IB Geography SL Fieldwork - An Investigation of The Effects of Longshore Drift at Two Different Beaches in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness

Geography Standard Level Fieldwork
An investigation of the effects of longshore drift at two

different beaches in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness
Marc Wierzbitzki
00-0815-083
Hockerill Anglo-European College
IB Session May 2012
Word Count: 2498
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Hockerill%Anglo9European%College%
IB%Session%May%2012%
Table Of Content
Aim ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Connection To The IB Geography Standard Level Syllabus ............................................... 3
Theoretical Background........................................................................................................... 3
Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................. 4
Method Of Investigation .......................................................................................................... 6
Results And Analysis ................................................................................................................ 8
Raw Data ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Aldeburgh ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Thorpeness .................................................................................................................................... 14
Beach Profiles ................................................................................................................................... 20
Aldeburgh ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Thorpeness .................................................................................................................................... 23
Examining The Results Using Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient Diagram ................ 26
Examining The Results Using R squared .................................................................................. 29
Mean Pebble Size Compared To Distance From Sea ................................................................... 31
Aldeburgh ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Thorpeness .................................................................................................................................... 33
Both Locations .............................................................................................................................. 35
Standard Deviation For Pebble Sizes ............................................................................................ 36
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Mean Pebble Size Compared To Beach Gradient ........................................................................ 38
Aldeburgh ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Thorpeness .................................................................................................................................... 40
Both Locations .............................................................................................................................. 42
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Shape Compared To Distance From Sea ....................................................................................... 49
Aldeburgh ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Thorpeness .................................................................................................................................... 51
Both Locations .............................................................................................................................. 53
Standard Deviation For Pebble Shape ........................................................................................... 54
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 55
Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 56
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 57
1%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Aim
The aim of this Geography Fieldwork is to answer the question: Is there a correlation
between the size of pebbles and their location (which is affected by littoral drift) in terms of
distance from the sea and the gradient of the beach? It will also be examined whether there is
a relationship between the beach gradient and the pebble size.
Location
The survey was carried out at two different beaches in East England that were about 4.7km
apart. The first location where measurements were taken was a beach near Aldeburgh, the
second near Thorpeness. In this region, there is littoral (longshore) drift from north to south
(see map).
N%
Dire
c
of%lo tion%
ng%
s h or
e%dr
ift%
Area%of%
survey%
1km%
Figure 1: Maps showing Aldeburgh and Thorpeness, the two areas, where the survey was carried out.1 2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1%http://www.maps.google.com%,%accessed%September%12,%2011%13:45%GMT%
2%http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/europe/england/map_of_england.jpg%,%accessed%January%25,%2012%
14:04%GMT%
2%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Connection To The IB Geography Standard Level Syllabus

This fieldwork is closely linked to Option B: Oceans and their coastal margins, as defined
in the Geography guide for first examinations in 20113. It especially focuses on subtopic
number five (Coastal margins), since it will examine the relationship between coastal
processes [] [littoral drift] [] and different coastal landforms.4
Theoretical Background
Due to the fact that waves have a certain amount of energy, they can transport sediment when
they hit the coast. Also, they often reach it at an angle. This is called longshore drift:
Figure 2: An illustration explaining the concept of long shore drift5.
This means that when they break their swash transports the sediment up the beach at a certain
angle. At the maximum height, the backwash then pulls down the lighter sediment
perpendicular to the shore. Water infiltrates the beach material so that there is less energy in
the backwash. Therefore, the heavier and bigger pebbles should be found at a greater distance
from the sea, whereas the lighter and smaller pebbles should be closer to the sea. Furthermore,
as we did our research at two different pebble beaches, the pebbles are constantly subject to
attrition. This means that theoretically, their size should continually decrease and they would
get a rounder shape with the direction of the long shore drift. There, the beach should have a
gentler slope due to the smaller pebbles. We can now apply this concept to the chosen
location:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3%International%Baccalaureate%Organization%9%Geography%guide,%Cardiff%(Wales)%2009%
4%International%Baccalaureate%Organization%9%Geography%guide,%Cardiff%(Wales)%2009%
5%http://geographyfieldwork.com/images/LongshoreDrift_small1.gif% ,% accessed% December% 2,% 2011% 11:34%
GMT%
%
3%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Dire
c
of%lo tion%
ng%
s h or
e%dr
ift%
Swa
N"
sh%
Backwash%
1km%
Figure%3:%Map%of%the%area%where%the%survey%was%taken%in%combination%with%the%concept%of%longshore%
drift.1%
Hypothesis
Due to the action of longshore drift, the pebbles at Aldeburgh will be smaller and rounder in
shape. The beach gradient will vary with the size of the pebbles and there will also be a
steeper gradient in Thorpeness since all heavier pebbles will be disposed there.
4%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
5%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Method Of Investigation
The following equipment was used to gather the necessary data:
9
9
9
9
1 clinometer
2 tape measures
4 ranging poles
1 clipboard
We started at the back of the beach, where we placed the first pole in the ground. The next
pole was positioned at the first change of the beach slope (here it is important that the same
length of the poles is in the ground, since otherwise the correct angle cant be measured). We
then measured the distance between those two poles (horizontally, not on the ground) and the
angle with the clinometer. A sample of 50 pebbles was collected at the middle between those
two poles. To do so, we placed a second tape measure in the middle of the poles and then took
a sample of one pebble every 0.1m for 5m in total (systematic sampling) to get a more
accurate picture.
ranging pole 2
ranging pole 1
with th
e
on the clinomete
r,
other
pole to aim at the s
a
meas
ure th me marker
e ang
le
change in slope
tape measure to measure the

distance (d) between the poles
start
Figure 4: Illustration showing the how the measurements should be taken (view from the side).
6%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
distance = 5.0m
change in slope
take one sample every 0.1m
ranging pole 1
ranging pole 2
distance (d) between the poles
Figure 5: Illustration showing the how the measurements should be taken (birds view).
In order to minimize any random or human errors, we split into three groups and each group
worked independently. This will also mean that instead of 50 pebble samples for each
interval, we will have 150, which allows us to make a more accurate decision and evaluation.
The long axis of each pebble (referred to as size) in each sample was measured using a
calliper. This will be important later on in order to find out whether the pebble size increases
with the distance from the sea. The criterion we used to assign each pebble a number from 1
to 6 according to their shape (to compare the shape to the gradient and distance from the sea)
can be seen below:
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Figure 6: Criterion used to measure a pebbles size. 1 means very angular and 6 means well rounded.6
6%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6%http://www.sand9atlas.com/en/wp9content/uploads/2009/12/roundness.jpg%,%accessed%January%25,%
2012%14:41%GMT%
7%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Angle to next pole (+ve or

ve)
-3
+3
-3
-10
+5
-3
Distance to next pole

(metres)
4.79
6.51
6.71
8.65
4.62
3.87
Results And Analysis

Raw Data
Aldeburgh
Group 1:
Pole Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pebble Samples
Halfway between Poles 1 & 2 (Size with shape in brackets)
3.8 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.4 (4)
3.2 (6)
1.9 (5)
4.9 (4)
3.0 (3)
1.9 (4)
2.6 (4)
2.4 (6)
3.6 (5)
2.4 (3)
2.2 (3)
4.5 (6)
2.0 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.4 (4)
1.4 (5)
3.9 (6)
2.2 (6)
3.3 (4)
2.3 (4)
1.0 (6)
3.3 (4)
1.8 (4)
3.8 (4)
2.5 (4)
0.9 (6)
4.2 (4)
1.5 (6)
3.4 (4)
2.0 (6)
2.3 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.0 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.1 (4)
3.0 (5)
2.9 (5)
1.4 (4)
2.8 (6)
2.2 (6)
2.7 (6)
2.5 (6)
3.2 (4)
2.5 (4)
1.2 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.8 (5)
3.8 (3)
2.5 (5)
2.8 (3)
3.7 (5)
2.4 (3)
4.5 (3)
4.9 (5)
3.4 (4)
2.6 (4)
2.3 (6)
2.6 (2)
2.4 (6)
3.1 (2)
2.6 (4)
2.2 (6)
2.8 (5)
2.8 (4)
3.4 (2)
2.5 (2)
4.5 (6)
3.7 (4)
3.4 (6)
2.8 (4)
4.4 (3)
3.5 (6)
2.5 (5)
2.5 (4)
3.7 (5)
3.5 (6)
3.5 (5)

