Regeneration of the London Docklands
Introduction:
My investigation aims to investigate the impact of regeneration in the London Docklands on the average
quality of life in the area. When conducting my investigation, it is important that “quality of life” is
correctly defined so that is can be recorded and analysed correctly removing inaccuracies from my results.
Quality of life is generally defined as the “general well-being of individuals” (Source: Google Dictionary),
but well-being of each individual is recorded by observing different aspects that make up quality of life.
These include; physical and mental health, education, employment, wealth, safety and the environment.
However, when recording quality of life, it is important to take into account aspects such as services
provided, and the Housing quality provided in an area.
Another key definition is “regeneration” as the aim of my investigation focuses the effects of regeneration
it is essential that it is correctly defined so I can accurately evaluate whether an area is highly regenerated
or has received little regeneration to then record the impacts of the level of regeneration. Regenerate is
defined (Source: Cambridge Dictionary) as “to improve a place or system especially making it more active
or successful”. In the context of the London Docklands this means that regeneration schemes are schemes
which encourage investment or development of the area which therefore improves the Docklands
environment, economic development, generates new jobs placements and many more improvements in
the area. Overall, they aim to positively affect how “successful” the London Docklands is.
Why the London Docklands needed regeneration? (Source: Royal Hospital School)
In the 1950’s ships became bigger and therefore unable to reach the London Docklands, Furthermore the
world was transitioning to containerisation removing the need for small scale local ports, this left the
docklands obsolete and led to the Docklands to becoming derelict by the 1970’s. With the closure of the
docklands 25% of jobs were lost and fewer services were provided in the area, this meant that people
moved out in search of work and better quality of life. Before its regeneration there was 5,100 acres of
derelict land in the docklands. Therefore, to regeneration was needed in the docklands to help encourage
investment bringing back new job opportunities and therefore bringing people back into the docklands.
I will consequently research the following hypothesis;
1. Regeneration has positively affected the economic development of the London Docklands. To
improve quality of life there has to be an improvement in economic development as many factors
of quality of life can be improved with economic success. Therefore, regeneration projects often
focus on positively improving the economic development of an area.
To ensure that I fully understand what is meant by economic development to evaluate how regeneration
effects it, it is important it is defined correctly. From the Encyclopaedia Britannica economic development
is defined as: The process whereby simple, low-income national economies are transformed into modern
industrial economies.
2. Regeneration has positively affected the social development of the London Docklands. When
improving quality of life there is often a positive effect on social development of an area as services
such as education improve. It is important to investigate social development as many could argue
that social development is more important that economic development as it can have a great effect
on the lives of both residents of the London docklands and also people visiting the area.
Furthermore, it is also important that social development is correctly defined allowing me to accurately
evaluate how social development is affected from regeneration. Reference.com an education resource
defines social development as: Social development is the prioritization of human needs in a society. Social
development takes place on individual levels as well as broader societal levels. The intent of social
development is to improve life for all.
3. Regeneration has negatively affected the surrounding environment of the London Docklands.
This is because the regeneration of the area focuses its aim to create a positive effect on economic
and social development, however this often has a negative on the surrounding environment as
there is economic growth a society can become less efficient and wasteful as they can afford to use
cars more often increasing traffic and replace goods they may not need to replace, in turn
increasing waste.
In this hypothesis the term “environment” can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, I will be investigating the
physical effect on the natural environment define by Cambridge dictionary as: The air, water, and land in
or on which people, animals, and plants live. However, I also intend to investigate into the effects
regeneration has on the social environment of each site defined by Cambridge dictionary as:
the conditions that you live or work in and the way that they influence how you feel or how effectively you
can work.
The justification for this hypothesis is because of the increasing environmental concern in and around large
highly developed cities such as London. Therefor it is vital that we investigate weather regeneration which
is perceived to have a positive effect on an area, actually damages its surrounding environment. One
example of a news article explaining the severity of the environmental damage caused from the increasing
development and growth of London is the Evening standard with an article on “London pollution and high
levels of air pollution detected by 40% of capitals air quality sensors”.
The article focuses on air pollution across the whole of London and describes how London has
implemented 100 air sensors and within 8 months of operation 40% were deemed high levels of pollution.
It also unsurprisingly found that busier streets such as the west end had the highest levels of pollution,
particularly nitrogen dioxide which were 10 times higher in busy streets rather than in backroads.
Furthermore, the pollution was almost only caused from cars, busses and motorcycles which produce
these particulates and nitrogen dioxide. One positive mentioned in the article was the levels in the
London’s ULEZ have decreased 20% as there has been a 9,400 reduction of cars on the roads since it was
introduced. This is particularly relevant to my investigation as it displays how increasing population and
development is leading to a negative impact on air quality and furthermore the ULEZ does not extend into
the London docklands so it will not benefit from its introduction.
I have decided to raise these key hypothesis as it is important to find whether regeneration programs are
effective in improving quality of life, especially within the London Docklands where its regeneration has
been introduced due to large political change during the privatisation of companies and commercialisation
while Thatcher was in charge in the 1980’s. Furthermore, these regeneration projects such as the Crossrail
station in Canary Wharf have large economic costs with the Cross-Rail project now rising over 15bn. This
means that we much evaluate is it is worth the economic and social cost to introduce and complete these
regeneration schemes.
Similar Study
Liverpool is an area where regeneration has largely changed its landscape and helped improve both quality
of life and employment. After Liverpool suffered from a cycle of deprivation from 1937 to 1990’s where
key industries moved out of the area as competition from other nations led to de-industrialisation, this is
similar to the deindustrialisation that took place in the London Docklands during the 1960’s.
Actions taken to regenerate the Liverpool area included the introduction of the Merseyside development
cooperation (MDC) which helped redevelop the albert dock and creating 22,000 new jobs and also was a
key player in the garden festival of 1984 which was proven to help improve Liverpool’s imagine and
increase its population after its decline.
This is similar to the aims in the London Docklands as the regeneration schemes in the Docklands also
aimed to increase job opportunities and boost the population in the area by improving its image.
