One improvement I could of made is by using a transect, this does not change my results in any way, but by doing it this way I might of saved time to do more survey sites.
Why each site was used and what did I find?
- Bridge Street
Bridge Street was used because it is in a Central Business District. Data would be very useful from this site as it is always busy with people shopping, working, and meeting other people. It is located in the middle of Morpeth and is very easy accessible from anywhere. I found in this site that the noise pollution, pedestrian count, and air pollution were very high figures than the other survey sites. I chose this site because it is in the centre of the business district and it will be a good site to survey to compare with other sites such as the rural urban fringe.
- Goose Hill
Goose Hill was our second survey site which was situated in the in Inner city. Data would be useful from this survey site as it is different from all the others. The data I found in this site was nothing out of the ordinary. It was an inner street road, with a school near by. The noise rating was inaccurate because of out timings. We tested the noise level when the school students were outside playing. Different timings will affect my results. I chose this site because it was in the inner city and I could compare with other sites such as the outer suburbs, what the housing is like and answer the question in more detail.
- Coopies Lane
Coopies Lane was the third survey site which is located in an industrial estate. I expected to have a high percentage of air pollution because of the factory works. It turns out that the air is extremely polluted because of the lichen test. Lichens are an indicator of air pollution. I chose this site because it was on an industrial estate, it appealed to me because it would be interesting to see how polluted the air is by factories and vehicles.
- Stobhill Villas
Stobhill Villas was the fourth survey site we visited; which is located in a council estate. Houses in a council estate are normally smaller than houses in a residential area. This area is in reality very clean and very less air polluted, because it is not a main road where heavy commercial vehicles will pass regularly. I chose this site because it was in a council estate. It would be interesting to compare houses in this type of area and houses in the outer suburbs.
- Carlisle Park
Carlisle Park was the fifth site we surveyed; which is situated in Park according to the Burgess Model. This site was well maintained. Actually when we visited the site, gardeners where planting new flowers and tidying the old flower beds. This shows that the town of Morpeth cares about the appearance of public places and would like to keep it clean and tidy. This site was peaceful and quiet. There was no graffiti or litter to be seen. The pedestrian count was very few apart from the odd two workers. I chose this site because it is different from all the sites and it would be fascinating to see the difference between parks and CBD’s.
6) Montrose Gardens
Montrose Gardens was the sixth site we visited; which is located in the inner suburbs. I expected this site to have high rating of pedestrian count, but there were a maximum of two pedestrians in the whole 15 minutes we were there. The noise and air pollution was reasonable. There was a considerable amount of litter and drivers parked on the curb and not in there drive ways. I chose this site because this is the only site in the inner suburbs and I have to have data from every part of the Burgess Model to answer the question accurately.
- Renwick Walk
Renwick Walk was the seventh site we visited; which is located in the outer suburbs. I expected to see tidier streets and better quality housing. The houses were a better quality than the inner suburbs or council estate, they were more spacious. I expected wrong, there was a substantial amount of litter. Air and noise pollution was fairly good. Also, the pedestrian count was quite low. I chose this site because I need data from an outer suburb to compare it with other survey sites such as Stobhill Villas, site number 4, see figure 2.2 to reassure yourself you know where site 4 is.
- B6343 – New Minister West Abbey
B6343 is a country back road, which was the eighth site we visited; which is situated in the rural urban fringe. I expected this area to have a high percentage of air pollution. I assumption came out true. The lichen test gave us a rating of 1 and 4. (See fig. 2.3). The pedestrian count was literally a zero and litter was very few. There was no sign of parking as the site was actually the main road. The traffic count had a high percentage a cars. I chose this site because it was different from all the others. It was a country back road which I got a considerable amount of data to answer the question in detail.
- Brunwel Road
Brunwel Road was the ninth site to be visited; which is located in the outer suburbs. The housing in this site was of a top standard. There was no sign of litter or graffiti. The houses had a garage, drive space, and large front gardens. It is a very peaceful area with friendly neighbors’. The lichen test showed a little air pollution, a figure of number 2. (See fig. 2.2). The odd pedestrian would walk passed but not as busy as the CBD at specific times. I chose this site because it was different to Renwick walk (see fig.2.2) the outer suburbs. It would be good if I compared the two same categories’ but totally different surroundings.