5.8 (3)
6.0 (4)
3.4 (4)
1.5 (4)
2.8 (5)
3.5 (3)
3.7 (4)
2.8 (5)
2.1 (5)
3.4 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.8 (6)
2.6 (5)
4.1 (6)
4.5 (6)
4.7 (5)
1.1 (4)
2.7 (4)
5.9 (2)
2.7 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.6 (4)
6.2 (3)
2.4 (4)
3.8 (6)
1.4 (4)
2.8 (5)
1.4 (5)
2.8 (4)
4.9 (2)
2.3 (1)
2.2 (4)
3.1 (5)
3.7 (4)

3.6 (5)
3.0 (2)
2.8 (3)
3.4 (4)
3.0 (3)
3.4 (6)
2.2 (4)
4.5 (4)
4.3 (4)
2.7 (4)
5.5 (5)
4.0 (4)
2.7 (5)
4.0 (4)
4.1 (5)
3.6 (5)
3.4 (5)
2.3 (4)
3.0 (3)
4.4 (4)
3.1 (5)
4.6 (4)
4.0 (4)
4.3 (5)
4.2 (5)
3.3 (4)
4.4 (5)
6.2 (5)
3.9 (4)
2.8 (4)
2.8 (4)
3.2 (5)
4.8 (6)
4.0 (6)
3.5 (3)
8%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

8.2 (5)
2.8 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.2 (6)
2.2 (6)
4.8 (5)
2.7 (4)
2.9 (5)
2.5 (5)
2.2 (6)
3.3 (5)
4.2 (5)
2.9 (4)
2.5 (3)
2.2 (4)
4.1 (4)
2.9 (5)
3.2 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (4)
3.8 (5)
3.2 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.6 (5)
2.3 (4)
3.5 (5)
2.8 (4)
2.6 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.0 (5)
3.4 (4)
3.0 (3)
3.1 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.0 (5)
3.6 (3)
3.0 (5)
3.0 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.2 (3)
3.4 (6)
3.0 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.4 (5)
1.5 (4)
3.5 (5)
3.4 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.4 (3)
1.5 (5)
3.8 (4)
2.5 (6)
2.5 (5)
2.5 (4)
1.2 (5)
3.5 (3)
2.4 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (4)
1.0 (6)
3.0 (6)
2.6 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (5)
1.2 (3)
4.4 (4)
4.1 (6)
2.9 (6)
3.2 (4)
2.0 (6)
2.8 (4)
2.0 (4)
2.7 (5)
2.2 (4)
3.0 (5)
2.0 (6)
2.7 (5)
3.3 (3)
3.1 (4)
3.8 (4)

6.6 (5)
3.0 (6)
2.4 (5)
2.5 (3)
2.2 (5)
5.0 (4)
3.5 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.1 (4)
5.2 (4)
2.8 (6)
2.9 (4)
2.4 (4)
1.9 (4)
4.3 (5)
2.9 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.5 (4)
1.5 (4)
4.4 (6)
2.5 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.0 (5)
2.0 (4)
4.0 (5)
2.7 (5)
2.6 (5)
2.8 (4)
1.7 (5)
4.3 (4)
2.6 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (5)
1.7 (4)

4.4 (5)
3.8 (5)
2.4 (4)
3.3 (4)
2.6 (4)
3.4 (4)
2.9 (5)
4.0 (4)
2.1 (5)
3.3 (5)
3.8 (4)
3.3 (3)
2.4 (5)
4.8 (6)
3.1 (5)
4.0 (3)
4.0 (5)
3.9 (5)
2.4 (6)
2.6 (4)
3.7 (4)
2.7 (4)
2.3 (3)
3.4 (6)
2.1 (5)
2.6 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.3 (2)
2.8 (4)
2.6 (4)
1.8 (4)
3.9 (4)
2.3 (5)
9%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

ve)
0
+4
-4
-10
+5
-15

(metres)
4.80
7.10
5.75
8.55
3.20
1.80
Group 2:
Pole number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pebble Samples
5.0 (5)
2.8 (5)
3.6 (4)
4.7 (5)
4.6 (5)
4.7 (5)
4.2 (4)
4.2 (4)
3.0 (3)
4.4 (4)
3.6 (4)
2.4 (2)
2.6 (3)
4.5 (5)
2.5 (3)
4.0 (4)
3.2 (3)
3.0 (3)
3.3 (1)
3.6 (2)
2.5 (6)
2.0 (6)
2.8 (3)
3.5 (6)
1.8 (5)
3.6 (6)
3.1 (6)
3.4 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.5 (5)
3.5 (5)
2.9 (4)
4.3 (5)
4.6 (6)
3.1 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.8 (3)
3.6 (4)
4.0 (6)
5.5 (5)
2.4 (3)
2.8 (3)
4.2 (2)
3.5 (5)
3.0 (5)
3.4 (3)
2.8 (5)
3.5 (3)
3.0 (4)
2.0 (5)
2.5 (5)
3.5 (3)
1.4 (3)
3.0 (4)
3.0 (5)
3.5 (5)
4.5 (4)
2.7 (5)
2.5 (3)
2.7 (4)
3.9 (4)
3.4 (4)
4.0 (4)
3.1 (5)
3.8 (4)
3.7 (3)
2.8 (5)
3.4 (4)
2.8 (6)
3.2 (4)
4.5 (3)
4.4 (4)
4.3 (6)
3.3 (2)
3.2 (3)
3.9 (4)
3.7 (3)
4.2 (5)
4.6 (3)
3.2 (6)
2.9 (3)
2.3 (3)
2.3 (3)
2.4 (4)
2.3 (5)
2.7 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.2 (3)
2.2 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.0 (3)
1.5 (3)
1.8 (4)
2.1 (4)

5.5 (5)
4.7 (6)
5.8 (6)
3.5 (4)
2.9 (6)
7.0 (5)
3.5 (4)
4.7 (4)
4.4 (5)
3.1 (3)
3.4 (4)
3.1 (5)
2.3 (4)
4.5 (4)
3.1 (5)
4.1 (5)
3.8 (5)
3.5 (5)
3.7 (4)
3.1 (3)
3.7 (5)
4.5 (6)
4.6 (6)
3.5 (5)
2.9 (3)
3.4 (3)
2.5 (4)
6.6 (4)
4.9 (5)
3.5 (6)
3.5 (3)
4.5 (4)
3.7 (4)
2.5 (5)
3.9 (4)

4.0 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.8 (5)
3.8 (5)
4.5 (5)
2.7 (4)
2.8 (4)
2.7 (5)
3.5 (3)
5.2 (5)
5.3 (5)
4.8 (5)
4.1 (4)
4.4 (4)
3.5 (4)
2.5 (3)
2.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.5 (3)
4.6 (2)
3.5 (4)
3.5 (5)
3.6 (5)
3.7 (6)
4.2 (3)
2.7 (3)
3.3 (4)
3.9 (2)
4.3 (6)
3.2 (6)
3.9 (3)
3.0 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.8 (4)
2.8 (4)

5.0 (6)
5.1 (5)
2.6 (3)
3.5 (5)
4.5 (3)
%
2.3 (3)
2.9 (4)
3.3 (4)
2.3 (3)
1.9 (4)
3.0 (5)
3.2 (6)
3.2 (5)
3.4 (4)
3.0 (2)
3.4 (3)
4.1 (3)
3.5 (4)
4.0 (5)
3.4 (4)
3.1 (5)
3.2 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.7 (4)
2.9 (4)
3.1 (3)
4.1 (3)
2.7 (4)
2.2 (6)
2.7 (5)
2.3 (4)
2.8 (4)
2.5 (2)
3.2 (3)
2.5 (2)
10%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

4.5 (5)
3.0 (2)
3.0 (4)
4.9 (6)
3.8 (6)
4.7 (5)
4.0 (5)
2.5 (3)
2.1 (3)
3.0 (6)
3.0 (5)
3.4 (5)
2.9 (5)
3.8 (3)
3.5 (3)
2.0 (3)
2.0 (3)
3.6 (2)
2.7 (2)
2.1 (4)
2.8 (5)
3.0 (5)
3.5 (5)
4.7 (5)
3.5 (2)
1.4 (4)
1.4 (4)
2.5 (2)
2.6 (5)
4.0 (3)
3.6 (6)
2.4 (5)
3.0 (3)
2.0 (3)
2.7 (3)
2.3 (3)
3.8 (2)
4.2 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.6 (5)
2.8 (4)
2.8 (3)
2.4 (3)
3.3 (3)
2.0 (3)
2.4 (4)
2.3 (3)
3.0 (3)
3.2 (2)
3.5 (4)
1.6 (4)
1.4 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.1 (2)
2.1 (4)
1.5 (3)
2.2 (1)
2.1 (3)
1.6 (4)
1.5 (3)
1.2 (2)
1.8 (3)
1.5 (3)
1.3 (3)
0.1 (3)