The study in Liverpool also investigated the effect regeneration had on its environment similar to my third
hypotheses, however the study in Liverpool found that such regeneration had improved the surrounding
areas. This is because the land before regeneration was derelict and did not support the environment and
post regeneration new garden spaces such as the garden festival created new open green spaces,
furthermore the pollution in the area was managed as with an increase in population new transport
infrastructure was implemented reducing the cities emissions as it grew.
The sites I have chosen are
labelled 1 -5 on the map, they
include; Billingsgate market,
Crossrail Station, Jubilee Park,
Greenwich view, Cubitt Town.
In order to select my sites, I
needed to ensure that each
site would vary in the level in
regeneration that had taken
place to allow my
investigation to compare
different levels of
regeneration and the
implications such as quality of
life regeneration has had on
the sites I selected. As I needed to ensure certain criteria for each site such as regeneration levels it was
not possible that I could use random sampling as its possible I could have similar or repeat the same sites
preventing me from collecting enough data to evaluate my hypothesis and meet my overall aim.
Therefore, I will be using stratified sampling as it allows me to choose areas which display differing levels of
regeneration varying from large scale projects such as Crossrail at site 2, to very little regeneration efforts
at site 5.
Methodology
Survey
Purpose
Sustainability
index
This indicated the
level of economic
development and
the living
standards in an
area
Environmental
Quality
Assessment
To investigate
whether the
quality of an
environment
Increases where
different
regeneration
schemes have
been used.
Quality of life
Survey
To record the
how quality of
life is different
between each
site.
Place Check
Survey
To record any
factors that cannot
be accounted for
using a quantitative
method or a rating,
it investigates the
positives and
negatives of an
area.
Data collection and
Recording
At each site I need to
observe my surrounding
while completing he
sustainability index form.
This involves ranking
different aspects of an
area’s sustainability from 1
– 5, (1 Strongest, 5
Weakest)
Justification
Evaluation
This quantitative data
allows me to clearly
compare each site to
identify the quality of life
in the area focusing on
the economic
development to then
compare to the
investment made in its
development.
This data has very small
scale (1 – 5) meaning the
data collected is fairly
vague however it
provides enough detail to
gather the overall quality
of life within in area.
At each strategically placed
site identify the 20
different criteria on the
assessment, then rank each
criterion 2 - -2. This
includes air pollution,
graffiti, and open space.
Once completed you total
the score given to result in
an area’s overall quality
assessment.
This survey is similar to the
quality of life survey
however there are only 10
different criteria to asses,
and they are on a scale of 1
to 10 (10 being the best)
This includes litter,
transport, and safety. After
the site has been ranked
total the criteria to
produce a total out of 100.
Total score can be
compared between sites,
and the overall score per
site allows for a simple
figure to display a whole
sites environment
assessment. The 20
different criteria provide a
range of categories to assess
increases the accuracy of
the assessment.
Although scores may add
to the same at two sites
the difference in each
category way vary totally
and is not represented in
the results. Each criterion
could change meaning
results would be
inaccurate or
inconsistent.
Total score can easily be
compared, and the simple
quantitative score is
simple to understand. It is
difficult for the results to
be misinterpreted.
There are similar issues to
the environmental quality
assessment such as
scores can total to the
save value yet in reality
the sites have very
different characteristics.
Also, this survey assessed
similar criteria to the
Environment assessment
meaning it can be
redundant.
For each site there needs to
be a written report on my
surroundings, this means I
write comments on different
aspects of the site such as if it
can be improved in any way,
this can then be compared
later to evaluate the quality of
life and how the past of the
area has affected its
development.
It is important to include
some qualitative data in my
research as quantitative
data does not fully
represent what an area is
like, furthermore this allows
for collection of how the
past has influenced the
regeneration today.
As this survey is collected in
qualitative data it is possible
it can be misinterpreted,
meaning the data would be
unreliable, to prevent this
from happening I have
collected this data myself
therefore I’m aware of this
risk and it is unlikely to
occur.
Ethical considerations
When conduction my investigation it is important to take into account ethical considerations. This includes
assuring that surveys do not ask inappropriate or sensitive questions to the public, as I did not ask the
public surveys, I avoided this risk. Another consideration is that the wildlife and properties are not
damaged when conducting the investigation, finally it is important to respect the publics privacy, therefore
we did not conduct any surveys or assessments on or about an individual’s household just the overall area
of each site.
Annotated data collection sheets
Site name and number
at top of survey
Criteria ranking high to very poor, this is then
associated with a score from +2 to -2
Different criteria to describe about each site, but any
additional information can also be noted in the boxes
Criteria ranking is totalled up to give an indication of
the overall environment quality which can then be
compared against other sites
Box to describe each site, however extra paper will be
brought onto the investigation if extra space is needed
Each criterion is ranked 1 – 10 (10 being best) this is
then totalled to calculate the overall quality of life
score, the higher the score the better the quality of life
Total for each site, this then determines the sites
overall quality of life
Sampling strategies when undertaking my investigation
When conducting my investigation each site may require a different sampling strategy as it is important to
take into account the whole of the site evenly to reduce bias and ensure that my investigation as accurate
as possible.
Site 1
Site one is difficult to use a sampling strategy as it is the smallest site I will
be visiting in my investigation as it is industrialised the fish market is
private property so does not have a public footpath. The area circled in red
is the only roads which we can access to investigate site one however I
believe it will give a large insight into that area, so it is important I still
investigate into site 1.
In this case I believe that systematic is the best option for site one as for each of my methods I can split the
site equally along the road and take my recordings along it ensuring I capture as much varied data as
possible. To ensure that my results from site one correctly represent the area around it the use of my place
check survey (qualitative data) should include any details that my quantitative survey sheets do not collect.
Site 2
Although site 2 is much larger than site one it is a similar situation when
it comes to the sampling used at the site. This is because the whole site
is an undercover garden situated above a soon to be opened new tube
station.
As site 2 is similar shape to site 1 and the entirety of the site can be studied without travelling too far on
foot, I will also be using systematic sampling for site 2, walking the length of the site taking recordings
evenly as it move across the site evenly collecting data removing any possibility of bias and increasing the
validity of my investigation.