10) Leslies View (Pottery Bank)
Leslies View (Pottery Bank) was the last site we surveyed; which is situated in the Rural Urban Fringe. It was a main road with heavy commercial vehicles and low commercial vehicles; which means that the air is rather polluted. It was rather noisy as well as the group test for noise was the lowest bit of data compared to the other survey sites. I chose this site because it was on the main road and it is the only survey site that is in the rural urban fringe. I thought it was important to get data from every part of the Burgess Model.
I have taken data from different parts of Morpeth, according to the Burgess Model. To get an accurate test and to answer the question accurately I had to get data from all the different parts. Some data I have collected are from the same type such as the rural urban fringe. This is because one must be a main road and the other may be a country back road. Getting data from two of the same location but different surrounding can improve my answer by proving that; the quality of the environment is NOT equally good in all parts of Morpeth.
As we were working in groups, we spilt the work load between the four of us and surveyed every site this way. Jordon was in charge of the traffic count and the noise pollution count. We all had our individual tests to carry out. Joanna was in charge of the noting down the general quality of the environment with help from her team mates. Tim was in charge of guiding us the right way as he is an expert at reading maps. We all had a try at guiding the group to a survey site but Tim knew all the shortcuts and the right way to go. He was also in charge of writing down the rating for noise pollution, as it was group decision. I was in charge of analyzing the tree barks for lichens to test for air pollution.
Part 2 – The Methods
A table to explain the different methods I used and did this help me answer the question.
A description of each Method in detail: What I did? How I did it? Why I did it?
- General Quality of the Environment
Collecting information on the general quality of the environment, I was really observing. At each site, I had a sheet in front of me rating each factor a mark out of 5. The possible scores on shown on the score sheet (see fig. 3.4 for more details). The scores would range from1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). I then added up the total scores for each site to get an environmental quality index score. All theses scores are shown in the chapter 3, fig. 3.4. We did this method in a group so that everyone can take a section an analysis the site in detail so that we do not miss any valid information. We used this method to collect data so that other readers could image what the site would look like, also it would help them understand why I have answered the question in such a way. This data helped me answer the question in much more detail as I have more information on each site, and that being different aspects on the site such as: Building Conditions: decoration, paintwork and windows. Land/ Gardens: gardens, garden condition and open land/parks. Street/Pavement: road surface, pavement conditions and on street parking. General Environment: litter, vandalism/graffiti, noise and air pollution. Most of these factors affect the visual pollution, noise pollution and air pollution. This is not very welcoming for tourists in England if theses factors were a substantial low number. All theses features can total up to an excellent source of information. With this information, I can then compare different sites and therefore answer the question in detail. See fig 3.3 for further reference to this information. The only problem I came across is I might have missed valid features that can improve my score or decrease the index score. This method is not very accurate as I am just observing but to describe the general quality of the environment I had no other option. The information I have collected is still correct and to back up my comments I have included photographs (see fig 3.).
- Air Pollution (Group and Individual)
Air pollution affects the environment and humans. People with asthma find it incredibly hard to breathe when there is heavy air pollution. They are breathing in dirty air which is not good for their asthma. Air pollution does not affect my study, although it would be a positive point to actually collect the air pollution data properly so that I can identity and come up with a conclusion to is the environment equally good in all parts of Morpeth.
Amassing air pollution, group, or individual was immensely inaccurate. There were two methods which I chose to do. The reason being is to get more information from the same sites but in different ways. The first method I am going to talk about is the group method, which is using a biological indicator. Lichens are very sensitive indicators of air pollution. Some species can tolerate a lot of air pollution such as Pleurococcus (see fig. 2.3) which indicators an extremely polluted area, or Usnea Subfloridana which indicators an extremely clean area. We were given the identification sheet to identify which lichens are present on trees or rock and sometimes on walls. I collected this data to test the quality of the air pollution in different parts of Morpeth. The only problem with this method is if I read the identification sheet wrong and I indentified the wrong lichen for the wrong type of site. For example I visited an industrial site, Coopies Lane site 3, it would look out of the ordinary if an industrial site had lichens which match up to extremely clean air; therefore I had to be very careful and make sure I read the identification sheet properly. (See fig.2.3 to reference of identification sheet).