3.1 (6)
3.7 (6)
0.3 (5)
0.3 (2)
0.3 (4)
3.1 (5)
2.7 (5)
4.2 (4)
3.3 (6)
4.1 (3)
3.1 (2)
0.4 (3)
2.3 (3)
0.3 (6)
3.4 (5)
3.2 (4)
2.9 (5)
1.9 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.6 (3)
1.7 (4)
2.5 (3)
2.5 (3)
1.9 (4)
1.9 (3)
1.8 (5)
2.9 (4)
1.7 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.6 (4)
2.3 (5)
0.2 (3)
2.1 (4)
2.6 (3)
11%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

ve)
-3
+5
-4
-10
+5
-5

(metres)
4.7
6.55
6.4
8.6
3.5
6
Group 3:
Pole number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pebble Samples
4.1 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.0 (5)
3.3 (4)
3.5 (4)
5.0 (5)
3.6 (5)
4.4 (4)
3.1 (5)
2.8 (3)
4.0 (5)
2.7 (4)
2.6 (4)
3.1 (4)
3.4 (4)
3.8 (5)
4.9 (5)
3.6 (5)
4.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
3.9 (5)
6.3 (5)
2.9 (4)
3.7 (5)
3.4 (3)
2.7 (4)
4.6 (3)
3.3 (5)
2.8 (3)
2.4 (4)
3.3 (3)
5.5 (5)
3.7 (4)
4.1 (5)
2.1 (4)
3.4 (4)
3.6 (3)
3.5 (5)
3.0 (3)
2.9 (3)
3.5 (3)
2.4 (5)
2.4 (4)
3.0 (5)
1.7 (4)
3.2 (5)
3.7 (5)
3.4 (4)
2.6 (2)
2.5 (3)
2.7 (3)
3.4 (5)
2.9 (4)
2.2 (2)
2.4 (4)
5.4 (4)
5.1 (5)
2.5 (2)
2.3 (2)
3.3 (3)
2.7 (4)
3.0 (6)
3.1 (3)
1.9 (2)
2.4 (3)
2.1 (2)
3.5 (6)
2.1 (3)
2.3 (3)
2.1 (3)
3.4 (4)
3.4 (4)
2.0 (5)
2.4 (3)
2.1 (5)
2.0 (3)
2.2 (3)
3.6 (4)
4.5 (5)
2.4 (3)
4.1 (5)
4.5 (2)
3.0 (3)
2.2 (4)
3.3 (3)
2.8 (2)
3.5 (2)
3.3 (6)
3.3 (3)
2.5 (2)
3.0 (4)
4.5 (2)
3.1 (2)
2.6 (5)
1.9 (2)

3.7 (4)
1.9 (4)
9.3 (3)
3.0 (3)
1.8 (4)
5.6 (5)
2.9 (2)
2.6 (3)
3.3 (4)
2.6 (2)
4.7 (4)
3.4 (4)
3.7 (5)
2.3 (6)
2.7 (2)
4.9 (6)
3.4 (3)
1.5 (3)
4.1 (6)
3.1 (5)
4.0 (3)
4.3 (3)
3.9 (3)
3.1 (3)
2.5 (6)
3.6 (5)
3.3 (6)
1.4 (2)
3.1 (2)
2.4 (3)
2.7 (2)
4.3 (6)
3.4 (3)
1.9 (5)
2.4 (4)

4.1 (6)
2.9 (4)
1.4 (6)
2.9 (3)
4.3 (2)
4.1 (5)
2.9 (2)
1.9 (4)
3.6 (3)
1.4 (3)
4.8 (6)
2.7 (3)
2.1 (3)
5.0 (3)
2.4 (2)
3.4 (5)
2.9 (5)
3.4 (3)
3.4 (2)
2.2 (3)
2.9 (4)
2.9 (6)
4.9 (5)
3.4 (2)
2.2 (4)
5.8 (6)
4.5 (5)
5.0 (5)
2.0 (2)
3.0 (5)
2.2 (3)
3.5 (6)
3.0 (5)
2.6 (2)
3.4 (3)

2.5 (3)
2.8 (6)
1.9 (2)
2.1 (2)
2.7 (3)
%
4.2 (5)
2.9 (4)
4.0 (2)
2.0 (5)
2.4 (5)
2.6 (2)
3.2 (4)
3.0 (3)
3.0 (2)
1.9 (4)
3.9 (6)
4.0 (2)
3.0 (4)
2.1 (3)
2.6 (6)
4.4 (5)
2.4 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.6 (3)
3.0 (3)
4.0 (5)
4.5 (3)
3.5 (3)
5.0 (4)
2.3 (3)
3.3 (3)
3.9 (2)
2.6 (5)
2.5 (3)
2.1 (2)
12%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

4.2 (4)
2.7 (3)
2.6 (6)
2.3 (5)
2.7 (2)
5.1 (6)
2.2 (3)
3.5 (2)
3.6 (4)
2.5 (5)
3.0 (4)
5.0 (4)
2.5 (3)
2.7 (3)
2.5 (3)
3.3 (3)
3.4 (6)
3.4 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.0 (3)
3.6 (4)
4.4 (2)
2.7 (3)
3.5 (2)
1.8 (3)
2.6 (5)
3.4 (2)
2.5 (3)
3.1 (2)
2.8 (2)
8.0 (6)
3.6 (4)
2.0 (3)
2.3 (2)
1.5 (3)
4.5 (5)
3.1 (6)
2.2 (4)
3.3 (5)
2.8 (2)
2.6 (3)
2.7 (3)
1.7 (3)
2.9 (2)
1.5 (2)
3.7 (5)
4.1 (4)
3.1 (3)
2.5 (5)
1.6 (6)
3.6 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.1 (6)
1.9 (5)
2.0 (2)
4.1 (3)
2.4 (2)
3.0 (2)
2.0 (2)
3.1 (3)
2.4 (3)
3.0 (3)
2.7 (3)
2.4 (3)
1.7 (2)

7.8 (6)
2.4 (3)
2.4 (5)
2.3 (3)
2.7 (3)
4.7 (3)
2.6 (3)
2.7 (5)
2.3 (3)
1.6 (2)
4.5 (6)
2.4 (3)
2.4 (4)
1.7 (2)
2.0 (3)
3.3 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.3 (4)
1.5 (2)
2.6 (4)
7.4 (3)
2.1 (2)
2.0 (3)
3.4 (5)
2.4 (2)
3.4 (3)
3.1 (2)
2.6 (2)
2.6 (2)
2.3 (3)
2.6 (5)
2.5 (5)
1.3 (3)
2.6 (2)
2.1 (2)
13%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

ve)
+9
+5
+12
-3
+1
-5
+6
-9

(metres)
4.43
7.77
7.65
7.67
3.70
9.05
2.35
5.75
Thorpeness
Group 1:
Pole Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pebble Samples
3.9 (2)
2.6 (6)
2.8 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.4 (4)
4.1 (5)
5.0 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.9 (4)
2.1 (4)
3.5 (3)
3.5 (5)
2.5 (4)
4.2 (6)
1.7 (4)
4.4 (6)
3.6 (6)
3.1 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.9 (4)
4.4 (4)
2.6 (4)
3.1 (4)
2.2 (3)
1.5 (4)
5.5 (4)
2.6 (6)
3.0 (4)
1.2 (2)
2.3 (4)
3.3 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.6 (3)
1.9 (4)
4.0 (5)
2.6 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.8 (3)
2.2 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.7 (4)
2.2 (4)
1.2 (4)
3.0 (5)
2.6 (5)
2.7 (4)
2.0 (4)
2.0 (5)
3.6 (6)
3.0 (5)
3.7 (5)
3.5 (3)
2.8 (3)
4.0 (5)
3.4 (5)
3.3 (6)
2.7 (5)
3.6 (4)
3.7 (5)
3.8 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.9 (4)
4.2 (6)
2.9 (6)
3.5 (5)
2.1 (6)
2.2 (5)
2.1 (3)
3.8 (6)
3.5 (4)
3.0 (4)
3.0 (6)
3.9 (4)
5.1 (6)
4.5 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.5 (5)
2.4 (3)

