2. NORTH END – North End is Croydon’s largest pedestrian area – a hotspot for high order shops, goods and services. It is considered to be the town’s best shopping area.
3. EAST CROYON STATION – East Croydon Rail Station is the largest train station in the town centre. It provides services to some 80 other stations, including London Bridge and London Victoria, and is the third busiest station in London outside Travelcard Zone 1.
4. WEST CROYON STATION – West Croydon Rail Station is the second busiest train station in the town centre, and is a key transport interchange for National Rail and Tramlink services, as well as London Buses.
CHAPTER 2: methods of data collection
Hypothesis 1: how did I measure graffiti levels?
When measuring graffiti levels around the Croydon Central Business district, I counted the number of separate items of graffiti (or tags) that I could see from each transect point. I counted every item as one tag, regardless of its size.
I walked from the centre of Croydon out towards the periphery enabling me to collect a suitable and broad range of data.
This was a suitable technique because I covered a large area of Croydon, counting the number of tags at various locations, which, by the end of my investigation meant I was able to produce a graph showing a clear trend.
This was essential in my investigation because I need to be able to display all of my data in a way which will prove or disprove my hypothesis with relative ease.
It was easier to collect data in some areas of the CBD compared to others, especially where there were large amounts of people in wide open spaces making it hard to see the whole transect at once.
On the other hand, enclosed spaces were simple, because graffiti stood out and it was easy to record the data in a short space of time.
Hypothesis 2: how did I measure pedestrian flow and total environmental quality?
I used two separate techniques when measuring pedestrian flow and environmental quality.
For pedestrian flow, I counted the total number of people that passed by each transect point, going in both directions, for ten minutes. It was agreed beforehand that direction would have no bearing on our results.
Achieving an environmental quality score for each transect required a group effort. Graffiti levels, litter count, traffic flow and levels of vegetation were all measured during this process. When collecting data for litter count, one member of my group stood still and counted each individual piece of rubbish that he could see. Similarly, another group member stood on the spot by the side of the road counting the numbers of cars, motorbikes and buses that drove by for traffic count.
Vegetation quality was assessed using the following scoring system:
When scores for all of the five elements had been collected for environmental quality and the pedestrian flow had been counted, both figures were added up to produce a total environment score. The lower the score, the better the environmental quality.
A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF MY DATA COLLECTION CAN BE FOUND ON MAP 1. THE ROUTE I FOLLOWED HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
Hypothesis 3: how did I measure the number of chewing gum stains on the pavement?
For my third and original hypothesis, I parted ways with my group and made my way back towards the CBD. From there I slowly made my way out of the town centre and headed in the direction of the periphery, counting the number of chewing gum marks on the pavement as I went along.
I recorded data at three transect points in each of the five zones that make up the town centre so that I could get a broad range of results. These figures were then averaged so I could display my results on a graph. This was an appropriate number because the transect points were spread out across the CBD, from the heart of the High Street to the virtually deserted suburban areas of East and West Croydon.
It was particularly difficult to record accurate data while in North End because of the large numbers of pedestrians in the area. Despite this, however, the data I collected enabled me to draw strong conclusions from my investigation, similar to that of graffiti levels, and ultimately prove or disprove my hypothesis.
CHAPTER 3: graffiti decreases with distance away from the CBD
Figure 3.1: Map showing graffiti levels in Croydon.
As Figure 3.1 above clearly shows, graffiti levels increase rather than decrease with distance from the CBD. This, therefore, means the hypothesis has been proved false.
I believe this to be the case because the CBD has a higher land value than areas on the periphery of the town centre, and as a result more maintenance and cleaning work is carried out there. Higher numbers of CCTV cameras and police patrols in the CBD will also deter potential graffiti artists.
I was surprised to see that the area around point 8 had such high graffiti levels, especially when similar points nearby showed relatively little or no signs at all of graffiti. However, with West Croydon Station so close by, it would appear that this is the cause of the surge in graffiti.
I believe that the large numbers of people who use the station as their gateway to Croydon make the area especially hard to police in terms of street cleaning. It would also appear that West Croydon has less high-order shops than in the CBD and that the land value is significantly lower, meaning the local council is likely to provide the area with less maintenance services.