Site 3
When investigating site 3 I will need to use a different sampling strategy to
sites 1 & 2. This is because site 3 is larger than sites 1 and 2 and cannot be
divided evenly into equal areas to investigate. It could be a possibility to use
random sampling at site 3 however I do not want to repeat investigate the
same areas so I will use stratified sampling at site 3. To do this I will record
data across the park and ensure that I visit areas that both meet my
hypothesis but also that do not meet my expectations therefor removing bias
that could occur in the investigation.
Site 4
Site 4 is situated around a few different buildings both commercial and
residential, it is the largest site I will be investigating and the criteria I will be
collecting across the site could vary. To ensure that I gather data that represents
the site as a whole I will use stratified sampling at site 4. To ensure I will collect
data that represents the whole site I will collect data from outside of each one of
the buildings at the site both commercial and residential. I have marked these
locations with an X on the map above.
Site 5
Site 5 is the most hazardous site I will visit due to high crime rates, therefor I will
only be investigating the main street at site 5. I will collect data evenly along this
road which would be systematic sampling, but as I am avoiding dangerous areas
it is actually stratified sampling.
Secondary fieldwork techniques
Resource
Purpose
GIS
Mapping
The use of a GIS map
allowed me to collect
detailed data on many
aspects of each site for
aspects of my
investigation that would
either be difficult or
impossible to collect data
in person or that is far
more accurate and easier
to evaluate with use of a
GIS map
Average
property
prices
When conducting my
investigation, I aim to
investigate into economic
development. Average
property price is an
excellent indicator of how
the economy of an area is
developing and allows me
to see how wealth is
distributed in the London
docklands. Furthermore, I
cannot obtain this
information with use of a
GIS map
Data collection and
Recording
To collect GIS map
data I will use a free
online GIS resource
arcgis.com, I then
need to apply the
correct filters and
download a human
development index
overlay for the
London docklands,
this allows me to
choose between
many useful criteria
such as life
expectancy,
pollution and
average income.
Justification
Evaluation
The use of a GIS map
allows me to more clearly
display differentiation
between sites as it uses
colour to display the
difference in criteria I will
select. Furthermore, to
fully investigate into the
implications of
regeneration it is
important that as much
data is used as possible to
increase accuracy and
diversity of data
collection methods which
helps reduce possible
bias.
In order to ensure
that the data I collect
for average house
prices is accurate
and consistent from
one property to
another it was
important that I used
the same source for
each property I took
into account in my
results. In order to
do this, I used
zoopla.com an online
property evaluation
and advertising
website.
As disposable income or
wealth is private
information which would
not be appropriate to
include in a questionnaire
a and there are very few
other ways to collect data
on the economic
development of an area
the property prices of an
area are a great insight
into the economic
development of an area
which is public
information and also
provides an accurate
representation of each
sites economic
development.
It is important to evaluate
how accurate data
collected from online
sources as it is possible
that data found on the
internet is not accurate or
has a bias objective.
However, ArcGIS is a GIS
mapping tool used by
thousands of businesses
and also governments to
help collect data for
surveys and construction
work. Therefor I believe
that the site I have
chosen to use has a good
reputation and accurate
data.
One possible issue with
the use of average
property prices is the
effect that the London
docklands is situated
within central London
meaning the property
prices are far higher than
the UK average so it is
possible they may not
fully represent the
income of the residents.
However, in my
investigation I will only
consider the differences
in price between
properties thus not
affecting the accuracy of
my results.
Effect of time on data collection and each method
The process of conducting my investigation will occur over the space of many different hours and different
days so it is important that the effect this could have on my results is taken into account for each survey I
will be completing during my investigation.
Survey
Possible implications of the time and date data is collected
Sustainability
index
In the sustainability index the criteria I was evaluating at my sites mainly focuses on either
services or structures on the street such as bin availability or the quality of accommodation.
This means that the sustainability index should not be affected from time of day or date as the
bin availability and quality of properties in the area remains equal throughout the day helping
my data collected to be considered more consistent.
One possible factor that could have been affected by the time of day in the sustainability index
is the availability of transport such as trains, cycle routes and busses. This is because depending
on the time of day bus availability may vary altering results.
To avoid this, I will score the availability of busses depending on the quantity of bus stops at
each site, this is because this will not change depending on the time of day or date.
The environmental quality assessment is the assessment that is most likely to be influenced
from the time of day the assessment is recorded at. This is because there is a section in the
assessment which is focused on determining the quality of traffic and its effects on the area.
Traffic is heavily dependent on time of day particularly in rush hours where it peaks and then
remains level throughout the middle of the day.
When conducting my investigation, I will aim to reduce the differences rush hour has on my
assessment results. In order to achieve this, I will aim to conduct my investigation within hours
that are quietest for all sites particularly when collecting traffic data and ensuring that no traffic
results are collected during the hours of rush hour in the morning and evening.
The quality of life survey is difficult to avoid distortion of results due to the nature of the data it
aims to collect. This includes criteria such as diversity of people, traffic and crime. As the quality
of life survey as so sensitive to time and its influence it is impractical to avoid the implications
of the time of day as time is needed to travel between sites.
As there is very little that can be done to reduce the implications of time on the quality of life
survey I will also be using secondary data to back up my findings from the quality of life
assessment ensuring that data collected is from multiple sources reducing the impact the time
could have on my findings. The data I will be using in conjunction with my quality of life
assessment is the GIS mapping secondary data I can collect from online sources, this is because
GIS maps can overlay the quality of life score at each site providing another source of data
relevant to average quality of life.
The place check survey does take into account factors that are influenced by time of day and
date such as traffic, litter and the population density. This would normally be a cause for
concern however the place check survey is qualitative data meaning it is approximated and
written out in words. This allows me to take into account the time of day into my findings and I
can acknowledge the differences that time would make to the results as it can be described in
detail. This should prevent the effect time has on my overall results and allow my findings to
remain consistent and accurate.
Secondary data collected online – no implication whatever the time.