5.4 (6)
3.5 (3)
5.0 (5)
4.9 (3)
3.7 (6)
6.2 (5)
5.4 (6)
4.0 (5)
5.0 (4)
5.1 (4)
4.3 (4)
3.7 (3)
5.9 (5)
3.1 (5)
4.1 (6)
4.0 (4)
4.8 (6)
2.4 (4)
3.6 (6)
3.6 (4)
4.5 (4)
3.0 (5)
3.8 (5)
2.9 (4)
3.6 (4)
3.2 (5)
4.7 (6)
4.3 (5)
4.5 (5)
4.5 (3)
3.5 (5)
2.8 (4)
3.9 (5)
4.4 (3)
3.5 (3)

4.5 (6)
3.9 (5)
2.9 (6)
3.3 (5)
3.3 (5)
4.6 (4)
3.9 (3)
2.9 (5)
4.3 (4)
3.0 (4)
4.5 (6)
3.4 (5)
3.0 (4)
2.9 (4)
3.4 (4)
3.1 (6)
3.2 (6)
4.0 (4)
3.9 (4)
2.9 (5)
4.3 (5)
4.8 (6)
4.9 (5)
3.8 (6)
3.4 (4)
3.4 (5)
4.9 (4)
3.8 (4)
3.1 (4)
2.4 (3)
3.9 (5)
3.1 (4)
3.1 (4)
2.5 (4)
4.5 (3)
14%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

5.5 (6)
4.4 (3)
4.0 (4)
3.8 (5)
3.0 (5)
5.3 (4)
2.9 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.5 (6)
3.8 (3)
4.3 (6)
3.9 (5)
4.2 (6)
2.5 (4)
2.9 (5)
3.8 (4)
3.2 (6)
4.3 (5)
3.0 (6)
3.7 (4)
4.5 (3)
2.9 (4)
4.4 (6)
2.5 (4)
3.0 (6)
3.8 (4)
6.1 (3)
2.8 (4)
4.6 (6)
3.2 (5)
4.2 (4)
4.1 (6)
4.3 (4)
3.6 (3)
3.0 (4)
3.8 (5)
2.3 (1)
4.9 (6)
2.9 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.6 (6)
3.0 (4)
5.0 (4)
3.2 (5)
3.4 (3)
2.8 (3)
4.4 (4)
4.2 (4)
3.3 (6)
3.0 (5)
2.4 (5)
3.0 (5)
3.0 (4)
2.9 (6)
1.8 (4)
3.0 (5)
1.8 (5)
2.5 (3)
1.6 (6)
1.2 (4)
2.7 (4)
2.5 (4)
1.9 (5)
2.0 (6)
1.1 (2)
2.9 (5)
3.3 (2)
2.8 (3)
2.8 (5)
1.8 (5)
4.1 (5)
2.5 (6)
2.9 (5)
2.7 (3)
2.9 (2)
3.3 (4)
2.0 (2)
2.0 (4)
2.1 (4)
1.6 (6)
2.4 (4)
2.2 (5)
3.3 (4)
2.1 (3)
1.8 (3)
3.0 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.2 (5)
2.8 (3)
2.9 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.7 (4)
3.3 (4)
2.4 (5)
1.8 (2)
3.5 (5)
3.0 (3)
2.0 (3)
1.9 (4)
1.9 (5)
2.2 (3)
2.3 (3)
2.0 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.9 (5)
1.9 (4)
2.5 (4)
1.9 (4)
2.4 (4)

4.0 (4)
4.0 (4)
1.9 (4)
2.3 (5)
2.5 (5)
5.2 (5)
3.6 (5)
3.1 (5)
2.5 (6)
3.0 (3)
3.5 (3)
2.8 (5)
2.7 (4)
3.1 (3)
2.9 (4)
3.5 (3)
2.6 (6)
3.6 (4)
2.1 (4)
2.4 (5)
4.8 (3)
3.5 (4)
1.9 (4)
2.2 (3)
2.9 (5)
3.4 (4)
3.0 (4)
1.8 (3)
1.9 (5)
1.9 (4)
3.3 (4)
1.8 (4)
3.7 (5)
2.2 (2)
2.9 (4)

3.7 (4)
3.3 (5)
2.9 (4)
3.5 (4)
2.1 (3)
3.5 (4)
2.3 (3)
2.5 (4)
1.6 (3)
1.6 (4)
5.4 (3)
2.1 (5)
3.9 (4)
2.4 (5)
1.7 (3)
3.2 (3)
2.1 (4)
2.3 (4)
1.8 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.5 (4)
4.4 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.0 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.2 (3)
2.2 (5)
3.3 (3)
2.5 (5)
2.4 (4)
1.9 (4)

3.5 (5)
4.0 (6)
3.1 (1)
3.6 (4)
3.3 (5)
3.5 (4)
2.5 (3)
2.1 (4)
3.9 (4)
2.3 (3)
4.4 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.3 (4)
3.4 (5)
2.0 (4)
3.6 (3)
3.3 (5)
2.8 (4)
3.2 (3)
1.7 (4)
3.9 (4)
3.0 (5)
2.8 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.0 (4)
2.7 (4)
3.1 (6)
3.4 (5)
3.4 (3)
2.5 (4)
4.7 (6)
3.1 (5)
2.8 (3)
3.0 (4)
3.1 (4)

3.8 (4)
3.5 (2)
2.1 (4)
4.1 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.1 (5)
2.1 (6)
2.2 (4)
2.3 (5)
1.9 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
1.8 (3)
2.8 (3)
2.6 (6)
4.9 (4)
2.6 (4)
1.5 (6)
2.2 (5)
1.6 (4)
2.7 (4)
2.4 (4)
1.2 (4)
1.5 (6)
2.0 (4)
2.1 (3)
2.3 (6)
2.9 (6)
2.1 (5)
3.5 (5)
3.1 (3)
2.7 (2)
2.2 (4)
3.1 (3)
1.6 (3)
15%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 2:
Pole number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Angle to next pole (+ve or ve)

+3
+2
+5
-5
-7
-2
-5

(metres)
17.90
6.20
8.75
8.00
4.90
6.00
5.20
Pebble Samples
1.6 (5)
4.0 (5)
2.6 (5)
2.2 (4)
1.5 (4)
2.5 (4)
3.6 (4)
2.1 (5)
3.5 (4)
3.6 (6)
0.3 (5)
3.5 (5)
0.3 (6)
3.6 (5)
3.3 (5)
5.5 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.3 (3)
2.7 (4)
3.5 (4)
3.2 (4)
2.1 (5)
2.3 (5)
3.7 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.3 (3)
2.9 (4)
2.1 (5)
0.2 (6)
0.2 (5)
2.1 (4)
1.3 (4)
0.2 (4)
2.4 (4)
2.3 (5)
1.9 (4)
0.2 (4)
1.6 (4)
1.4 (3)
1.3 (3)
1.9 (1)
1.5 (3)
2.1 (3)
1.7 (4)
1.4 (3)
1.6 (5)
0.1 (3)
1.2 (4)
0.9 (3)
1.1 (3)
3.0 (5)
2.9 (5)
2.6 (5)
1.9 (5)
2.3 (3)
2.5 (5)
1.9 (5)
1.9 (5)
2.1 (3)
1.6 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.2 (2)
2.5 (5)
2.2 (4)
1.8 (3)
3.0 (4)
3.5 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.5 (4)
1.5 (3)
2.0 (4)
3.2 (3)
3.5 (4)
2.7 (4)
3.4 (4)
4.1 (4)
1.7 (3)
3.4 (5)
2.9 (4)
2.8 (5)
3.2 (3)
2.8 (6)
2.0 (3)
3.9 (5)
0.3 (5)
2.6 (3)
1.9 (4)
1.7 (3)
2.8 (4)

