Improvements to both fieldworks

Question 1

Improvements to clitheroe

Answer 1

3) To improve my primary data on quality of areas I would make larger groups of 10 who would go to each site and discuss between themselves the quality of the area. I would have numerous groups visit more sites, since it gives a more balanced view of the area. Since numerous groups visit it I would get my final data from an average of all the groups results while removing any anomalies.
For my secondary data I would use numerous amounts of sources and do a primary investigation to find the crime rate. This would get more reliable results since using multiple sources removes any chance of inaccuracy altering my results while also keeping it up to date

Question 2

Successes in Clitheroe

Answer 2

2) I do believe that the results I found are trustworthy since measures were taken in place to make them reliable, groups of two discussed the data for the quality of areas. And the MARIO map viewer is a trusted source in Lancashire. I believe the crime statistics are a more trusty source since an organization found the results and is less subjective to opinion than environmental quality is.

Question 3

Successes in Hurst Green

Answer 3

2- My results are useful, since they provide a depiction of the light intensity in Hurst Green, however since we only recorded the result at a specific point of the day at one part of the month it may be unreliable for a long-term light exposure in Hurst Green.
I believe the amount of solar panels in Hurst Green is a more accurate result then the light exposure in Hurst Green since there is a definitive numerical result unlike light exposure which can vary.

Question 4

Improvements to Clitheroe

Answer 4

If I were to repeat this experiment, I would go to more locations across Hurst Green so I can get a more accurate depiction of the light intensity in more parts of Hurst Green. I would measure these locations at different times so I can more accurately calculate the average light intensity.