Environmental
Quality
Assessment
Quality of life
Survey
Place Check
Survey
GIS mapping
Average property
prices
Secondary data collected online – no implication whatever the time.
Frequency of data collection
For all my primary data I will only be collecting the data set once, this is because the data I require should
not vary much or at all if it was repeated as it is mainly quantitative data which is not affected by time of
year or day. Although it must be taken into consideration that some aspects of my investigation can vary
such as traffic or services which may only operate sometimes of the year. However, I am limited in the
time of which I can conduct my investigation so repeat primary data sheets are not an option, as a result I
have tried to ensure as many steps are taken as possible to prevent any anomalies or inaccuracies when
conducting my investigation.
However, my secondary data set is not as time consuming so could be repeated in order to improve
accuracy and generate results which fully represented each site. This particularly includes my average
property value secondary data investigation. To generate my average property price, I collected multiple
property values for each site ensuring accuracy with some sites having over 9 properties advertised on
zoopla.com meaning that my average property price represented the average price for the site fully.
Health and safety hazards or issues
Site/ Sites
Possible hazards or health and safety issues
Site 1 – 4
Sites 1 - 4 are situated either around or in central Canary Warf which is the second largest
target for terrorism after parliament in London which is a large hazard, secondly sites 2 & 3 are
in extremely busy business and tourist areas which creates a hazard of being taken away with a
crowd, pickpocketing and if you tripped it is possible to be crushed under the large crowd.
It orders to reduce these hazards we will stick together as a group and we will not travel during
the busiest times such as rush hour.
Site 1 is situated near water and has a bridge over it, this creates multiple hazards; drowning, if
someone fell into the water, they may not be able to swim but also it could be so cold they
can’t swim or get hypothermia. Secondly the presence of water can attract vermin and
stagnant water can home harmful germs which creates another hazard.
In order to reduce the likelihood of these hazards we will not get close to the water and or lean
over the railings or fenced that back onto water.
Site 2 is relatively hazard free although it is indoors and requires use of escalators which are a
definite trip hazard and can be very harmful if someone was to fall.
To reduce the risk of this hazard we will remain sensible and take care using escalators.
Site 3 and 4 is near very busy roads and heavy fast-moving traffic; this is a safety hazard as a car
could hit someone and cause serious injury.
In order to reduce the risk of this hazard we will always use zebra crossings and lights where
available and stick together as a group.
Site 5 is both near very busy roads and heavy fast moving traffic but also has the highest crime
rate by far which will be present on my GIS map, this crime is displayed in the media and is a
concern as someone could be a victim of assault or other crimes which is a large hazard.
In prevent this hazard we will only be visiting site 5 during midday and will stick to the main
street at site 5, furthermore we will remain as a group at all times.
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3 & 4
Site 5
Analysis of Results
Quality of life
12
Quality of life
These are the results I collected using my
Quality of life survey, I have chosen to
present these results using two different
graphs, One bar graph as this allows me to
see each criteria of the survey and
compare against each site, this allows me
to compare which criteria regeneration
has the largest effect on. The second
graph below is used to clearly represent
which site scored best in the quality of life
and how it varies from site to site.
10
8
6
4
2
0
Traffic
Crime
Litter
Local Public Schools Saftey Leasure Housing Mix
Shops trasport
people
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
From the data in the overall graph it is clear that quality of life is best
at site 2 and 3, with site 2 scoring highest at 85. These sites are
situated within central Canary Warf where most regeneration has
taken place this quickly suggests that there is a correlation between
the level of regeneration and quality of life, furthermore as we move
away from highly regenerated areas the overall quality of life
decreases.
85
81
65
39
SITE 1
39
SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 4
SITE 5
Looking at the graph above we can still see that site 2 and 3 have the highest levels of quality of life as
between them they are the highest scoring sites for all the criteria with site 2 scoring 10/10 for; traffic,
litter, transport, schools and safety. Furthermore, the sites which have low levels of regeneration also
score consistently poorly in most criteria with site 5 averaging of 4/10. One exception to this is public
transport where all sites scored over 6 as London has good
public transport throughout. This helps with my aim to find is
regeneration positively affects quality of life as there are no
anomalies in my results and as the sites move away from
highly regenerated areas the overall quality of life decreases.
The findings from my quality of life assessment do not follow
what the burgess model would have predicted. If there was no
regeneration within the London docklands than it would have followed this model where the upper class
residential are further from the CBD and the lower class are close to the CBD. However, my results from
the quality of life assessment more closely follow my own hypothesise where economic and social
development are higher where regeneration has taken place. As there is a higher quality of life in the area
there is a greater demand to live there and therefore the upper class live closest to the CBD rather than
the lower class.
Environmental Quality Assessment
I collected these results using my environmental
quality assessment to help indicate the how
regeneration has affected each sites environment and
aid me in answering my hypothesis that regeneration
has a negative effect on its surrounding environment.
20
Enviromental Quality Assesment
10
I have also presented these results using two graphs
0
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
as it allows me to compare the overall score for each
Buldings
Traffic
site in the bottom graph, then look in closer detail
-10
using the graph above. When looking at the overall
Open Space\ gardens General quality
graph we can see that site 2 and 3 score the highest at
37 and 34, the lowest scoring site is that with the least regeneration
37
34
40
at site 5 scoring -7. This does not support my hypothesis as areas
with high levels of regeneration are actually scoring highly for
13
20
6
environmental quality. One possibility is that criteria such as
0
buildings and general quality are distorting the results however
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
when looking at the graph above, we can see that sites 2 and 3 do
-7
-20
also score well for traffic (which includes pollution as a criteria) and
also score highest for open space at 7 for each. Site 4 did score
higher for traffic which would indicate that regeneration does affect traffic pollution negatively however
there is only a small difference and there is such as large difference in other criteria where regeneration
helps improve the environment of an area that it is clear the sites with regeneration benefited in term of
environment rather than being negatively affected, these results are opposite to what hypothesis had
predicted.