4.9 (5)
2.9 (5)
3.2 (5)
3.8 (4)
2.9 (6)
4.0 (6)
4.9 (6)
5.2 (5)
3.8 (5)
3.2 (5)
4.2 (5)
3.5 (6)
2.8 (6)
3.8 (2)
2.8 (5)
4.1 (5)
4.5 (5)
3.5 (5)
3.2 (4)
2.6 (6)
3.2 (6)
4.4 (2)
3.5 (3)
3.4 (4)
3.5 (2)
4.4 (3)
2.9 (4)
3.9 (5)
3.0 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.2 (4)
3.0 (4)
4.0 (4)
2.5 (5)
3.2 (4)

3.7 (4)
4.8 (4)
6.6 (5)
3.5 (3)
3.0 (5)
3.4 (3)
3.7 (4)
4.3 (4)
2.7 (3)
4.2 (4)
1.9 (4)
2.1 (3)
1.5 (4)
4.1 (3)
3.6 (3)
3.0 (5)
2.4 (5)
2.6 (6)
2.3 (3)
2.3 (3)
3.7 (4)
3.5 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.4 (6)
2.3 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.7 (3)
2.5 (4)
2.6 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.6 (4)
1.9 (4)
2.8 (4)
3.2 (4)

3.2 (6)
5.3 (5)
4.2 (5)
%
3.6 (4)
0.2 (4)
3.7 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.9 (4)
2.8 (5)
2.8 (5)
3.8 (5)
2.6 (4)
3.4 (4)
2.4 (5)
3.5 (4)
2.7 (3)
0.3 (4)
3.7 (3)
2.7 (4)
2.3 (5)
2.9 (3)
16%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
4.0 (6)
3.4 (5)
3.9 (6)
3.1 (5)
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
2.8 (2)
0.3 (4)
0.3 (4)
2.5 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.9 (5)
2.6 (3)
3.6 (4)
2.9 (4)
3.1 (4)
2.7 (3)
2.8 (5)
2.7 (6)
2.5 (4)
1.7 (3)
2.2 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.0 (4)
2.5 (5)
2.2 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.0 (4)
2.1 (4)
1.6 (5)
2.1 (5)
2.3 (4)
1.9 (5)
2.0 (3)
1.6 (6)
1.7 (4)
2.2 (3)
1.9 (2)
2.3 (2)
1.5 (1)
2.1 (2)
2.2 (4)
2.4 (4)
2.5 (2)
2.5 (5)
3.3 (2)
0.2 (2)
1.6 (2)
1.0 (2)
0.2 (4)
2.2 (3)
2.0 (2)
1.9 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.9 (4)
1.6 (2)
2.6 (3)
3.0 (2)
2.1 (3)
1.7 (3)
1.5 (4)
2.2 (3)
1.5 (3)
1.5 (2)
1.7 (2)
2.5 (3)

4.0 (4)
2.5 (6)
3.2 (5)
3.0 (5)
4.4 (4)
3.3 (5)
2.6 (6)
2.7 (5)
2.2 (6)
3.2 (4)
3.6 (4)
2.6 (4)
3.5 (6)
3.1 (5)
4.4 (6)
3.8 (5)
2.9 (4)
3.5 (4)
3.0 (4)
3.2 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.5 (4)
3.2 (6)
3.1 (4)
2.8 (5)
3.2 (5)
2.5 (6)
2.6 (6)
2.4 (5)
2.0 (4)
2.4 (6)
2.5 (6)
2.3 (4)
2.6 (5)
2.2 (3)

4.8 (6)
4.3 (6)
4.2 (6)
3.8 (5)
3.4 (4)
5.4 (5)
2.5 (4)
2.8 (4)
3.0 (5)
3.9 (4)
5.0 (4)
3.4 (3)
4.1 (5)
3.3 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.7 (4)
3.0 (4)
2.6 (3)
4.2 (5)
2.4 (4)
2.3 (4)
2.2 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.8 (3)
2.1 (3)
2.2 (3)
4.0 (3)
2.1 (4)
1.7 (4)
2.1 (4)
3.3 (5)
3.3 (3)
0.2 (5)
2.8 (5)
2.1 (3)

6.0 (5)
3.5 (5)
3.9 (4)
3.5 (6)
3.3 (5)
4.1 (3)
3.4 (3)
2.9 (5)
3.7 (4)
3.5 (5)
5.0 (4)
3.3 (4)
4.9 (4)
4.0 (3)
2.9 (3)
3.9 (4)
3.2 (4)
3.9 (4)
4.6 (4)
4.5 (5)
5.5 (1)
4.1 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.2 (4)
2.2 (4)
3.2 (5)
2.1 (4)
2.9 (4)
2.6 (4)
3.0 (3)
3.0 (4)
2.4 (3)
2.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
1.3 (3)
17%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Pole number
1
2
3
4
5

ve)
+5
-5
-7
+6
-11

(metres)
20.20
10.60
5.80
5.85
3.85
Pebble Samples
5.5 (5)
4.0 (1)
2.9 (2)
2.9 (3)
3.4 (4)
2.8 (3)
2.6 (4)
2.4 (5)
2.3 (3)
4.4 (5)
4.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
3.8 (3)
3.9 (2)
2.9 (4)
3.0 (3)
3.6 (4)
2.7 (2)
3.8 (5)
3.3 (4)
3.5 (3)
3.6 (4)
3.1 (2)
2.7 (4)
2.9 (2)
2.5 (5)
4.6 (1)
4.2 (5)
3.4 (5)
4.0 (3)
3.8 (4)
2.6 (3)
3.3 (2)
2.7 (1)
3.1 (3)
3.1 (5)
4.5 (2)
4.5 (5)
3.0 (3)
2.7 (5)
3.0 (3)
2.9 (3)
3.9 (5)
1.9 (3)
2.9 (3)
2.0 (3)
5.0 (5)
3.6 (3)
3.9 (4)
2.6 (3)
2.9 (2)
3.1 (2)
3.9 (2)
3.5 (3)
3.8 (2)
3.1 (4)
3.4 (2)
3.1 (2)
4.5 (3)
4.3 (3)
3.4 (5)
5.1 (5)
4.1 (3)
3.7 (4)
3.5 (6)
2.7 (3)
2.0 (2)
2.9 (3)
3.7 (2)
2.7 (3)
2.3 (4)
2.2 (3)
2.3 (4)
2.7 (3)
3.5 (3)
4.2 (5)
2.8 (6)
5.4 (6)
3.7 (3)
2.2 (2)
4.1 (3)
3.3 (4)
2.9 (6)
2.1 (2)
1.7 (2)
8.3 (5)
3.4 (3)
1.6 (3)
1.7 (2)
1.9 (2)
1.8 (3)
3.0 (4)
1.2 (5)
2.1 (2)
2.4 (3)

5.5 (6)
3.6 (3)
2.1 (2)
2.6 (3)
7.8 (2)
5.3 (3)
3.6 (3)
3.4 (4)
5.1 (4)
4.2 (5)
4.7 (3)
3.1 (3)
2.4 (6)
2.7 (2)
3.5 (5)
3.5 (3)
3.8 (5)
3.3 (2)
2.9 (6)
2.8 (2)
2.4 (3)
3.9 (3)
2.6 (5)
2.5 (3)
2.6 (4)
4.4 (2)
3.4 (3)
3.5 (4)
2.7 (6)
3.4 (2)
2.4 (6)
2.5 (3)
3.3 (3)
3.1 (4)
3.5 (3)

5.6 (6)
3.5 (5)
3.1 (6)
4.1 (3)
3.1 (2)
4.5 (5)
4.1 (5)
3.2 (4)
4.1 (3)
2.5 (3)
3.9 (5)
4.5 (2)
5.7 (2)
3.5 (2)
3.6 (4)
4.1 (6)
3.5 (6)
2.6 (2)
3.7 (2)
2.3 (2)
5.1 (5)
3.1 (2)
2.4 (4)
2.6 (2)
3.1 (5)
5.0 (5)
2.6 (4)
2.4 (3)
3.7 (2)
2.5 (6)
4.0 (6)
3.1 (4)
2.3 (2)
3.3 (6)
3.5 (3)

2.3 (6)
1.6 (2)
1.5 (3)
2.3 (5)
2.0 (4)
%
2.9 (5)
3.3 (2)
2.6 (5)
2.4 (5)
2.3 (2)
2.6 (3)
3.1 (4)
1.7 (2)
2.2 (4)
1.9 (2)
2.7 (3)
1.1 (2)
2.9 (5)
2.1 (2)
1.5 (2)
2.2 (4)
2.1 (3)
2.1 (3)
3.2 (2)
1.6 (1)
2.7 (4)
3.5 (4)
1.4 (2)
3.6 (6)
3.0 (5)
1.7 (2)
2.2 (4)
1.4 (2)
2.4 (2)
1.9 (2)
18%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%

