Geog Theory

Page 1

"Discuss how your investigation helped your understanding of geographical theory."

MS

reference to the

conclusions and/or the underpinning theory set out in the aim.

In addition,

there may be reference to the candidate’s own perspective with regard to their

own personal geographical development.

L3

Detailed attempt at discussion, with detailed reference to the contribution to

geographical understanding.

The underpinning theory also linked to this

understanding and good balance between discussion and understanding.

Detailed reference to the candidate’s own fieldwork.

Evidence that the

candidate is thinking like a geographer

ER

Candidates were able to

demonstrate a link between theory and their understanding achieved by undertaking the investigation.

A good number of candidates thus related their answer clearly to their fieldwork experiences, used

detail in support and were able to demonstrate synopticity (defined here as being able to ‘think like a

geographer’). The requirement to ‘discuss’ was a good discriminator.

Page 2

Theory

Typical Quality of Life Indicators

1st Diagram:

4 indicators - phys, soc, ec, psy

Within that - more specific e.g. under phys: diet, housing, env, etc

2nd Diagram:

Not classified into 4 indicators but specifics e.g. access to nature, open spaces, pollution levels etc

How it helped my understanding:

QOL depends on many factors and having higher/lower no. of factors can impact QOL

Through my investigation - I saw the sites with more indicators in theory had higher scores esp in BHS and EQS whicH overall led to conclusion of Knightsbridge having higher QOL bc it had more indicators

Knighstbridge in BHS - av scores of 4/5 for quality of external upkeep, attractiveness of house designs and materials,

parking spaces compared to 2/3 in Chadwell Heath

EQS - higher scores for

minimal/no litter and graffiti and quality of pavements and streets as well + overall average score across all sites of 41 compared to 29 in Chadwell Heath.

Although CH did score higher than Knightsbridge for front gardens and garden space (3/4 compared to 1/2) - bc it had lower scores in other areas and therefore less indicators, QOL is lower as theory shows.

Although, it would have to investigate more into the soc/psy factors of areas e.g. through questionnaire to get more complete view

Cross section QOL in a typical city

QOL of life fluctuates from W to E across city but gen pattern of decrease

Vary between outer and inner city:

W Outer city - high-quality, detached, suburban,

owner-occupied houses - higher QOL

W Inner - large villas, mixed neighbourhood - lower QOL

E Outer - deprived, public housing area - lower QOL

E inner - redev inner city area - higher QOL

How it helped my understanding:

Spatial variation has impact on QOL depending on distance from CBD

K - high-quality, detached, suburban, owner-occupied houses - expect high QOL - found in my investigation - BHS av scores 4/5

CH - deprived public-housing area - expect low QOL - found in my investigation - BHS av scores 2/3

Helped me to understand that K in inner London borough closer to CBD- access to work etc has higher QOL CH in outer London borough - poverty - further away from CBD

Firstspace/Secondspace

First space:

Characteristics of urban decline which is built

on the environment and can be seen. It includes:

·

Derelict buildings

·

Graffiti and ‘street art’

·

Shutters on buildings

·

Litter on streets

Second space:

Perception of area which is imagined in

the minds of residents

·

Area of prostitution

·

Centre of illegality

·

‘Forgotten’ district

·

Migrant magnet

·

‘No-go’ area

How it helped my understanding:

Secondspace perceptions and firstspace characteristics can impact QOL of residents in area

K - Secondspace view: more positive - perceived as affluent area with wealthier citizens, Hyde park, retail outlets - overall more pleasant area

Firstspace view: when I carried out my fieldwork - reinforced secondspace - good quality housing, high end retail, open space (destress), few derliect buildings, (more welcoming area) minimal litter (good mood and spirit - fewer safety issues) - therefore QOL for residents higher

CH - Secondspace view: more negative - perceived as 'migrant magnet' - destination for migrants due to its

illegality and low cost housing- increase ethnic tensions and

language difficulties.

'Forgotten district' residents believe area has not seen investment so feel undervalued

and uncared for, so less motivation to

help themselves.

Firstspace view: I visited area t- here was more litter, shutters on buildings compared to K - give an unwelcoming feel to the area

and an impression of danger and

crime but Chadwell

Heath did score higher for access to open space, lower traffic congestion and

crime in EQS and transport survey - helped to change my perception of area

But in terms of forgotten district - plans for 3,000

homes benefiting from a new Crossrail Station - shows how secondspace view can still decrease QOL of life for residents even if not reflected in firstspace characteristics

BBC News report

Westminster has a

life expectancy of 78 years compared to Canning Town with 71 years - 7yr diff

Life expectancy decreases by 1yr for every stop going down Jubilee Line

How it helped my understanding:

Spatial variation has an impact on life expectancy and therefore QOL

Secondary Data - Neighbourhood Statistics

CH life expectancy: 81 for females and 76.5 for males

K Life expectancy: 86.5

for females and 83.4 for males.

5.5yr diff for females and 6.9yr for males - v.sim to report

CH in outer city - lower income, less open space, poorer diet, more stress, fewer GPs etc affects life expectancy and QOL

Opp in K

Also true that 2 factors are related: higher QOL lead to increased life expectancy and vice versa

Reinforces that QOL can depend on spatial diff as well as individual factors

Conclusion:

My understanding of geog theory in terms of QOL has increased through being able to see these theories in practice through my fieldwork investigation.

QOL v.complex - affected by many factors + spatial variation