LOCATION:
- Need to be accessible for safety reasons
- Need to be close to the school to allow time for data collection
- They appear to be evenly spaced so it is a systematic sample (1) allowing for proper
comparison (1)
- Allows for good comparison
- Footpath = no legal issues
- Flood risk map identifies areas prone to flooding, which shows effectiveness of flood
defences to be identified
- They might have listed the streets alphabetically and used random numbers (1) to
select a sample
- They used census information to select the areas to select contrasting areas of the
city (1) so that it could be compared with the primary data (1)
- They used the IMD data base to select contrasting areas of the city (1) so that it
could be compared with the primary data (1)
FLOODING:
Not all of it appears to be of great value (1) with agricultural land dominant (1) There are no
settlements/houses in the valley itself (1) so flooding poses no risk to life/property (1)
How you chose your site(s) for data collection:
- Sketch should have local street names and places of interest
-
- Sketch should have a key/scale/north point
- Chose this to trying to show contrasts
- Chose a close site for health and safety considerations
Use of Secondary data sources (River Shuttle, Bexley)
- Secondary data reinforces and qualifies primary data and conclusions
- Environmental agency flood risk map which helped to identify sites by highlighting
areas where flood risk is greatest
- Google earth helped to research and investigate the topography of the catchment
- Bexley website gave us information on the management done to mitigate the risks of
flood
- The Met Office provided us with weather data to organise our trip
- Ordnance survey maps
- However some of it was out of date so not reliable
- But easy to access - internet, google, online
- We used both primary data and secondary data to reach our conclusions
- However not all of our results matched up with secondary data
- Need to be accessible for safety reasons
- Need to be close to the school to allow time for data collection
- They appear to be evenly spaced so it is a systematic sample (1) allowing for proper
comparison (1)
- Allows for good comparison
- Footpath = no legal issues
- Flood risk map identifies areas prone to flooding, which shows effectiveness of flood
defences to be identified
- They might have listed the streets alphabetically and used random numbers (1) to
select a sample
- They used census information to select the areas to select contrasting areas of the
city (1) so that it could be compared with the primary data (1)
- They used the IMD data base to select contrasting areas of the city (1) so that it
could be compared with the primary data (1)
FLOODING:
Not all of it appears to be of great value (1) with agricultural land dominant (1) There are no
settlements/houses in the valley itself (1) so flooding poses no risk to life/property (1)
How you chose your site(s) for data collection:
- Sketch should have local street names and places of interest
-
- Sketch should have a key/scale/north point
- Chose this to trying to show contrasts
- Chose a close site for health and safety considerations
Use of Secondary data sources (River Shuttle, Bexley)
- Secondary data reinforces and qualifies primary data and conclusions
- Environmental agency flood risk map which helped to identify sites by highlighting
areas where flood risk is greatest
- Google earth helped to research and investigate the topography of the catchment
- Bexley website gave us information on the management done to mitigate the risks of
flood
- The Met Office provided us with weather data to organise our trip
- Ordnance survey maps
- However some of it was out of date so not reliable
- But easy to access - internet, google, online
- We used both primary data and secondary data to reach our conclusions
- However not all of our results matched up with secondary data