3.1 (6)
4.4 (5)
3.5 (4)
1.9 (6)
2.5 (3)
2.9 (5)
3.5 (6)
1.3 (4)
2.4 (4)
2.3 (5)
3.6 (6)
2.3 (3)
1.9 (4)
1.9 (3)
2.3 (5)
3.3 (3)
2.9 (3)
2.5 (3)
4.4 (6)
2.1 (2)
2.4 (5)
2.7 (3)
3.1 (2)
2.3 (3)
1.8 (4)
1.9 (3)
1.9 (4)
2.1 (3)
2.2 (4)
3.1 (2)
2.5 (5)
2.9 (3)
2.0 (4)
2.0 (3)
1.6 (2)
2.7 (3)
2.1 (4)
2.1 (3)
1.7 (2)
1.6 (3)
2.0 (4)
2.0 (5)
2.3 (3)
3.1 (3)
2.4 (5)
3.4 (3)
1.9 (5)
3.1 (3)
1.8 (2)
1.6 (4)
19%
20%
Figure"7:"Beach"profile"for"group"1"in"Thorpeness."
SEA
Pole 7
5m
Average pebble size: 3.18cm

Average shape: 4.14
Distance= 6.51m
Angle= +3

Average shape: 4.38
Distance= 6.71m
Angle= -3

Average shape: 4.44
Distance= 8.65m
Angle= -10

Average shape: 4.50
Distance= 4.62m
Angle= +5

Average shape: 4.46
Distance= 3.87m
Angle= -3
Pole 6
Average shape: 4.72
Distance= 4.79m
Angle= -3
5m
Pole 5
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 1:
Aldeburgh
Beach Profiles
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
21%
SEA
5m

Average shape: 3.82
Distance= 8.55m
Angle= -10

Average shape: 3.84
Distance= 3.20m
Angle= +5

Average shape: 3.72
Distance= 1.80m
Angle= -15
5m
Average shape: 4.12
Distance= 5.75m
Angle= -4
Pole 5

Average shape: 4.42
Distance= 7.10m
Angle= +4
Pole 7
Pole 6

Average shape: 4.22
Distance= 4.80m
Angle= 0
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 2:
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
22%
SEA
Pole 7

Average shape: 3.66
Distance= 6.55m
Angle= +5

Average shape: 3.84
Distance= 6.40m
Angle= -4

Average shape: 3.46
Distance= 8.60m
Angle= -10

Average shape: 3.58
Distance= 3.50m
Angle= +5
5m

Average shape: 3.22
Distance= 6.00m
Angle= -5
5m
Pole 6

Average shape: 4.12
Distance= 4.70m
Angle= -3
Pole 5
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 3:
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
23%
Figure"10:"Beach"profile"for"group"1"in"Aldeburgh."
SEA
Pole 9
5m
5m

Average shape: 4.68
Distance= 7.65m
Angle= +12

Average shape: 4.58
Distance= 7.67m
Angle= -3

Average shape: 4.26
Distance= 3.70m
Angle= +1

Average shape: 3.88
Distance= 9.05m
Angle= -5

Average shape: 4.18
Distance= 2.35m
Angle= +6

Average shape: 4.08
Distance= 5.75m
Angle= -9
Pole 6

Average shape: 4.62
Distance= 7.77m
Angle= +5
Pole 8 Pole 7

Average shape: 4.26
Distance= 4.43m
Angle= +9
Pole 5
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 1:
Thorpeness
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
24%
5m

Average shape: 3.94
Distance= 8.75m
Angle= +5

Average shape: 4.22
Distance= 8.00m
Angle= -5

Average shape: 4.66
Distance= 4.90m
Angle= -7

Average shape: 4.78
Distance= 6.00m
Angle= -2

Average shape: 3.56
Distance= 5.20m
Angle= -5
Pole 7

Average shape: 4.48
Distance= 6.20m
Angle= +2
Pole 8
SEA

Average shape: 4.16
Distance= 17.90m
Angle= +3
5m
Pole 6
Pole 5
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 2:
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
25%
5m

Average shape: 3.72
Distance= 5.80m
Angle= -7

Average shape: 3.26
Distance= 5.85m
Angle= +6

Average shape: 3.76
Distance= 3.85m
Angle= -11
Pole 5

Average shape: 3.48
Distance= 10.60m
Angle= -5
Pole 6
SEA

Average shape: 3.40
Distance= 20.20m
Angle= +5
5m
Pole 4
Pole 3
Pole 2
Pole 1
Group 3:
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Examining The Results Using Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient

Diagram
Now the data has to be processed and it looks like that for most of them, there is a positive
correlation, just as we expected it due to the reasons explained under the section theoretical
background. However, it could be that this is purely due to luck and that the results are
insignificant. Therefore, the data has to be further examined using Spearmans rank
correlation coefficients. To do so, the correlation of the data has to be found first (using
Microsoft Excel) and it can then be compared to the diagram below (Figure 16) in order to
find out the data is significant at the 95% confidence level. The results gained from this
investigation are shown below:
1. Distance from sea and pebble size
Aldeburgh
Group Data
pairs
Degrees of
freedom
1
2
3
All
6
6
6
18
4
4
4
16
0.053358264
0.772559882
0.916329941
0.475557960
Thorpeness
1
8
2
7
3
5
All
20
6
5
3
18
0.605043333
-0.473881718
0.747133233
0.266494302
Data
correlation
Spearmans rank
correlation
coefficient
~0.90
~0.90
~0.90
~0.55
Is the correlation
significant?
~0.80
~0.85
~0.95
~0.50
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Figure 13
2. Beach gradient and pebble size
Aldeburgh
Group Data
pairs
Degrees of
freedom
1
2
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
Correlation
Spearmans rank
correlation
coefficient
-0.048479103 ~0.90
0.685099913 ~0.90
0.255772986 ~0.90
Significance
No
No
No
26%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
All
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
18
16
Thorpeness
1
8
2
7
3
5
All
20
6
5
3
18
0.470393895 ~0.55
0.446200841
-0.096472700
0.234463164
0.303358701
No
~0.80
~0.85
~0.95
~0.50
No
No
No
No
Spearmans rank
correlation
coefficient
~0.90
~0.90
~0.90
~0.55
Significance
~0.80
~0.85
~0.95
~0.50
No
No
No
No
Figure 14
3. Distance from sea and pebble shape
Aldeburgh
Group Data
pairs
Degrees of
freedom
1
2
3
All
6
6
6
18
4
4
4
16
0.871668522
0.899013689
0.871668522
0.355267786
Thorpeness
1
8
2
7
3
5
All
20
6
5
3
18
0.625651073
0.037708997
-0.372445813
0.287053211
Correlation
No
No
No
No
Figure 15
27%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Figure 16: Spearmans rank correlation coefficient diagram.7
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7%http://geographyfieldwork.com/SpearmansRank8.gif%,%accessed%January%22,%2012%13:44%GMT%
28%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Examining The Results Using R squared

R squared is a statistical measure of how well a regression line approximates real data points
[] [It] can be used as an indicator of the reliability of a relationship identified by regression
analysis. An R squared of 0.8 indicates that 80% of the change in one variable is explained by
a change in the related variable. 8
Therefore, R squared should now be used in order to find out whether the
correlations that were found in the graphs are significant and if there is a linear relationship
between them. The correlations will then be grouped into the following five categories:
R2
0.00-0.50
0.50-0.75
0.75-0.80
0.80-0.99
1.00
Correlation
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Very strong
Perfect
Figure 17
1. Distance from sea and pebble size
Aldeburgh
Group
1
2
3
All
R2
0.00285
0.59685
0.83966
0.22616
Thorpeness
1
0.36608
2
0.22456
3
0.55821
All
0.07102
Correlation
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Figure 18
2. Beach gradient and pebble size
Aldeburgh
Group
R2
1
0.00235
Correlation
Weak
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8%http://cnx.org/content/m13447/latest/%,%accessed%February%2,%2012%19:58%GMT%
29%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
2
3
All
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
0.69584
0.06542
0.24764
Thorpeness
1
0.19910
2
0.00931
3
0.05497
All
0.09203
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Figure 19
3. Distance from sea and pebble shape
Aldeburgh
Group
1
2
3
All
R2
0.00040
0.80823
0.75981
0.12622
Thorpeness
1
0.39144
2
0.00142
3
0.13872
All
0.08240
Correlation
Weak
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Figure 20
The analysis of the data using R squared showed that most of the correlations can only be
categorized as weak. There were also three moderate relationships and two strong
correlations. Overall, it can be seen that this analysis reflects the results that have been gained
from Spearmans rank correlation coefficient, which seems to suggest that we will not be able
to draw any valid conclusions from the data.
30%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Mean Pebble Size Compared To Distance From Sea