I did an individual method just to reinforce my answer of the question stated. It makes my test better because it improves the quality of my answer and gives me more information to work with.
For this individual method, I used 10 different cotton wool sheets to wipe over the leaves of trees or bushes at each survey site. The darker the residue deposited on the cotton wool the more air pollution there is. It was vital that I labeled each sample with the site number. The only problem with this method is that it was not accurate enough. Air pollution may fall on leaves and bushes but only at the tops of them; obviously, I am not as tall as the trees so this test did not have its full effect. There is no other solution to solve this problem apart from, not to do it but more data is better to have than just one piece of information on air pollution. This cotton wool data can help me put across a strong argument; however the lichens test was accurate and to the point. (See fig .3.)
- Noise Pollution (Group and Individual)
Collecting information for noise pollution was very easy; these methods did not take time at all. There were two methods we did. This test is important to my study because noise pollution is an important factor to analysis to study the quality of the environment. We did one individual test and one group test. To test noise pollution, in a group, in a slightly precise way I took my phone because I needed a portable radio player to test the noise pollution in a group. I had to mark the volume control at a relatively low level so I did not disturb the local residents in that area. The points I needed to keep the same are as follows; the same song, the same phone, the same volume, also the same person walking the steps. It is important to keep theses factors the same to keep the test as fair as possible. To test the noise pollution with music, a person had to walk away from the phone playing the music until they could not hear anything. They would then count the amount of steps they have walked and we would then make a note of the figures. The distance told me that the longer the distance the quieter the area. This method did work as we kept everything the same. I came to a conclusion of; the higher the number in steps the quieter the area. I collected this data because it is vital to compare each factor I can to get more information to answer the question accurately.
The individual method was hearing the noise pollution, as there is no technical recording equipment available I used a 5 point scale to record noise individually. (See fig3.) All I did was simply stand still for 2 minutes and listen to the noise. It is simple but there are many disadvantages from using it. This method is inaccurate because it has no statistics or facts it is all opinions. This is not affecting my results; however, it is giving the reader an image to work around and to come to a conclusion of why I have chosen the number representing the opinion. (See fig3. for reference). to improve this test I could of bought technical recording equipment but the reason I did not was because it id to expensive. This simple test was an alternative for an individual test and this data will increase the amount I will write about in my conclusion about air pollution.
- Graffiti/Vandalism
Collecting this data will increase the quality of my answer as this data is extra information. This makes my study better because of the quality of information I have collected is in great detail. Graffiti/vandalism affect the quality of the environment because it shows what type of area people live in and what type of people live there. If I did not find any graffiti/vandalism this will affect my study because I will not be getting any information to write about it, on the other hand it shows that Morpeth is a clean environment and wants the environment to be well maintained. I identified other things that could affect the quality of the environment and I came up with ways of measuring them. Collecting graffiti and vandalism was hard as you had to inspect the site we were surveying. Not much graffiti/vandalism was found as Morpeth is a clean and tidy environment. To collect graffiti/vandalism we took photos of the sites to show the reader in the most precise way how the site looked and the content of how much graffiti or vandalism is done. We also made a 3 point scale to record graffiti/vandalism; 1 being poor and 3 being excellent. This was an individual test; however, we did work together and share ideas. I collected this data because graffiti/vandalism shows that residents do not care about the environment they live in. The only problem I had with this method was I forgot to take pictures for 4 sites and it is not very accurate. To solve this problem I could have not investigated this factor but then I would not have enough information to base my answer on.