Figure 3.2: Graph showing average graffiti levels in Croydon.
Figure 3.2 displays a fairly predictable set of results. It shows that Zone 3, an area with a relatively high pedestrian count but low land value, has significantly higher graffiti levels that the rest of Croydon. This is because the area is neglected by the council’s maintenance team but still attracts large numbers of criminals to the area. This may be due to the fact that Zone 3 is a ‘zone in transition’ – still in the town centre, but away from the busy high street. Because there are fewer large department shops nearby, less CCTV cameras are located there.
Zone 5 has the lowest graffiti levels in Croydon because it has an extremely low pedestrian count. It is far away from the town’s shopping centre which is what draws people to the CBD in the first place and has relatively low crime levels.
Zone 1 has above average graffiti levels, but this was to be expected because of the sheer numbers of pedestrians who are found in this area. The CBD attracts not just shoppers to Croydon but also those who intend to commit crimes – spraying graffiti being one of those crimes.
CHAPTER 4: pedestrian flow is highest where environmental quality is highest
Figure 4.1: Map showing environmental score vs. pedestrian count in Croydon.
Figure 4.1 shows that pedestrian count often depends on environmental quality. This means that where pedestrian count is highest, environmental quality is at its best. This trend is demonstraded across most of Croydon, but Point 54 does this particularly well.
Point 54 has an environmental score of 309 (the lower the number, the better the environmental quality) but a pedestrian count of just 51. The average pedestrian count for Croydon is 54, while the average environmental quality score is 78. We can therefore conclude that pedestrian levels have fallen bellow the Croydon average because environmental quality has deteriorated to such an appalling state. This is further backed up by the fact that Point 54 is an area of low land value, which is also where environmental quality is lowest. This is due to the fact that Zone 2, where Point 54 is located, is on the CBD fringe and its land is mainly used for car parks and low order goods and services.
Point 6, on the other hand, has a pedestrian count of 247 and an environmental score of 75. It is unsurprising to learn that this transect point is located in the CBD – where land value is highest, services are clustered and numerous high order department stores are based. This means that the area has a higher threshold, meaning pedestrians will travel farther to this area to purchase a particular good.
Figure 4.2: Graph showing environmental scores vs. pedestrian flow in Croydon.
Figure 4.2 shows that environmental quality is directly linked to pedestrian flows. The line of best fit drawn on the graph above highlights the fact that pedestrian flows are highest where environmental quality is best.
This seems to suggest that areas in the CBD, where the majority of high order shops and conveniences are located, is subject to intense levels of maintenance to provide pedestrians with a more pleasant shopping environment; ultimately, although perhaps cynically, to help persuade shoppers to spend their money and even return to the high street in the future.
However there are some exceptions to the trend. High pedestrian counts in areas with low environmental quality are not uncommon, but they are often found within close proximity of public transport services. This is because pedestrians must gather at bus stops, tram stops and train stations to make necessary journeys, despite the poor environmental quality.
CHAPTER 5: Average number of chewing gum marks on pavements will increase with distance from the CBD
Figure 5.1: graph showing the average number of chewing gum marks on Croydon pavements
As Figure 5.1 shows above, the number of chewing gum marks on pavements increases with distance from the CBD. This was my own and original hypothesis and it was extremely surprising to see the extraordinary high levels of chewing gum marks in Zones 2 and 3 in particular. However, I believe this to be because pedestrians are more likely to drop their chewing gum where pedestrian flows are lower, as they are less likely to be seen littering by somebody else.
Street cleaning in Zone 1 is obviously going to be more intense because that is where pedestrian flows are highest, environmental quality is best and land value is highest. As a result, I found that Zone 1 had the lowest levels of chewing gum with an average of 22 marks per transect point. During my investigation I collected data from three transect points in each of the five zones. It is also worth mentioning that pavement slabs will be replaced more often in the CBD, hence chewing gum is given less time to accumulate here.
Zones 2 and 3 scored the highest levels of chewing gum marks because they are on the ‘CBD fringe’. This means that the land use in those areas is hugely different compared to the CBD and so these particular zones are harder to maintain. These zones scored an average of 32 and 34.3 marks per transect point respectively.