Aldeburgh
Group 1:
Group"1"
mean"pebble"size"(in"cm)"
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
distance"from"the"sea"(in"m)"
Figure 21: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea for group 1 in Aldeburgh.
Group 2:
Group"2"
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Group 3:
%
31%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group"3"
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
All groups:
All"groups"
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Figure 24: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea for all groups in Aldeburgh.
32%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Thorpeness
Group 1:
Group"1"
4.5%
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Figure 25: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea for group 1 in Thorpeness.
Group 2:
Group"2"
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
33%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Group"3"
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
All groups:
All"groups"
4.5%
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 28: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea for all groups in Thorpeness.
34%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Both Locations
Aldeburgh"and"Thorpeness"
4.5%
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
Thorpeness%
2%
1.5%
Aldeburgh%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 29: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness
separately.
4.5%
4%
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 30: Graph comparing the mean pebble size and the distance from the sea in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness.
35%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Standard Deviation For Pebble Sizes

Aldeburgh
Poles
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
Group 1
0.842377588
1.191301809
0.814923309
0.993047834
1.038491213
0.742600835
Group 2
0.859246181
1.041698613
0.748929903
0.761839878
0.811310052
0.991614845
Group 3
0.878280138
1.288579062
1.012474197
0.794984277
1.089359445
1.197178349
Group 1
0.878179936
0.858000000
0.773307183
0.851859143
0.832752064
0.761093950
0.660209058
0.698065899
Group 2
1.158103622
0.869997701
0.898667903
1.041439389
0.660608810
1.120401714
1.081916818
Group 3
0.763821969
0.994635612
0.932171658
1.079675877
0.689814468
Figure 31
Thorpeness
Poles
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Figure 32
36%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Analysis
Looking at the graphs that show how the mean pebble size varies with the distance from the
sea (Figure 21-30), a mixture of results can be recognized. Both locations showed that the
bigger pebbles can be found further away from the sea. This is what we had expected.
However, there was also one graph that showed a negative correlation (Figure 26).
Combining those results with the other groups still showed a positive correlation (Figure 28),
which could mean that the overall result is still significant.
Furthermore, the above standard deviations (Figure 31-32) all vary between ~0.66 and
~1.29. This seems to suggest that at least for some measurements, there was a big spread of
data from the mean. It was hoped that all pebbles on a particular slope would be the same
size, as this would support the theory that pebble size influenced beach gradient. However,
there are too many locations with a big standard deviation, which means that the pebbles there
were not very similar in size and the results received from this data are unreliable. Even if the
correlation was significant at those locations, we know that there were both - much bigger and
much smaller - particles at that location which suggests that the hypothesis must be rejected.
Using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient it was then found that only group 3s
results in Aldeburgh are significant at the 95% confidence level. All other results, even when
combining all three groups for each location to reduce errors and to make the results more
accurate are not significant.
We also said that in theory, the pebble sizes should be smaller in Aldeburgh when
compared to Thorpeness because they are subject to more attrition. Taking a look at Figure 29
it can be seen that the pebbles in Aldeburgh were consistently bigger than those in
Thorpeness, which was clearly not expected.
37%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Mean Pebble Size Compared To Beach Gradient

Aldeburgh
Group 1:
Group"1"
6%
beach"gradient"(in")"
4%
2%
0%
92%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
mean"pebble"size""(in"cm)"
Figure 33: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size for group 1 in Aldeburgh.
Group 2:
Group"2"
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
95%
910%
915%
920%
38%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Group"3"
6%
4%
2%
0%
92%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
All groups:
All"groups"
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
95%
910%
915%
920%
Figure 36: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size for all groups in Aldeburgh.
39%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Thorpeness
Group 1:
Group"1"
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
4.5%
95%
910%
915%
Figure 37: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size for group 1 in Thorpeness.
Group 2:
Group"2"
6%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
92%
94%
96%
98%
40%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Group"3"
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
92%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
All groups:
All"groups"
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
4.5%
95%
910%
915%
Figure 40: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size for all groups in Thorpeness.
41%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Both Locations
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
4.5%
95%
Thorpeness%
Aldeburgh%
910%
915%
920%
Figure 41: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness separately.
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
4.5%
95%
910%
915%
920%
Figure 42: Graph comparing the beach gradient and the mean pebble size in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness separately.
42%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Analysis
Again, it seems that there is a clear positive correlation (the bigger the gradient, the bigger the
pebbles found at that place). This was expected and predicted in the hypothesis. It is due to
the fact that at places where there are bigger pebbles (and the gaps between them are also
bigger), the waves percolate into the ground. The backwash therefore loses a lot of its energy
and will not pull back any of the heavier and bigger pebbles. The bigger pebbles will stay at
that place and continue to build up to form a steeper slope. On the other hand, where pebbles
are smaller (and consequently the gaps between them are smaller as well), the wave does not
percolate into the ground, keeps most of its energy and pulls back bigger pebbles forming a
gentler slope.
There are some exceptions (Figure 33, Figure 38), which however do not affect the
overall picture (Figure 36, Figure 40). There is a great spread of the data points from the
mean in all graphs and the value of R2 ranges from 0.00235 to 0.69584, which suggests that
there is no linear correlation. Looking at Spearmans rank correlation coefficients, it can be
seen that none of the correlations is significant at the 95% confidence level (Figure 19).
However, it is now to be considered that only the stretches of beach descending towards the
sea are actually affected by the waves. Therefore, the whole analysis is now done again, this
time only including negative angles.
Aldeburgh, group 1:
Group"1"
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
92%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
Figure 43: Graph comparing the negative beach gradients and the mean pebble size for group 1 in Aldeburgh.
%
%
%
43%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Aldeburgh, group 2:
Group"2"
0%
92%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
914%
916%
Aldeburgh, group 3:
Group"3"
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
92%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
44%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Aldeburgh, all groups:
All"groups"
0%
92%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
914%
916%
Figure 46: Graph comparing the negative beach gradients and the mean pebble size for all groups in Aldeburgh.
Thorpeness, group 1:
Group"1"
0%
91%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
910%
Figure 47: Graph comparing the negative beach gradients and the mean pebble size for group 1 in Thorpeness.
45%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group"2"
0%
2.6%
91%
2.65%
2.7%
2.75%
2.8%
2.85%
2.9%
2.95%
3%
3.05%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
Group"3"
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
92%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
46%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Thorpeness, all groups:
All"groups"
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
1.5%
2%
2.5%
3%
3.5%
4%
92%
94%
96%
98%
910%
912%
Figure 50: Graph comparing the negative beach gradients and the mean pebble size for all groups in Thorpeness.
For most of the above graphs, it is not possible to use Spearmans rank correlation coefficient,
as the degrees of freedom in that case would be either 1 or 2 and the graph does not give any
results for such a low number of data pairs. The only thing that can be done is combining all
results for each beach (Figure 46, Figure 50) and use their correlation to examine the
significance.
All groups Aldeburgh

Data
Degrees of
pairs
freedom
11
9
All groups Thorpeness
10
8
Correlation
Spearmans rank
correlation coefficient
0.596053649 ~0.67
Significance
0.501906618 ~0.73
No
No
Figure 51
Even when only considering negative angles because they are the ones that are likely to be
affected by the waves no significant correlation can be found. To make sure that this is
really the case, we will now apply the R squared test to these results.
47%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Aldeburgh
Group
1
2
3
All
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
R2
0.04172
0.65101
0.04710
0.35528
Correlation
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Thorpeness
1
0.72498
2
0.00296
3
0.93130
All
0.24751
Moderate
Weak
Very strong
Weak
Figure 52
The R squared test basically proved what Spearmans rank correlation coefficient had
already shown. The result whose correlation is very strong can be ignored, since it only
consists of three data pairs. Two points will always form a straight line and in this case, the
third data item is coincidentally close to that line.
Overall it can be said that even though there is a positive correlation between the
beach gradient and the mean pebble size, it has been shown that this correlation is
insignificant.
48%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Shape Compared To Distance From Sea

