper equipment (Groyne measurements) meant high chance of inaccuracy in the measurements hence making the results less accurate, limitations in time(all tasks) also meant that work had to be rushed leading to unreliable results, and human error- group dynamics did not work well on several tasks such as pebble sampling where only one person carried out the test while others decided not to co-operate meaning it took longer to do and was made worse due to time constrictions. All these things made the results less reliable and therefore full of problems. Shortcomings in the findings led to unreliable data and hence weakly valid and unreliable results made the acceptance of my hypothesis less sure.
Weather conditions
These conditions hindered the collection of the primary fieldwork because mainly to the east of the town where the coast is, naturally it is much windier than in the town centre, also on that date it was particularly cold. The cold made it difficult to work as it made our hands too numb to write properly (leading to wrong data), also the high winds hindered us a lot as due to high wind it made it very frustrating to carry out tasks as paper kept blowing everywhere and caused the measuring tape to flap in the Groyne measurements (leading to inaccurate data). All these different factors caused by the weather which make the results less reliable and therefore full of problems and these problems make my hypothesis acceptance less sure. The cold and windy weather made the team rush results combined with a limited time on the beach and teachers wanting to more onto the town investigations in the afternoon. More time on the beach would have generated more results and given greater validity to the acceptance to the hypothesis.
Equipment
The groups worked in made the collection of results less than reliable. For example, students were assigned to groups and in some cases messing about and rushing the collection of data made results less than reliable. If people had worked more systematically and not wasted time and used greater co-operation the results would have been more accurate making the quality of findings better and the final acceptance of results more accurate. But the equipment also played a big part in the let down of reliability. For example using a laser tape measure rather than a fabric tape measurer would be much better as it would provide a more accurate reading and would be easier to work with and it would not flap in the wind like the fabric tape. Another example would be the white plastic calipers used to measure rocks in pebble sampling used in pebble sampling- they were not professional equipment and combined with the windy weather it was also hard to read the measurements and measure the rocks properly which means inaccurate results. One more example would be the lack of clipboards- this meant that that some people didn’t have a solid surface to recorded data onto, and some data could be mistaken for something else due to shaky handwriting. If these problems were fixed, it would thereafter make the results more accurate as the findings would be more accurate; and would hence make my hypothesis better.
Primary evidence
The quality of the questions asked in the questionnaire varied and contributed to poor results as some questions could be better worded or more open instead of closed responses which restricted the possible answers making for fewer choices. This impacted on the quality of results as local people were not able to fully express their views. For example a question form the questionnaire would be ‘Do you think there is an erosion problem in Whistable’ .This question is particularly bad as it is poorly worded and can only allow a closed response of yes or no, this restricts the person to fully express their opinion. Coupled with the fact that many people either don’t know what erosion is and as very few people know about erosion in Whistable. Overall this is a poor question to include in the questionnaire which impacted on the quality of the results. Questions asked on another day or different location would have generated different results. Some questions such as ‘Do you think long shore drift exists in Whistable’ + a brief explanation on what long shore drift is’ would be a more valid question to ask as it is nicely worded and allows for a more open answer. Also since it explains what LSD is, those who don’t know what it is can make an educated guess. This would be more valid than others and more directly relevant to the hypothesis.
Bias crept into data collection when selecting people in the street or collecting stones — despite the random sampling used on the beach. It was not always possible to get a cross section representation of the population (this would have given a wider overview of the whole area) due to this and time constraints which meant that results were less than reliable. For example, not wanting to ask our own age range (again we more reluctant to ask adults rather than people form our age range which would have given a wider cross section) and selecting ‘nice looking’ pebbles (this wouldn’t give an accurate representation of the pebbles if the weren’t randomly chosen) or doing the Groyne measurements at accessible areas free from incoming tide- all these different examples of biased thought the investigation means that it will effect the final result as it will be less valid and reliable.
Secondary evidence
More sources of secondary information is needed for example a visit to The Tourist Information Centre would have improved this project in that they could provide a wealth of extra information on the area and especially on the coast. The use of more maps would be good- including more maps would show better representation of the Whistable area and space to illustrate coastal features such as groynes and sea walls and coastal processes such as long shore drift. Also together with the information centre, I could have picked up some relevant leaflets which I could have brought back and picked out relevant information to go in my project. But the best source of secondary information would be to interview the tourist information officer – this way I could ask to which leaflets cannot provide an answer for which I could have included his responses in my project. More use of text books
as well as Local Council web site, historical maps and data from the 2001 census would have improved results making acceptance of the hypothesis more reliable.
Timing
The timing of the collection of data could have been over a longer period making the results more accurate and representative. Limited time was spent on site due to the need to return to school. As a consequence only a small amount of data could be collected making results limited. The day was a weekday and this meant that fewer people were out as most were at work. This meant that results reflected fewer views and data was reduced in amount making any conclusions drawn less reliable than if the surveys had been done throughout 7 days or at a weekend, for example. If more time had been spent on the field work that was in the town (or having a longer time in general) rather than spending too much time in the beach, it would have provided more time to collect more views resulting in more data and a more reliable conclusion. Longer experiments would provide opportunity to collect more data giving a wider representation for example in the questionnaire, and generally a more reliable result. Also a return visit would provide plenty more time to carry out the tests again, allowing as much time as needed – this will provide much more data and findings than with a time constrain; resulting in results that are much more accurate, reliable and valid.
Despite well thought out planning and preparation a number of errors crept in which impacted on the quality of the fieldwork as mentioned above. These errors originated from the quality of the original investigations and made results less reliable. If more time and better equipment as well as improving the way in which the investigations were carried out occurred then the whole project would have been more reliable.
If the results were better such as a larger sample of questions in the questionnaire and randomly chosen rather than selected pebbles for the sample, bias would have been further reduced and a larger number of responses would have made results far more accurate as findings would have been more representative of the general area. More sampling on the beach itself would similarly have generated better quality results making the acceptance of the hypothesis far more reliable. As it is the hypothesis can not be accepted entirely without this in mind. A return visit or sampling at another location could reveal very different results! Rather, a larger fieldwork with a comparison of another site and a worked out average would be beneficial and make the project more robust. If I had more time then this would certainly be a worthwhile way forward to make the project better.