Interestingly in the similar study conducted investigating into the effects of regeneration of Liverpool also
did not find that regeneration negatively impacted the environment. Before Liverpool’s regeneration the
area had suffered from de-industrialisation as a result of the global shift to cheaper manufacturing abroad
so the regeneration projects needed to be very successful creating over new 22,000 jobs from just one of
the many regeneration projects that had taken place in Liverpool during the 2000’s. During the Liverpool
investigation they found that the 85% of residents agreed it was a better living environment than before
the regeneration projects even though there had been a large increase in business and traffic the effect on
the environment had a net positive affect. One example of how regeneration in Liverpool benefited the
environment is that their regeneration projects included projects such as the garden festival which
includes new public furniture and obviously a large public garden this greatly increased the environmental
quality in the area reducing or improving any possible negative externalities of the implications of
regeneration. This links back to site 3 in my investigation as one of the large regeneration projects that is
situated there is a fountain garden area where workers can eat lunch and walk during their break. This
could be a reason for why my findings from my assessment does not match with my original hypothesis on
the affects to the environment.
Place Check Survey
To record fully record the social and environmental factors of an area it is also important to collect
quantitative data that evaluates the positives and negatives of an area. For my place check survey, I
recorded the positives and negatives of each site and also recorded ways in which I think the area could be
improved. This means I can more easily evaluate how regeneration has affected the social development of
an area.
Site 1
Site one was interesting because it was situated in-between the
newly developed land and an area which has not been developed
upon. This is important because it means we can clearly see the
contrasting areas next to each other which
can allow me to identify the positives and
negatives of a regenerated area and an
undeveloped area.
The issues that were clear with site one
includes few or no paths for pedestrians
and absolutely no parks trees of street
furniture, this is because overall site one is
still a fairly industrialized area as the
docklands used to be before it was
regenerated. Furthermore, the brick
building in the left of the left photo is a fish
market, this means around the area there is a strong smell of fish, loud machinery and heavy traffic
throughout site one. The building’s ugly appearance is also a negative and means that the overall quality of
life in this area is poor, in particular when compared to site two which is across the water from site one.
However, are some positives to site one as the high flow of traffic means that it has great transportation
links, furthermore site one is situated close to the new Crossrail station meaning residents can easily travel
in and out of the area. To improve this site there would need to be major changes, this includes
implementation of new paths and park as the regenerated areas have done, furthermore there would
need to be a way of reducing pollution and
traffic which has to be the sites worst aspect.
Site 2
Site two is the newest of the regeneration
projects within the London Docklands and is
not actually completed as it is due to be
finished in 2020. Furthermore, it has scored
the highest in other quality of live and
sustainability surveys so in this place check
survey it should have the most positives and least negative points.
Site two is the nicest site I visited in the investigation, this is because the whole area has no cars or
pollution which is rare to find in the London Docklands, also there were many different paths and routes
which went through restaurants and different gardens, furthermore there were lots of amenities for the
public to use such as toilets and bins which means there was no litter in the area. The only negatives of the
area were that as the Crossrail station is not open, yet it is a bit of a walk to the nearest station, however
this issue should be resolved in the future. Another downside to the area is that it was very busy which
could make life uncomfortable although it would be a much higher standard of life than living near site
one. Ways to improve site two could include access for cars however that would introduce new problems
such as pollution or traffic, or to expand the area because it was a little small for the amount of people
which travel through the area.
Site 3
Site three has had the most
regeneration and is in the centre of
Canary Warf the financial area of the
London docklands. This means that site
3 is the busiest site I visited in my
investigation and has ranked second
after site 2 in my surveys and
assessments.
As site 3 was the busiest and had a high level of regeneration one of my hypothesis predicts that there
should be a worse quality of environment as there is a high level of regeneration. This is partially true as
there was the highest level of traffic at this site meaning pollution was higher at site 3 than other sites.
However, there was very little litter in the area and the traffic was managed well so my findings do not
fully support this hypothesis. Other benefits of site 3 include that many trees and paths had been provided
for public use and the quality of services in the area was very high, this would imply that the site would
have a high quality of life. Negative points of the area would include that the area was very busy meaning
that overall safety and/or security could be a concern also that the area had worse traffic than other sites.
It would be very difficult to improve on site 3, however a reduction in polluting cars and an increase in
pathways to help reduce crowds would benefit the area.
I believe that it is also important to take note in the place check survey that many of the businesses and
financial companies and firms operating within site 3 are multinational TNC’s transnational co-operations
and although my investigation focuses on the effects of regeneration it is clear that the influence of
globalisation is also having an effect on the London docklands. This increase in globalisation and
investment from TNC’s can link to my investigation however as it could be argued that the increase in FDI
(foreign direct investment) into the London docklands could be due to the regeneration that has taken
place attracts these TNC’s into the Docklands in combination with its proximity to the city of London and
parliament. This would come underneath a positive aspect of site 3.
Site 4
Site four is the first site which is not situated near
an area or regeneration, in my hypothesis this
means that site four should have a lower quality of
life than sites 1,2 and 3 while also having less of a
negative environmental impact.
What I found at site four is that it actually has
many positives because there are lots of wide clean
paths with street furniture while also plenty of
room for traffic to flow easily. Furthermore, site
four has bikes available for public use and lots of
trees and open space for residents to enjoy.
Although this area had not been redeveloped it
showed a good quality of life which was against my hypothesis, furthermore in some respects it actually
was better than sites two and three as it was much quieter and more spacious in site four. Negatives of site
four include a lack of public transport links such as buses or tube lines however there are not many more
negatives therefor the other surveys and assessments taken of site four do not fully represent the area.
Finally, ways to improve site four could include new paths as they are a little worn and old and possibly a
link with the DLR which could take residents into canary warf.
Site 5
Site five is the site
which scores the
lowest is most of my
surveys and
assessments I have
collected,
furthermore it is the
site which is situated
furthest from an area
of regeneration.
Therefore, I expected for site 5 to have many negative points and areas that could be improved upon.
When visiting site 5 I found that streets had rubbish lying around and graffiti was prominent in most areas.