- Pedestrian Count
Collecting this data will also increase the quality of my answer as this is also extra information. Pedestrian count affects the environment because the higher the number in pedestrian count the higher noise pollution, the higher the environment is damaged and the more litter. There is a big link between the quality of an environment and the number of pedestrians. I identified the method I had to use to get this count right. The method I chose was to do a 3 point scale to record pedestrian count; 1 being none and 3 being a large amount of people. To collect this data we clearly just observed the survey site and wrote down my observation. This is a simple method but there are no other alternatives’ to count or calculate pedestrian counts. I collected this data because I thought it was necessary to have a pedestrian count as it could link in with why there are masses amount of litter or noise pollution. The only problem I had with this factor is that there were not enough pedestrians, to solve this problem I could have done my test at different times so I get an accurate figure. Also what I could have done, if I had more time is taken data from 5 different times of the day and calculate the average, but because I only had 4 hours to do 10 survey sites I thought it was more important to get all the survey sites done with the necessary information.
- Litter
Collecting this data will also increase the quality of my answer as this is also extra information. Litter affects the environment because it shows how much the pedestrians care about the appearance of the environment; also as I said earlier pedestrian count links in with litter and traffic count, noise pollution and air pollution. I identified a method which was to do a 3 point scale. 1 being no litter and 3 being masses amount of litter. Also, we took pictures to show the quality of the environment. I collected the data because litter is one of the most important factors that can tell a lot about an area. For example a high class area will not been seen with much litter where as the CBD will be filled with litter as it is the busiest site at any time of the day. The only problem I had with this method or test is that we did it as an individual test; which means that I may have missed some valid information. If we were doing this test in a group, maybe the quality of the information will be in more detail as there are more people to identity the area for litter. The area sizes are rather big so it is important that we analysis every aspect of the site. (See fig 3. to see the graph I have produced for the litter count).
- Traffic Count
Traffic count affects the environment by polluting the air and noise pollution. Without cars, buses, lorries and vans the air would be a lot cleaner than what it is now. Also, it would be reducing the extra amount of carbon dioxide that goes in the air as more people will use public transport, bicycles or walk to places. Traffic count links in with air pollution and noise pollution so I thought it was necessary to have this factor in my test. Traffic count affected my study because it took to long to do. The method we chose was the only option to survey traffic count. 1 person in the team would stand at a point in the survey area and tally the vehicles that went passed. We would survey this for 5 minutes at each site. I collected this data because this is the cause for air and noise pollution. So to see how many vehicles pass through each site can determine how much air and noise pollution is in the area which was surveyed. There was no problem with this method as it was very simple and easy; however, the problem I had was that it can be very frustrating waiting for 5 minutes if there is no traffic.
Chapter 3 – Data Interpretation
1) Description of: The graph to show the Traffic Count data collected at each site
Fig 3.1 on page… shows the amount of different vehicles we saw at each site, concerning traffic count. This graph clearly shows that Bride Street, which is situated in the CBD, refer to page 2 in chapter 2, was the most popular site to obtain the most vehicles. How we pursued this method is shown on page 12 in chapter 2.
I have selected to present my data in proportional pie charts. By changing the size of the circles, I can show the difference between the amount of traffic in each site, and how that total is split up between different vehicles. I chose to present my data in this way because it is easier to understand the type of vehicles we found at each site. The data presented on the map shows that Bridge Street was the site that had the most traffic count. 88% of the traffic was cars, 8% of the traffic was low commercial vehicles, and 4% of the traffic was heavy commercial vehicles. The reason why traffic count was a substantial amount of cars is because Bridge Street is in the Central Business District and therefore, local residents pass through this area regularly. Also, to get from other places you have to pass through the CBD and consequently traffic increases. My results show that there is a possible link between the two points.
However, Montrose Gardens, Carlisle Park, and Brunwel Road did not get much traffic as two sites are residential estates and the other is a park. Montrose gardens we only managed to collect 1 LCV, this is 7 times less than Bridge Street. Brunwel Road I only managed to collect 3 cars and 1 LCV. Obviously, in the park there were no vehicles.
The reason I think why I did not get much data for these sites is because the time of day was not appropriate for the test. If I tested the test when school finishes at 3:15pm, residential areas will be filled cars, buses or any sort of transport. From this I can conclude that Montrose Gardens was the site where traffic was next to nothing, where as, Bridge Street was the site where a considerable amount of traffic was found, out of the places I tested in Morpeth.
