During the time spent in the London dockland area I collected a range of primary data, this consists of:
- Field sketches
- EQI-(Environmental Quality Index)
- Photographs
- Questionnaires
- Housing surveys
- Land use mapping
Field Sketches:
A sketch of the local area was used to create a simplified outline of the exciting area; these were taken at different locations that I visited, showing the varied types of land use so that I can analyze the differences between each site for redevelopment and an overall look at sustainability.
Limitations: due to the layout of the day’s events a lot of time was lost and so the quality of the sketches was poor as they were rushed so we could move onto the next areas quickly in order to get the days events completed and so the sketches on represent a portion the area at that time.
Locations used:
- West India Quay
- Cross harbour
Photographs:
I took a selection of photographs around our field work route. This enabled me to collect primary evidence to show areas that had received funding for development and those which have not had much investment. I looked at my photographs in conjunction with my land use map to see whether if this supported the land use.
Limitation: it only gives a snapshot of a specific time of the area is like in terms of regeneration (development)
Housing surveys:
A sample was taken of the residential accommodation in and around the CBD (central business District). These facts are associated of the secondary part of my data; I will evaluate and use this data as research to compare against my EQI’s.
Limitation: house prices vary at all times, by the time I have recorded data and compared it to secondary data it may have changed. Also the description of what the houses offer are not specified and therefore the price is not a reflection of what the accommodation can offer however the location may be near to a main transport link or a vital location E.G near the central business district.
Questionnaires: These were taken in order to collect primary data that was acquired by the public and their feelings on the changes to the area.
Closed question: A closed question can be answered with either a single word or a short phrase.
Open question: An open question is likely to receive a long answer, at least a sentence long.
Within the questionnaire we used a variety of open and closed questions. These were used to gain knowledge of peoples views and gain quantitative data so that I could make informed decisions based on statistics.
Limitations: the number of questionnaires could of limited the data we collected and the conclusions I was able to make. Additionally some of the comments and answers may not be fully accurate as many people were in a rush at some of the sites.
EQI: a total of four EQIs where carried out upon different sites in the isle of dogs. We carried out the EQis to rate the standard of an area from -3 to +3
Land use map: As a class we constructed a land use map to show the difference in quality around the docklands areas. A dilemma encountered with the map is that it only covers a set route which we took around the docklands. This problem may give unreliable information.
Summary of methods:
Links between methods:
When looking at how to answer my hypothesis, I have noticed that many of the methods link. For example, when I consider how I rated an area through my EQI, with a high mark, I can see that house prices appear to coincide with my subjective opinions e.g. house prices appear higher where I score higher.
Additionally, I can also link the questionnaires to my land use map, where people express concern on services or the environment I can then look at the land use map and see where investment has been made and where it falls short.
Chapter 3: Data Presentation:
My Hypothesis: ‘The urban regeneration on the Isle of Dogs, East London, has provided a successful model for sustainable development’
Aims:
-
What have been the changes to the community, employment, housing and environment?
- Have the changes made been sustainable and benefited everyone?
- Are there further improvements that can be made to the area?
Introduction: in this chapter I am going to present a variety of data to help me evaluate my aims and ultimately my hypothesis. I have aimed to use a variety of methods to display my data to help me see if there are any obvious trends.
The data presented covers the following areas:
- Community
- Housing
- Environment
- Employment
- Transport
Community data results:
Transport and accessibility data results:
Employment data results:
Housing and Environment data results:
Purpose of visit data results:
Environmental Q recycling data results:
Environmental Q surroundings data results:
Environmental Q waste disposal data results:
Environmental Q of noise data results:
Chapter 4: Data interpretation
Photo evidence
Community data results:
Transport and accessibility data results:
Employment data results:
Housing and Environment data results:
Purpose of visit data results:
Environmental Q recycling data results:
Environmental Q surroundings data results:
Environmental Q waste disposal data results:
Environmental Q of noise data results:
What I can see from the table is that throughout the cross harbour area the accommodation is very cheap compared to the other two areas, Canary Wharf especially. The prices average indicate that the further inward you get towards the isle of dogs’ centre the more house prices rise. This is due to much better facilities and easier access to work and leisure.
Chapter 5: Evaluation:
Overall Findings:
The overall findings show that the regeneration of the London docklands has been a success in a variety of ways as the communities in and around the docklands area have been improved or undergoing improvement, Showing that the LDDC have done their job appropriately. Regeneration of housing, transport links; community, employment and environment have not been regenerated to an equal standard. For example looking at my coursework I can see that regeneration has been centred on the Central Business District, affecting Canary Wharf the most and Crossharbour.
There have been improvements to Canary Wharf and other key areas of the docklands, such as west India quay but as I have stated above, the improvements have not been equally distributed. From images, questionnaires and land use maps the regeneration affects the surrounding areas of the CBD such as cross harbour. The access to Canary wharf is of a much higher standard, thanks to improved transport links, and by far is the most developed from all area studied as the DLR is now a major transportation service for tourists and workers. This then attracts wealthy people into the docklands area, especially Canary Wharf. This creates a wave of more and more people, thus forcing on more regeneration to cope with increase in population.
Due to major improvements in transport links in CBD, employment options are more available and employment enters the area as many businesses seeing positive results from the increase. As more facilities improve there is a trade off of environmental factors. These are a variety of things. The vehicles transporting materials needed for further regeneration and development cause emissions that damage the environment.
My results from a mixture of primary and secondary data have helped me come to the conclusions I have stated. Questionnaire results, EQI, radar graphs, land use maps and housing data. The questionnaire data helped me mostly; also my graphs as I could visually show the difference between Canary Wharf and Cross Harbour, the graphs showed a large range of information from transport links to recycling facilities. Of course there are reliability issues with the graphs and questionnaire data, as people all have different opinions and that could of affected my overall findings, however this aside I gained most knowledge from both.
As I only did three EQI’s there was not allot of information into the docklands area as whole. If i had done more EQI analysis’ around different points of the isle of dogs, I would of got a more detailed set of results for the difference in many area not just three. Because the EQI results were based on my opinion this isn’t very reliable as my opinion could be a contrast to what many other think, and this is not necessarily a true indication of environmental quality.
Housing surveys could be vastly improved. This is because there were only three results taken from each area and if something is to be made reliably than the more you carry out something and find an average the more accurate the average would be.
The accuracy of the methods used may have caused inaccuracy in our results; this could have been due to:
The questionnaires carried out by dividing into small groups and sharing data may have caused inaccuracy in our findings. This is because the people that were approached could have been specifically chosen because the boys in one group liked the look of them, for example a young female women. And a thing like choosing selectively doesn’t give a good view into what the community’s outlook on the area is.
The land use maps are not that accurate too as they are based on one opinion and in they eyes of others that opinion may be different to theirs, defeating the object of gather reliable data. The non residential building where clearly identified and so was the quality of low and mid level accommodation.
Again the environmental quality was opinion based and so not a true reflection of environmental quality.