Furthermore, the quality of accommodation and services seemed poor and rundown. There were also
police situated at site 5 and arrests were being made which means that I felt crime rates were higher at
site 5. Overall there were very little positives to site 5 other than that traffic was not an issue and seemed
to move freely. Areas to improve site 5 would include an improvement in infrastructure such as
accommodation, phone booths or school and an improvement in cleaning the streets of both crime and
litter would drastically improve the area.
Place check conclusion
Overall from completing my place check survey I have found that the overall quality of environment
decreased as we moved away from the areas of high development and regeneration, this helps support my
hypothesis that regeneration has a positive impact of social development sites had the best social
development the close they were to an area of regeneration. In contrast, the findings from my place check
survey does not support my hypothesis that regeneration has an overall negative effect on the surrounding
environment of an area. This is because my hypothesis would have predicted that the greater the level of
regeneration in an area the higher the pollution and lower the quality of the surrounding environment.
However, what I found while conducting my place check survey is that the quality of the surrounding
environment of each site actually decreased the further from an area of regeneration they were,
additionally sites which has high levels of regeneration actually had excellent surrounding environments
with minimal litter and pollution.
GIS Mapping
To help my investigation the use of www.arcgis.com allows me to create GIS maps which presents the
level of economic, social, health and environmental development within each area of the London
docklands. The use of the GIS maps allowed me to clearly see the differences between each site and how
they vary in quality of life. Firstly, I wanted to investigate my hypothesis that regeneration helps improve
social development. To do this I created GIS maps which show me the crime rates within an area and the
employment levels. This is because the higher the crime and unemployment more likely an area is to have
a low social development.
It is clear from the GIS map of crime within the London docklands
that there is a higher crime rate in areas of low regeneration with
the highest crime ranking area being site 4 and lowest sites 2 and
3. One anomaly from my normal results is that site 4 scored the
lowest out of all the sites although it borders with an area which
scores much higher in the crime ranking. This drastic change in
crime levels displays how much of a difference regenerating an
area has on the social development on an area. This is also clear at
site 1 which has not been developed but is close to the CBD of the
Docklands and still has a very low crime ranking. These findings
help support my hypothesis on social development.
Another way to measure social development is with the use of
employment levels. Unlike crime rates the level of employment
drops slower the further you move away from sites 2 and 3.
With sites 5 and 4 having the lowest levels of employment. This
is because it is easier to find a job the closer regenerated areas
you are because they have more work opportunities and the
regeneration encourages investment. Therefore, the further you
travel away from sites 2 and 3 the lower the employment rate.
Employment rate is also a method to collect data on the
economic development of an area which applies to my
hypothesis that regeneration has a positive effect on the level of
economic development. However, to more accurately display
the economic development of each site then the use of an
income ranking GIS map is more useful as it displays the quality of
employment an area would provide. We can see from the income
GIS map that sites 2 and 3 provide the best quality jobs with sites 2
leading over site 3. Furthermore, there is a large change in income
in other sites with sites 1 ranking with the lowest income and site 5
close behind. This helps support my hypothesis as areas with high
levels of regeneration have a greater level of economic
development.
To investigate into the environmental impact of regeneration
through GIS maps, I created a GIS map that displays the average
health the London docklands. This helps display the
environment of and area as the lower the quality of the
surrounding an environment the greater negative effect it can
have on a populations health due to pollution and spreading of
disease. I found that sites 2 and 3 had the highest-ranking
average health and sites 1 and 5 scored the lowest. Although
the area with the highest-ranking heath average with not a site I
visited but was situated to the right of site 2 and which would
suggest that there is a small negative impact from areas which
are highly regenerated however the impact is greater if an area
is not regenerated or developed upon at all such as site 5.
From the use of GIS mapping I have found that they support my hypothesise although it does display that
regeneration actually has a positive effect on the environment and overall health of an area rather than a
negative impact that my hypothesis suggested.
Sustainability Index
The use of a sustainability index in my investigation is important as it helps me to analyse the economic
development of each site which I predicted would increase with a sites level of development in my
hypothesis. When analysing the sustainability, the lower the score in the index the better the site has been
ranked in each criterion.
Although the sustainability index is similar to the
Quality of life survey and Environmental
Assessment it has more of a focus on economic
development with criteria focusing on the quality
of accommodation, services and urban
environment surrounding the site.
Overall Sites 2 and 3 scored the highest as the
lower the overall score the better when using a
sustainability index, with site 2 scoring 11 and 3
scored 12. In the sustainability index site 5 scored
the worst at 30 with sites 4 and 1 not scoring
much better at 23 and 26, this differs to other
surveys I have completed as site 4 has often
scored higher compared to site 1 despite that
there has been less development in the area.
This helps supports a conclusion that higher the level
of regeneration the greater the quality of life as the
findings from the sustainability index has a perfect
correlation between how positive a site scoring is
and its level of regeneration. Furthermore the
sustainability index greatly supports my first
hypothesis as predicted that regenerating an area
would positively effect an area’s economic development, this is because the quality of accommodation and
urban environment are highest at sites 2 and 3 where regeneration is also highest, with accommodation
scoring 2 at site 2 a “strong score” on the index and urban environment scoring 1 at side 2 and 3 which is
considered a “very strong score” supporting my hypothesis.
Accommodation prices
One of the sets of secondary data I have
collected is the average house price
within each site. To collect this data, I
used www.zoopla.co.uk to collect 5
houses/apartment prices per site than
calculate an average for the site. I found
that site 3 had the highest average
apartment prices reaching an average of
£850,000, with site 2 close behind at
£849,990. The lowest valued site was
site 5 with half the value of sites 3 at
£425,000.
Sites 1 and 4 are both below sites 2 and
3 but above site 5, which follows the
similar trend to what many of my other findings have shown. Although site 1 sitting at £700,000 which is
very close to the values of sites 1 and 2. I believe this is caused because there is currently new apartment’s
that have just been built at site 1 which have a much higher value than previously owned apartment’s, this
pushes up the average value of site one but also helps prove my hypothesis that regeneration positively
effects economic development as site 1 is close to an area of regeneration (site 2) and is now seeing a rise
in its land value.