2) Description of: The graph to show the amount of steps taken to calculate noise pollution
Fig 3.2 on page… shows the distance taken to calculate the noise pollution. This graph clearly indicated that site 8, which is New Minister West Abbey (B6343), situated in the rural urban fringe, and is the quietest area in the surveyed sites. Please refer to page 9 in chapter 2 to see how we carried out this test.
I have selected to present my data in bar charts and converted it into a located symbol map. I used this method to compare my data easily and for other readers to understand the comparisons. The data presented on the map shows that New Minister West Abbey (site 8) was the quietest area with a total distance of 90ft and therefore, this site must be located in the rural urban fringe. Rural urban fringe areas are normally very quiet as there are no buildings to attract people. Country roads have a tendency of being rather empty as people are unaware that they exist. If an area has less noise pollution it can also have, a link with less traffic count because normally in the CBD the only noise was the traffic and there was background noise of people talking. Also, it can have a link with less air pollution, if there are less vehicles travelling in that area no car fumes will pollute the air and it is not as though there are buildings in a rural urban fringe, to give off any unwanted gases. (Refer to page 3 for a definition of a rural urban fringe and its features). My results (see fig 3.) clearly show that there is a link between these two points.
However, Bridge Street was the loudest site, which we walked only 10 ft. The reason being is because this is in the CBD and it is the centre of Morpeth and this is where people and traffic are found to be the loudest. There is a link between the amount of noise pollution and air pollution and the amount of traffic. As a result of this, I have come to a conclusion, the louder the noise pollution, the higher the amount of air pollution and traffic count.
3) Description of: The graph to show litter, graffiti/vandalism, and pedestrian count in a scatter graph
Fig 3.3 on page… shows 2 different factors we surveyed at the sites in Morpeth. They have a link with each other; this is why I have put them in a scatter graph to present the information in a sufficient way. Without pedestrians, graffiti would not exist, so to prove this point I have put these 2 factors into one graph and therefore will explain clearer why I think this is.
We can clearly see from this graph that Bride Street had the biggest pedestrian count, where as sites 3, 4 and 8 did not have any. Site 3 was Coopies lane which is situated in an industrial estate. Pedestrians would be inside the factories working, as for other pedestrians, there were none to be seen. Site 4 was a residential area, and it depends on the time of day I did my survey. At 11am not many pedestrians would be seen as they may be at work and children are at school, however, retired adults should be out and about but not many were seen at 11am around Stobhill Villas. Site 8 was the country road, B6343, there were no pedestrian to be seen.
We can also see very clearly that none of the sites had Graffiti or been vandalized. This suggests clearly that the citizens of Morpeth care a considerable amount on what their village looks like.
Although Morpeth may be a town, which is graffiti free; however, the point I made earlier that, pedestrians are the cause to graffiti, my results do not prove this. The highest pedestrian count was found in site1 which is Bridge Street; however, the graffiti count stayed the same for every single site. There does not seem to be a link between the type of pedestrians and graffiti.
4) Description of: The graph to show the quality of the air by using cotton wool (air pollution)
Fig 3.4 shows the individual test of testing air pollution using cotton wool. The method did this is on page… The results show that site 3 was the most air polluted area, according to the cotton wool test. Sometimes the lichens test does not match up with my individual test.
Coopies Lane is situated in an industrial estate; therefore, I did expect there to be a considerable amount of air pollution. This test did not work for most of the other sites, as there were not many trees, or they were too high up to reach. The best part of the tree where I should have tested is the very top of the tree, the leaves. This would have given me an accurate answer to test air pollution; however, we had no way of getting that high.
I was very surprised at site 1, as I did not get much residue on the cotton wool. As Bridge Street is located in the centre of Morpeth, and every type of vehicles passes through there, it surprised me why I did not get much residue. However, if you refer to fig 3.6 you can see that Bridge Street was one of the most polluted areas as it has 1, 2, and 4 lichens present. I was both testing for air pollution, so the cotton wool test for Bridge Street was inaccurate.
The site that got the least residue was Carlisle Park. This is not surprising at all, as there were no sign of any vehicles to cause any sort of air pollution. Obviously I understand that there is background air pollution being carried by the wind, but it would make no sense if my cotton wool produced residue like site 3 because there is nothing in that part of the park to cause any pollution. However, the lichens test got a 2 rating.