I can conclude from my results that areas with the most chewing gum marks on their pavements are generally those that have the worst environmental quality. It is therefore apparent that chewing gum marks on pavements have a direct impact on environmental quality. The graph above backs up my conclusion further by the results for Zones 4 and 5, which have low pedestrian counts and high environmental quality. Zones 4 and 5 recorded averages of 25.6 and 23 marks per transect point respectively despite the fact they have extremely low levels of maintenance.
CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and evaluation
Conclusions
Environmental quality around Croydon and its Central Business District varies for a number of reasons. Primarily, environmental quality changes because of necessity. Certain areas of Croydon which have low pedestrian levels, low order shops and high crime rates are neglected by the council because they are not worth spending money on.
North End, on the other hand, is constantly ‘on display’ to the public and especially to visitors. The CBD is built up of large department stores and conveniences and so this is where the highest numbers of pedestrians are found. It is these areas that will form people’s opinions on Croydon and so maintaining a high environmental quality is essential to the borough’s image. Security, therefore, is significantly increased where land value is highest. More police patrols and CCTV cameras operating in the CBD deter potential criminals and in particular graffiti artists, who can very quickly lower environmental quality with a single spray of paint. This has been displayed graphically in Figure 6.1 above.
Hypothesis 1 – Graffiti levels decrease with distance from the CBD – I concluded from my investigation that graffiti levels increased, rather than decreased, with distance from the CBD, but the number of graffiti ‘tags’ tended to increase in areas with high pedestrian levels but low environmental quality e.g. West Croydon Station.
Hypothesis 2 – Pedestrian flow is highest where environmental quality is highest – I concluded from my investigation that pedestrian flows tended to be highest where environmental quality was highest. Areas on the periphery of the town centre tended to have high environmental quality but low pedestrian flows because of the lack of conveniences situated nearby. However, if a transect point had poor environmental quality, it often had low pedestrian flows as well.
Hypothesis 3 – Average number of chewing gum marks on pavements will decrease with distance from the CBD – I concluded from my investigation that the average number of chewing gum marks on pavements did increase with distance from the CBD. This was because of increased maintenance services in the CBD, the more frequent replacement of pavement slabs and pedestrian’s tendency to dispose of their gum in areas of low pedestrian flows and poor environmental quality.
Evaluation
I was pleased with the way in which I conducted my investigation into environmental quality in Croydon and am confident that the methods I used to collect my results were accurate and reliable. I took extra care while recording my data to and tried to do as many repeat tests to keep any anomalous results to a bare minimum.
I believe that the data collected for my first hypothesis (graffiti levels decrease with distance from the CBD) was probably the most accurate. I believe this to be the case because I counted the ‘tags’ with one other person, meaning we could double check numbers with each other before leaving each transect point and writing down our results. This meant that if we had two totally different figures we could repeat the experiment again until we were confident that we had counted the correct number of ‘tags’.
Unfortunately I think that my third and original hypothesis may have produced the least accurate data. Discarded chewing gum that has been trodden into concrete over time is hard to identify while walking along a busy street, meaning at times I had to rely on my own judgement and allow for human error while carrying out that particular part of my investigation. However, I believe that the conclusion I arrived at to be the correct one.
I believe I may have been able to improve my methods and consequently improve my results by doing more repeats. However I am confident that, having compared data with my fellow peers, that my results share similar trends to the results of others. These trends are what my conclusions are based on and I therefore believe that my conclusions are valid.
Some further research, perhaps into air quality, carbon dioxide emissions and crime rates may have slightly improved my investigation, although I would be surprised if this information would alter my conclusions or change any trends.
As my investigation was carried out over the period of just a single day, I expect that my results would not be of much use to any other organisation e.g. Croydon Council, who I am sure carry out similar surveys themselves.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Croydon Council (www.croydon.gov.uk)
-
Google Images (www.images.google.co.uk)
-
Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)
- Aegis Software
- Microsoft Word Software
- Microsoft Excel Software
EXAMPLE OF RAW DATA
CHEWING GUM DATA