The drastic drop in value for accommodation helps support my hypothesis that regeneration has a positive
effect on economic development. However, it is possible that this is only because that site 5 is further from
the CBD of the London docklands and therefor
further from good jobs and opportunities. However,
using the Bid Rent Curve, we can see that residential
land is affected the least in terms of its rent from its
distance from the CBD of an area. Furthermore, the
sites I have selected are all relatively close together
and it is possible to walk from one to another,
therefore I believe that the reason for such a
dramatic price difference it because hypothesis is
correct rather than the sites distances from the CBD.
Conclusion
When I began my investigation, I aimed to find the impact of regeneration in the London Docklands has on
the average quality of life, I created 3 hypotheses for my investigation that suggested an overall
improvement I quality of life where regeneration had taken place. My hypothesis included predicted that;
regeneration has positively affected the economic development of the London Docklands; regeneration
has positively affected the social development of the London Docklands and that regeneration has
negatively affected the surrounding environment of the London Docklands. Overall the results from my
investigation would support hypothesis 1 and 2, that regeneration positively effects both economic and
social development, however my findings do not fully support my last hypothesis that regeneration
negatively effects the surrounding environment.
This is because my findings have all had the same results or trends meaning they are accurate as there is
little anomalies throughout my investigation. The trends that support my hypothesis throughout my results
are that sites 2 and 3 have always scored the highest in both the quantitative data such as the quality of
life assessment or GIS mapping and also qualitive data such as the place check survey where they received
the most positive comments and least negative. This has supported my first 2 hypothesis as my
methodology aimed to investigate and rank sites based on many factors including the economic and social
development of sites and as sites 2 and 3 have score highly throughout my investigation they therefor have
a greater level of economic and social development than sites 1, 4 and 5.
The hypothesis that the quality of the surrounding environment was higher in areas of regeneration as
regeneration causes an increase in population and traffic was not supported from my findings. The results
did not fit my expectations as sites with high levels of regeneration (sites 2 and 3) scored highly in surveys
such as the sustainability index or in my secondary data which also focused on the environment such as
the health GIS map. Furthermore, these sites scored higher than sites where regeneration has not taken
place such as sites 1 or 5, suggesting that regeneration actually has a positive effect on the environmental
quality of an area rather than a negative one. These findings contradict
my original hypothesis. The findings from my investigation do not follow
my hypothesis, one reason for this is that the London docklands follows
the sustainable development model. The sustainable development
model displays how economic, environmental and social factors are
interlinked in order to develop an area. It also presents how when all
these factors link together it creates a need for sustainability. This could
explain why my investigation does not validate my hypothesis as
regeneration aims to boost development and quality of life efforts from
both the economy and society are made to also increase the
sustainability and improve the environment of an area as they have a
vested interest in the environment.
The geographical location of my sites could affect my results as it is situated within London. This effects
results from a few of my methodology. As London is the capital of the UK is means there is a much higher
demand for business and housing because it is where political and economic functions occur. This demand
for the land within London means that the average house prices and land value is much higher, this means
my accommodation pricing method was affected as my results display inflated prices than you would
usually find for an apartment. However, my methodology was not focusing on the actual prices of the
accommodation and more about the difference between prices at each site. Therefor I believe that similar
results would be found elsewhere as the lower value land wouldn’t have an effect on my findings.
One other geographical location that could affect the results from my investigation is that canary wharf
(where sites 2 and 3 are situated) is separated from the docklands by water as the area is situated
(definition: a certain place of position) upon an old dockland. This could explain why there is such a drastic
difference in results from other sites that are not in canary Warf as sites 2 and 3 could be considered to be
in a separate area from sites 1, 4 and 5. I believe that this has not affected my results as there are many
bridges and pathways that link canary Warf to the rest of the docklands as well as public transport such as
the tube line or DLR.
In conclusion through the use of my primary and secondary data collection methods the overall trend has
proven that the regeneration of the London docklands has had a positive effect on overall quality of life,
allowing to me to answer my overall aim of this investigation. I have reached this conclusion as data
collected from sites which had highest levels of regeneration (sites 2 and 3) scored highest in all aspects of
quality of life when it is broken down into simple criteria such as traffic, services and crime. Sites which had
high levels or regeneration also had many positive aspects in my secondary data which was collected using
online resources to represent criteria such as economic development which is another key factor in
determining the quality of life. Furthermore, when conducting my investigation, I created 3 hypothesis that
were both significant issues to those living and work within the London docklands but also linked to my
overall aim further aiding me to find the effect of regeneration of quality of life dependant of the result of
my hypotheses. When conducting the investigation, I can conclude that my findings had proven 2 of my 3
hypotheses, these include that regeneration had a positive effect on economic development which was
proven through use of average property prices and also primary data collection methods such as the place
check survey. Also that regeneration had a positive effect on social development, the data collection
methods which aided me to verify this hypnosis included many primary methods such as environmental
quality assessments and the place check survey but also the use of GIS mapping was very influential to
display how social development improved where regeneration had taken place. My final hypothesis on
how regeneration negatively influences the surrounding environment was proven to be incorrect. I have
come to this conclusion as all of my primary data collection methods contrasted with this hypothesis as the
closer and/or higher the level of regeneration at a site the better the overall quality of environmental
protection and sustainability. This would suggest that regeneration also improves the environmental
surroundings of an area, although this does not prove my hypothesis it does help support an overall
conclusion on the quality of life when regeneration has taken place. Together this allows me to conclude
with confidence that regeneration has a positive impact on overall quality of life.
Evaluation
Overall, I would consider my investigation a success, when conducting my investigation, I aimed to reduce
bias and anomalies where possible by having a selection of people collect my results not just myself and
also by using stratified sampling. It is important to analyse factors that could have affected my
investigation to ensure that my results are reliable. One factor that needs to be accounted for is the time
of year and day when my investigation was conducted. Firstly, it is important that the time of year and day
has not affected the results of many of my assessment and surveys that recorded traffic and pollution as
these factors are easily
affected by time of day and
year. This can be shown using
www.tomtom.com which
provides a live graph of traffic
within London. It is clear that
traffic peaks at 8am and 5pm
with a dip in traffic around
mid-day. Therefor the time I
choose to conduct my
investigation has not affected
my results for as I started my
investigation at 9 and finished at 3 so therefor should not have been effected by rush hour while I collected
results for one of my sites which would have caused my results to be unreliable.