There can be links made with the Lichens test and the cotton wool as they are both testing for the same thing.
5) Description of: The graph to show the general quality of the environment for each site
Fig 3.5 shows the information we collected for the general quality of each site. The method for this test is on page…The results show that site 5, Carlisle Park, and site 9, Brunwel Road, were the cleanest areas in Morpeth, which we surveyed.
Carlisle Park was very well maintained, as this test proved this. It has an excellent score (5) for all the factors such as gardens, road surface, litter, noise pollution and air pollution. Along side this, so does site 9 which is situated in the outer suburbs. Overall, both of the grand totals came up to 62 out of 65, which is a considerable high level of maintenance for an area. Site 5 was a park therefore; it was quite surprising not to find litter or any vandalism. For example, Ponteland Park is filled with litter and has graffiti all over the swings and the facilities available for others to use.
However, the site 1, Bridge Street, and site 6, Montrose Gardens, were the filthiest sites to be recorded. There grand total were both 30. Site 1, they picked up points by having spectacular records of no litter, graffiti, noise, air pollution. Where as site 6’s points, are spread out across the factors that are involved in this test.
By doing this test we can get a rough idea of what sort of area it is and what it looks like. This test was mostly describing the appearance of the site, but using geographical terms.
Please refer to fig 3.6 and 3.7 for further information about the test results. These two pieces of information were used on the actual fieldwork day.
6) Description of: The graph to show how litter was spread out across the area of Morpeth
Fig 3.8 shows the litter was spread out amongst areas of Morpeth. The method for this test is on page… This map clearly shows 3 different types of information; how the litter is spread across Morpeth, the type of area it is for example: rural urban fringe, and where the sites I visited I took data from. This clearly shows that site 1 and site 7 had the most litter. The key on the map shows the scale I used. Site 1 was where I found a considerable amount of pedestrians as well. This has a link; without pedestrians being in the area tested I would not have litter to test. So the more pedestrians in the area the more litter found. However, this does not work with site 7. In fig 3.3 there were only a few pedestrians at the site but this is the site had the most litter? So the conclusion that I came up earlier does not does apply to this site.
The site with the least litter found was site 5, Carlisle Park, and site 10, Leslies View. This was expected as the general quality environment test had excellent points there had to be no litter in theses sites. Mainly because they are very well maintained and we actually surveyed site 5 while workers from the government were cleaning the park and planting new flowers.
There can be a link made between litter and pedestrian count. However, some of my results back me up with this conclusion but, some of my results do not.
7) Description of: The table to show the Lichens found at each site that we surveyed in Morpeth (air pollution)
Fig 3.9 shows the air pollution results from each site, regarding Lichens. The method for this test is on page… This is presented clearly and any reader can understand this map. Please refer to fig 2.4 for the key to the lichens.
Nearly every single site had Lichen 1 present, site 1, 2, 3,4,6,7 and 8 were the sites with “PLEUROCOCCUS” which means in simpler terms an extremely polluted area. 5 sites out of 10 had Lichen 2 present “LECANORA DISERSA” which means heavily polluted area. Mostly the sites that had lichen 1 present also had lichen 2 present.
There is no site which is “ALMOST CLEAN AIR” or “CLEAN AIR”. The only site that had the “PARMELIA SAXATILIS” (SLIGHTLY POLLTED AREA) was site 1, 6 and 8.
These are very strange results either my individual test is unreliable or I have miss read the identification sheet.
In conclusion, Bridge Street was the most polluted area as it has lichens 1, 2 and 4 present. Where as site 9 and 10 had lichen 2 present, this is just as bad; however, whatever I saw on the tree trunks I made a note of it. So I believe that my individual test was unreliable.
8) Description of: The pie chart to show noise pollution data collected in different survey sites
Fig 3.10 shows the noise pollution results we collected by using a 5 point scale. The method for this test is on page… This pie chart clearly shows that Bridge Street and Leslies View were the nosiest sites to be surveyed.
