Human Fieldwork

Question 1

Human fieldwork: Enquiry Question

Answer 1

“How and why are there variations in QoL for different areas within Bournemouth?”

Question 2

Human fieldwork: study location

Answer 2

Bournemouth:
> Boscome West - Churchill Gardens
> Boscombe East - Shelley Park

Question 3

Deprived area?

Answer 3

Boscombe West

Question 4

Test 1: Quantitative test measuring Environmental Quality

Answer 4

• Systematic Sampling – measured on a main road in both Boscombe East and Boscombe West
• As a result we did 3 EQS in Boscombe East, 3 in Boscombe West.
• We measured 7 diff factors: noise, greenery and open space, housing, services, safety if alone, litter/graffiti vandalism, traffic.
• We measured using a bi-polar scale between -2 (v. bad) and +2 (v. good
• The best score for an area would have been +12 and the worst -12. We added up all of the scores for the factors and found an average EQS for both areas.

Question 5

Test 2: Qualitative Test – Perception of how quality of life was different in
Boscombe East and Boscombe West

Answer 5

• Systematic Sampling – before we went to each area we placed a dot in middle of the map of Boscombe East & Boscombe West.
• We then found the closest building/street to this dot and took the photo
  -We annotated the diagram with factors such as: house type, house density, house quality, green space, traffic, proximity to services, air quality etc. as these would show us how we perceived

Question 6

What were our presentation techniques?

Answer 6

Radar graph to show EQS Environmental Quality (quantitative)

Question 7

What were our conclusions

Answer 7

• Primary data collected supports secondary data, showing a big gap in QoL between Bosc. East & West
• Avg. EQA in East was +1.5 compared to -0.15 in West, showing env is better in East
• West scored worse for building qual, litter, vandalism & safety
• Qualitative photos helped compare & clearly see problems in building in West.
• East has low density detached houses w excellent parks in the area

Question 8

Evaluating EQS (Quantitative data): PROBLEMS

Answer 8

• Was a -2 to +2 scale the best? Did it allow us to accurately measure how good/bad an area was?
• Having a 0 choice as a neutral score – did this mean we were somewhat in the middle in some areas rather than saying it was ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
• Our scores were subjective based on our interpretation of the area, what we could see, how we felt and our backgrounds - Different people would have different views

Question 9

Evaluating EQS (Quantitative data): ALTERNATIVES

Answer 9

• -5 to +5 for a scoring system
• Not having a zero as a middle point
• Instead of judging how noisy an area was – we could have used a noise meter on our phone
• Instead of judging traffic noise – we could have done a traffic count to get actual data

Question 10

Evaluating Annotated photos (Qualitative data): PROBLEMS

Answer 10

• Is the photo representative of the entire area?
• We only took one photo.
• Our background (age, wealth, upbringing) will affect how we judge and view the area

Question 11

Evaluating Annotated photos (Qualitative data): ALTERNATIVES

Answer 11

• Use different people to undertake the same task (different backgrounds).
• Complete questionnaires to find out residents views as sometimes ‘run-down’ areas can have excellent community spirit and places to live – a photo isn’t always the full picture!