Evaluation of data collection methods
Quality of life Survey
Environmental Quality
Assessment
Place Check Survey
GIS mapping
Sustainability index
Average house prices
Positives
Negatives
Areas or Improvement
Was useful to reach my
overall aim as it focused on
the quality of life
specifically.
Was not very helpful to
justify my hypotheses.
Criteria could have been
more specified for my
investigation
Helped to back the results
from the quality of life
assessment, and aided me
with my 3rd hypothesis
Was very similar to
sustainability index so
therefor waster some
investigation time
Should have only
included either
Environmental
assessment of
sustainability index
Was very useful to examine Could be bias or
each of my hypothesize and unrealisable as it is
good to have some
down to an opinion
qualitive data
Have multiple people
record a place check
survey to remove any
bias
Solid data which was
reliable and easy to collect
Could have shown each
site more specifically
Create my own GIS
maps which are specific
to my investigation
Was useful to further
investigate into the
environmental impact of
regeneration
Was very similar to
Environmental quality
assessment so therefor
waster some
investigation time
Should have only
included either
Environment
assessment of
sustainability index
Clearly displayed the
economic development of
an area and used very
recent and accurate data
Could not fully
represent the economic
development of an area
as London has inflated
house prices
Collect an average
house price using more
house prices than 5 to
have more accurate
representation
Comparison to similar study
To effectively evaluate my investigation, it is beneficial to compare my investigation to existing
investigations into the effects of regeneration on a town or city. One study that is very similar my
investigation is one that has taken place in Maidstone situated in Kent and 40 miles south east of London.
Within Maidstone there has been many new developments and some renewal of existing locations
meaning that an existing property has been improved or renovated such as Maidstone high-street which
has had a £2.2 million regeneration project aimed to “create a better more accessible environment to live
and work in”. An example of a new development includes Lockmedow a commerce and entertainment
complex in the centre of the town. This investigation differed to mine as each site studied a specific
regeneration project and its effect on the surrounding environment. However, it is valuable to compare
these investigations as they share the same focus on regeneration and its affect. The investigation in
Maidstone found that the regeneration of each area had a positive effect on the surrounding environment
and concluded that the new land use was more beneficial for the town than how it was previously either
used or left as waste land. This helps further back my conclusion as the findings from another study in a
different location found that regeneration had an overall positive effect. Although it does not specify an
improvement in quality of life the terminology of life would imply that quality of life has improved from
their investigation as it did in the London Docklands.
Reliability of Data
When evaluating the investigation, it is most important that the data I collected is evaluated for its
reliability as it effects the overall conclusion of my investigation. Firstly, it is important to define reliability
correctly in order to evaluate it; geography-feildwork.org defines it as: This is the extent to which
measurements are consistent. The primary data I collected during my field work is hard to test how
reliable it is without repeating the investigation to compare if the results are consistent when the methods
are repeated. However, I can compare each survey to one another to see when they share criteria if the
results match from survey to survey. One example of criteria of an anomaly that all the surveys share is
traffic and/or transport, across these primary data methods I found that they are consistent with this
exception as sites 2 and 3 scored highest in the traffic criteria for all surveys except the environmental
quality assessment which ranks site 4 the highest regarding its level of traffic. This is not consistent data so
means it is not 100% reliable. However, every other criterion is consistent and therefor reliable meaning
that I believe the overall conclusion has not been affected from this anomaly. Nevertheless, if I was to
improve and repeat this investigation, I would allocate more days to collect primary data to allow me to
collect the data multiple times and take the average of the results to improve the reliability of the data I
have collected.
Another important factor that must be taken into when evaluating the results and data I collected in my
investigation is whether the data set I collected is representative of the area as a whole. This is important
because my sites were strategically located meaning that they could be influenced from bias or by chance
may not fully represent the London docklands. This would affect my conclusion and my results as it does
not fully portray the affect regeneration has on a population. However, in my investigation I used strategic
sampling to select my sites as there is a very large variation in wealth and environment across the London
Docklands so to represent the entirety of the London docklands I situated each site with help from GIS
maps in areas of different average income and differing levels of regeneration to most effectively answer
my hypotheses and maintain high levels of accuracy. If this investigation was taken elsewhere the sites
may not need to be places statically or as far apart as those in my investigation as other towns or cities
may be more consistent in economic development and average income.
After completing my investigation, I would consider my data collection methods to be good but with room
for improvement. The positives from the data I have collected from my investigation is both accurate and
has little anomalies which means therefore my conclusion is justified. However, I believe that to improve
my investigation I should have used methodology that differs from one another more than the ones I
selected. This is because my quality of life survey, environmental quality assessment and sustainability
index all provided similar results to one another. Although this means that they can be used to further back
my hypothesis and each assessment did vary is some ways, I feel that it would be more effective to have
just completed a quality of life assessment and then created new methodology’s that closer focused on
each hypothesis rather than broad surveys and assessments.
Overall, I believe that the conclusions that I reached are justified and accurate, although there are
anomalies in the data which directly correlated with the reliability of my conclusion there have been other
studies which reached this conclusion re-enforcing that my conclusion is accurate. Furthermore, when
constructing my conclusion, I ensured that I took all the data both primary and secondary into account
preventing any bias from entering my investigation. Thus, creating an accurate, reliable conclusion which
can be repeated to return an identical or similar result.
Bibliography
Cambridge Dictionary
Royal Hospital School
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Evening standard
Google Dictionary: www.dictionary.com/browse/google
ArcGIS: www.arcgis.com
Zoopla: www.zoopla.com
Tomtom: www.tomtom.com
Geography-fieldwork: www.geography-feildwork.org
Reference.com: www.Reference.com