I am not surprised that I rated Bridge Street the nosiest site. Due to all the traffic noise, it came across very noticeable and very unpleasant. Leslies View was expected to be rather noisy as it was a main road and the noise of cars it rather appalling to hear as we were walking through this area.
The site that was very pleasant to site in was site 5, Carlisle Park. This site was very well maintained and very pleasant to sit in as there were no car noises to disturb me. Very occasional car noises but they were bearable.
No site got a rating of 5- very noisy, uncomfortable, and difficult to hear yourself speak, due to the time of day I did my survey. A link between noise pollution and traffic count is; the higher the count in traffic the higher the amount of noise pollution.
Chapter 4 – Conclusion
In this investigation, we tried to find:
Is the quality of the environment equally good in all parts of Morpeth?
This means “are the surroundings in Morpeth at the same level of maintenance?”
We investigated the following:
- Air pollution (refer to page… to see the method).
- Traffic Count (refer to page…to see the method).
- Noise Pollution (refer to page…to see the method).
- Litter Count (refer to page…to see the method).
- Pedestrian Count (refer to page…to see the method).
- Graffiti/Vandalism (refer to page…to see the method).
- General Quality Survey (refer to page…to see the method).
I believe that the qualities of all parts of Morpeth are NOT equal. My data in chapter 3 supports this and the interpretation is a good source of information to assist it, especially, if you refer to fig 3.5. These results give a graphic image of what the sites looked like. Some of the photographs in fig 3.11 are annotated and can help create this graphic image. Automatically you can see that site 5 is very well maintained, and looking good, as it is owned by the Morpeth County Council. You can tell from the grand total on page…that sites have a different standard of maintenance. For example, site 3 has a different style of maintenance to site 5. There is a 38 point difference between the two sites which suggests that the County Council prefer to keep public places cleaner than industrial sites. Why? They obviously know that local residents would appreciate a tidy and neat park to visit, where as an industrial estate has a considerable amount of general rubbish scattered about. This does not reflect well for the area and the companies in the industrial space and can lead to bad health for the people working there. Also, site 3 was shown to have the highest level of air pollution which can also be a contributing factor to ill health; for example asthma, lung cancer and stress. Turn to page…to see a photograph of site 3 and the untidy environment that people work in.
The reason I have come to this conclusion is because I am basing my conclusion on the results I have collected. It shows that a messy part of Morpeth has a higher chance of being highly air polluted, more traffic, and extremely more litter. This does not reflect very well on the council on a professional level; however, this may also suggest that theses types of sites are being neglected on purpose. Parts of Morpeth such as Coopies Lane are unpleasant to the eye, uncomfortable to be around, and show a sign of not being cared for.
Chapter 5 – Evaluation
Most of my data collection went smoothly; however, I did feel that some of my tests were unreliable and not accurate.
Data Collection
The problems I had with the data collection test are that the Litter count and the pedestrian count were rather inaccurate for me. I personally feel that if I wanted the best results I can get my experiment has to be accurate and well structured. Obviously, time was a big consumer as I did not have enough; however, we managed to get data for 10 survey sites and all the tests tested.
Pedestrian Count was the factor which I did not prefer to test. It is an inaccurate point to test with no appropriate equipment. There was no general logic to it. I was just counting the amount of people I saw in the period of time I was at that site. The only I tested this factor is because there is a link between pedestrian count and litter is general.
The tests that worked really well were the traffic count and the noise pollution test, in a group. I found that these test results were only 1 answer and that is what I prefer; only one right answer.
There are not many ways that my data collection can be improved; in my opinion, I feel that we have a suitable methods and accurate results. I am happy how this investigation took place.
Data Presentation and Interpretation
The methods of my tests had an impact on my results. If I limited the amount of site I tested, my results for litter or pedestrian count, and graffiti would virtually be nothing. I examine the whole area not taking into account any size of what I should be measuring. Maybe I could improve this as I collected my data. I could add more detail of analysis to interpret ate my results. I feel that I did not refer to other maps in different chapters as much as I should of. Also, picking out links between other figures in chapter 3; therefore If I did this I would show an understanding of my results. I have done this but not in so much detail.
Conclusion
My conclusions are supported by the data presented in chapter 3.