Aldeburgh
Group 1:
Group"1"
4.8%
4.7%
shape"
4.6%
4.5%
4.4%
4.3%
4.2%
4.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Figure 53: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea for group 1 in Aldeburgh.
Group 2:
Group"2"
4.5%
4.4%
4.3%
shape"
4.2%
4.1%
4%
3.9%
3.8%
3.7%
3.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
49%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Group"3"
4.5%
4%
3.5%
shape"
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
All groups:
All"groups"
5%
4.5%
4%
shape"
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Figure 56: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea for all groups in Aldeburgh.
50%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Thorpeness
Group 1:
Group"1"
5%
4.5%
4%
shape"
3.5%
3%
2.5%
2%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Figure 57: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea for group 1 in Thorpeness.
Group 2:
Group"2"
6%
5%
shape"
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
51%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Group 3:
Group"3"
3.8%
3.7%
shape"
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.3%
3.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
All groups:
All"groups"
6%
5%
shape"
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 60: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea for all groups in Thorpeness.
52%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Both Locations
6%
5%
shape"
4%
3%
Thorpeness%
2%
Aldeburgh%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 61: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness separately.
6%
5%
shape"
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 62: Graph comparing the pebble shape and the distance from the sea in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness.
53%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Standard Deviation For Pebble Shape

Aldeburgh
Poles
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
Group 1
0.917387595
1.120892502
1.177964346
0.828492607
0.780768852
0.899110672
Group 2
1.221310771
0.896437393
1.107068200
0.908625335
1.222456543
1.135781669
Group 3
0.840000000
1.312097557
1.316966210
1.299384470
1.297536127
1.171153278
Group 1
0.890168523
0.977547953
0.947417543
1.132960723
0.975909832
0.925418824
0.989747443
1.036146708
Group 2
0.945727233
1.099818167
0.732393337
0.965194281
0.885663593
1.170469991
0.983056458
Group 3
1.166190379
1.314686274
1.470238076
1.323782459
1.175755077
Figure 63
Thorpeness
Poles
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Figure 64
Analysis
Looking at the graphs that show how the mean pebble shape varies with the distance from the
sea (Figure 53-62), positive correlations can be found, just as expected. Every graph except
Figure 59 showed that the pebbles further away from the sea are more rounded. The negative
correlation in Figure 59 could be an anomaly, because when the results from all three groups
for this location were plotted together, there was still a positive correlation.
However, the above standard deviations (Figure 63-64) all vary between ~0.73 and
~1.47. Again, there were many locations where the standard deviation was close to or greater
than one. This suggests that the pebbles there were not very similar in shape and that the
results received from this data is unreliable and that no conclusion can be drawn.
We also predicted that pebbles in Aldeburgh should be more well-rounded as they
are subject to more attrition. However, Figure 61 shows that the pebbles in Thorpeness were
rounder in shape since the blue line (Thorpeness) is constantly above the red line (Aldeburgh)
and therefore suggests that in fact the pebbles in Thorpeness had a rounder shape.
%
54%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Conclusion
Concluding, it can be said that even though there was a positive correlation between the
pebble shape and the distance from the sea, the pebble size and the distance from the sea and
the beach gradient and the pebble size that would prove the hypothesis, those were proven to
be insignificant. Also, it can be seen in Figure 29 that our prediction that the pebbles are
bigger in Thorpeness compared to Aldeburgh was wrong.
Most of the time, especially when comparing the beach gradient to the mean pebble
size, the problem was that the data points were quite far off the mean. This can be linked back
to the calculated standard deviations that came out to be quite big. A big standard deviation
means that the considered data (pebble size / pebble shape) had a big spread and therefore no
conclusive results can be drawn from them.
Overall, it has to be said that our hypothesis has to be rejected, even though there was
evidence that it could be valid. However, the overall correlation was too insignificant.
55%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Evaluation
As it could be seen, there was a correlation in all three cases. However, those were not
significant, which means that we have to think about how the data sampling process could be
improved in order to reduce errors.
Firstly, the number of pebbles between each pair of poles that were collected should
further be increased. It is a good idea not just to collect pebbles in the middle of the poles, but
maybe after each forth of the distance between them. This would then have the advantage that
when considering Spearmans rank correlation coefficient, more data pairs would be
available, which gives a bigger degree of freedom. As the 95% significance level is not a
linear relationship between the correlation coefficient and the degrees of freedom, this would
mean that at a higher sampling rate, a lower correlation coefficient would be sufficient in
order for the correlation to be significant at the 95% confidence level.
Another problem can be found when looking at the sampling technique that was used.
When picking a pebble each 5 cm, human error is likely to be reasonably big. We will always
pick the bigger pebbles and are reluctant to pick smaller ones. This problem could be avoided
by cluster sampling the pebbles. We should just grab as many pebbles as possible and then
measure all of them and assign them a shape factor. This will lead to a different number of
pebbles collected for each location but it will definitely reduce human errors and give a more
accurate picture of the pebble size and shape leading to a more significant correlation
provided that the hypothesis is correct. Furthermore, one should think about whether it was a
good idea just to measure the longest axis of the pebbles. Maybe, it would have been better to
weight them so that not just one dimension is considered in the analysis.
It was also very hard to assess the shape of a pebble just by looking at Figure 6,
especially because the roundness factors varied between 1 and 6. Introducing more
categories, at least 10 might reduce the standard deviation (spread of the data) because there
are more categories that a pebble could potentially belong to. Reducing human errors within
this procedure might improve the overall significance of the correlation.
To find a significant change in pebble size, maybe the two beaches that are
investigated should be at a greater distance from each other. It is quite unlikely that there is a
significant change in pebble size when the two beaches are only about 5 kilometres apart.
56%
Marc%Wierzbitzki%
00908159083%
Geography%SL%
Fieldwork%
Bibliography
Nagel, Garrett; Cooke, Briony Geography Course Companion, Oxford 2011
Nagel, Garrett; Cooke, Briony Geography For The IB Diploma, Oxford 2009
Longshore Drift (http://geographyfieldwork.com/LongshoreDrift.htm), accessed September
16, 2011 14:45 GMT
Virtual Fieldwork (http://www.georesources.co.uk/leld.htm), accessed September 16, 2011
10:23 GMT
Longshore Drift (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9EhVa4MmEs), accessed September
16, 2011 18:38 GMT
57%

IB Geography SL Fieldwork - An Investigation of The Effects of Longshore Drift at Two Different Beaches in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB Geography SL Fieldwork - An Investigation of The Effects of Longshore Drift at Two Different Beaches in Aldeburgh and Thorpeness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geography Standard Level Fieldwork

An investigation of the effects of longshore drift at two

Word Count: 2498

Connection To The IB Geography Standard Level Syllabus

Figure 2: An illustration explaining the concept of long shore drift5.

tape measure to measure the

take one sample every 0.1m

distance (d) between the poles

Angle to next pole (+ve or

Distance to next pole

Results And Analysis

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 6 & 7 (Size with shape in brackets)

Angle to next pole (+ve or

Distance to next pole

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 6 & 7 (Size with shape in brackets)

Angle to next pole (+ve or

Distance to next pole

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 6 & 7 (Size with shape in brackets)

Angle to next pole (+ve or

Distance to next pole

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 6 & 7 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 7 & 8 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 8 & 9 (Size with shape in brackets)

Angle to next pole (+ve or ve)

Distance to next pole

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 6 & 7 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 7 & 8 (Size with shape in brackets)

Angle to next pole (+ve or

Distance to next pole

Halfway between Poles 2 & 3 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 3 & 4 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 4 & 5 (Size with shape in brackets)

Halfway between Poles 5 & 6 (Size with shape in brackets)

Average pebble size: 3.18cm

Average pebble size: 3.70cm

Average pebble size: 2.92cm

Average pebble size: 2.76cm

Average pebble size: 3.00cm

Average pebble size: 2.88cm

Average pebble size: 3.02cm

Average pebble size: 2.05cm

Average pebble size: 3.71cm