1:BARDSEY
2:KINGFISHER FACTORY
3:MOAT FARM
4:RAMPSIDE
5:NORTH OF WALNEY
6:SOUTH OF WALNEY
Results
Here is the data we recorded from each location:
Location number: 1
Name of site: BARDSEY
Defence type: Old sea wall
Geology: Gravel and sand from glacial streams
Nature of the beach: Shingle, 10metres wide, going to mudflats, shallow gradient
Aspect: South West
Current Land use: Good quality pasture land, village ½ mile across road
Nature of erosion/mass-movement: erosion of sea wall, using rock armour (cement to fill in holes in the wall)
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: High plunging destructive waves, big backwash
Details of existing/past defences: 1963 sea wall made of limestone blocks and concrete infill. £600per/metre
Structural effectiveness: 4
Aesthetic value: 3
Location number: 2
Name of site: Kingfisher Factory chemical plant
Defence type: Mainland sea wall
Geology: boulder clay with glacial deposit
Nature of the beach: Large pebbles and boulders, 20metres wide, shallow gradient to Morecambe bay.
Aspect: South
Current Land use: Industrial complex
Nature of erosion/mass-movement: undercutting of the sea wall cobbles by marine processes (waves pounding, hydraulic action, biological erosion)
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: Marine processes (waves pounding, hydraulic action, biological erosion)
Details of existing/past defences:1963, better mainland, drainage channels, concrete/limestone cobbles
Structural effectiveness: 6
Aesthetic value: 4
Location number: 3
Name of site: Moat farm
Defence type: Gabians
Geology: Boulder clay, glacial deposits
Nature of the beach: Shingle beach, 30metres wide
Aspect: South West
Current Land use: Protects coastal road
Nature of erosion/mass-movement:
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: sub-aerial erosion
Details of existing/past defences: Wire gabions
Structural effectiveness: 8
Aesthetic value: 7
Location number: 4
Name of site: Rampside
Defence Type: New sea wall
Geology: Boulder clay, glacial deposit
Nature of the beach: 10metres wide, shallow beach, sand and shingle
Aspect: South West
Current Land use: Pasture land
Nature of erosion/mass-movement: Undercutting of the sea wall
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: Destructive waves
Details of existing/past defences:1970’s , concrete panels £3000 per/metre, designed to increase backwash and decrease index.
Structural effectiveness: 8
Aesthetic value: 5
Location number: 5
Name of site: North of Walney
Defence type: Fish tail groyne
Geology:
Nature of the beach: Sand and shingle
Aspect: West
Current Land use:
Nature of erosion/mass-movement: Destructive waves
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: Marine erosion
Details of existing/past defences: £5 million, limestone blocks that were specially made, Special paving,
Structural effectiveness: 9
Aesthetic value: 8
Location number: 6
Name of site: South of Walney
Defence type: None
Geology: Boulder clay lateral moraine
Nature of the beach: sand and shingle
Aspect: south south west
Current Land use: agricultural
Nature of erosion/mass-movement: erosion of boulder clay
Possible causes of erosion/mass movement: marine
Details of existing/past defences:
Structural effectiveness: 1
Aesthetic value: 4
Photo not available
The results were then recorded in a table;
Analysis of results
My results show that the more money spent on the sea defence structures the higher the structural effectiveness. This proves my hypothesis to be correct. There is 1 anomaly which is the gabions at moat farm which cost only £200per metre and received a high structural effectiveness rating. Apart from that defence wall the scatter graph shows there is a strong positive correlation regarding the cost and the effectiveness. The gabions were structurally effective because they are solid and less expensive. They allow percolation and deflection of wave energy.
The graph shows that as the price increases the structural effectiveness rating also increases. There is a positive correlation between the cost and effectiveness of the sea defence systems. As the graph shows the most effective sea wall is the most expensive at £5000 with a rating of 9 and is the north of walney site.
This graph shows the aesthetic values of the locations we visited. There is a positive correlation between the amount spent on the systems and their aesthetic value. There is 1 site that does not fit the trend and that is the moat farm gabions which are rated 7 yet cost a mere £200.
Spearmans rank
This is a spearmans rank table which tests the strengths of correlation between two variables. I can see from my table that the site at North of Walney is ranked 1st place in both situations, and that South of walney is ranked last in both situations. The site with the biggest increase of ranking points is Moat Farm as it rises 3 ranks from coming 5th in the cost column and 2nd in the structural effectiveness column. The mainland sea walll dropped the most ranks along with the old sea wall as they both dropped 1 rank. The mainland sea wall dropped from 3rd most expensive to been the 4th most effective and the old sea wall dropped from being the 4th most expensive to being the 5th most effective.
Conclusion
The results I have found have proven my hypothesis. The coastal defence systems that cost more money were more structurally effective. There was one odd result, which was the gabions at moat farm that cost only £200 per metre² but were nearly as effective as some other methods such as the fish tail groyne at North Walney that cost £5000 per metre²! This study also contributed towards our understanding of physical geography. It enabled us to understand the coastlines around our region and some of the erosion and deposition processes which take place on coastlines. We got to understand the processes of long shore drift and why groynes were needed to prevent it. We also got a better understanding of coastal features like berms storm beaches and the effects of constructive and destructive waves.
Evaluation
My results were expected, as obviously the defence systems that had lots of money spent on them were more effective. Although this conclusion cannot be definite as the marks given to each defence system for its structural effectiveness was just an educated guess not actually a fact based on scientific research. Because of this the results could differ on basis of opinion. The results could have been different however had I done my study over a wider area of coastline of a different coastline. Also if I’d taken more samples this could have affected my results. My results could also have been more accurate if I had spent longer researching each defence system and researched them in more detail. I could also have looked at defence systems on the Internet to get a better knowledge of defence systems around the country and around the world. Another way to improve my study would be if I was to go back in 10 years time and see if the systems were still as structurally effective as they are now and how much they have deteriorated.