My geographical investigation involved a study of different methods of coastal protection around a small part of the coastline in South West Cumbria and Barrow-in-Farness. This coastline was chosen as it displays a variety of different coastal defences in a relatively small geographical area. To do this we used a standardised coastal protection record sheet to investigate 3 possible hypotheses.
Hypotheses The 3 possible hypotheses are: 1. The more expensive the defence system the better the structural effectiveness and the more it is aesthetically pleasing. 2. The higher value for land the more amounts spent. 3. The more effective sea defence systems are, the less aesthetically pleasing they are. Method To obtain our research data we used a stratified sampling method. We decided not to use a random sample method by using random grid references of the area as the locations selected may not have been in a coastal situation and as a result not relevant to the study. This sample method was chosen because it has a great advantage of choosing variables which might occur if we had used a random and wide ranging sample method.
This is where sites were selected based on previous visits to this part of the coastline. We chose this area because it had a variety of different sea defence systems of different ages and effectiveness. At each research site we used a detail recording sheet which looked at – geology, nature of beach, current land use, nature of erosion, and details of existing and past defences. We also used an index to analyse the structural effectiveness and the aesthetic effectiveness on a scale of 1-10. In the field an annotated sketch was used to record the coastal defence system and we also took photos. The results were then recorded in a table from the 6 sites visited. The results were as follows: It is illustrated above that the correlation between the cost of the sea defence and the aesthetic effectiveness is very strong and positive. R is only 0.2 away from the perfect positive correlation.
This therefore tells me that there is a very close-knit relationship between the aesthetic effectiveness and the cost of the sea defence. Comparing this to the result of my first Spearman’s rank using the cost of the sea defence and the structural effectiveness for my data it shows me that the cost of the sea defence and the aesthetic effectiveness has a stronger correlation by 0.11. This may be only minor but it is significant.
I have now learnt that the cost of the sea defence and the aesthetic effectiveness has got a better, stronger and more positive correlation compared to the cost of the sea defence and the structural effectiveness. As it shows in the table above, North Walney again came 1st in both variables and South Walney appearing last again in both ratings. The site and sea defence that had the biggest increase of ranking points was Moat Farm coming 5th in the cost of sea defence ranking to coming 3rd for the aesthetic effectiveness.