Geography HL Internal assessment

SAMANTHA ANYANGO
MAY 2024

Research Question:
To what extent does River Karura in Nairobi, Kenya conform to
the Bradshaw model?

Word Count:
 Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
a. Fieldwork question ………………………………………………………………3
b. Syllabus relevance ……………………………………………………………….3
c. Geographical context ……………………………………………………………3
d. The Bradshaw model…………………………………………………………….5
e. Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….6
2.
3. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
a. Sampling technique …………………………………………………………….6
b. Data collection
i. Measurement of channel velocity ………………………………………7
ii. Measurement of channel depth and width ……………………………..8
iii. Measurement of channel discharge ……………………………………8
iv. Measurement of river gradient ………………………………………….9
4. RESULT AND TREATMENT OF DATA
a. Hypothesis 3; Velocity Variation Downstream …………………………………9
b. Hypothesis 1; Discharge variation Downstream…………………………………11
c. Hypothesis 2; Correlation Between River Discharge and The River Gradient….12
d. Karl’s Pearson Moment Correlation Coefficient Testing ………………………..13
5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..15
6. EVALUATION…………………………………………………………………………..16
7. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………17
8. APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………18
INTRODUCTION
Fieldwork question
To what extent does River Karura in Nairobi, Kenya conform to
the Bradshaw model?
This fieldwork examines the justification of the Bradshaw model in River Karura in regard to its
velocity, discharge, and channel downstream and upstream.

Syllabus relevance
The fieldwork conducted in the Karura River aligns with the first sub-topic of the drainage basin
and geomorphology under freshwaters in option A of IB geography. Specifically, the fieldwork
explores the Bradshaw model and its concepts like river discharge, stream flow, and channel
characteristics in the analysis of the flow dynamics of the river in the fieldwork.

Geographical context
The choice of Conducting fieldwork in river Karura was an opportunity to interact and apply
concepts learned in option A, IB geography to a real-world context. River Karura is located in
Nairobi, Kenya approximately 47 km away from our school making it more accessible for
students. Due to its proximity to the school, it was deemed best fin managing logistics, budget
constraints, and transport. Moreover, River Karura also has fairly low volume flows at a safe rate
and is inclusive to those with aquaphobia.
The Karura River Forest is located in Nairobi central Kenya and has its source in the Limuru
Escarpment adjacent to the Red Hill road. From the source, it flows through Rosslyn estate,
Limuru road along the river valley between Village Market, Australian Embassy then Gigiri
before traversing Karura forest from where it confluences river Ruaka.

The river, passing through the northern suburbs of Nairobi city undergoes an ideal of industrial
pollution along its course. However, it is filtered in the wetland before getting into the Karura
Forest which makes it safe for contact with its water during the field study before encountering
pollution brewery effect towards its mouth in Ruaraka. The fieldwork also allows for an
understanding of the river's characteristics, including its flow dynamics and potential
environmental challenges.
In this field research, the variables of the
Bradshaw model such as the velocity,
discharge, and gradient will be investigated
with regards to the Bradshaw model, an
idealized geographical model that helps us
describe the changes in how we would expect
the river's characteristics to vary between the
upper course and lower course of a river. The
Bradshaw model states that both mean
occupied channel width and mean channel
depth increase with distance from the source
to the mouth of a river(downstream). In Fig 4,
the vertex and base of the blue triangle which
widens represent a decrease and increase in
variables respectively with the left side of the
Bradshaw representing downstream and the
right side.
Hypotheses
1. The river discharge will increase downstream: This is due to the widening and
deepening of the river channel, allowing it to hold larger volumes of water.
2. The gradient of the river is inversely proportional to its discharge. This is because
the water flow increases downstream, it enables the river to cut a deeper channel and
widen, resulting in a more gentle gradient due to reduced vertical erosion.
3. The average velocity of the river will increase downstream. The increase in water
volume leads to more erosion, resulting in a wider and deeper river channel that
facilitates freer water flow, causing an increase in average velocity.

METHODOLOGY
1. Sampling Technique
Random sampling
Upon reaching the site, we divided ourselves into groups of 5 and randomly chose 8 different
sites upstream, midstream, and downstream thereby excluding our potential biases. This would
enable us to rule out our biases, where we would pick the sites that conform to our hypothesis
and the theory.

1. Data collection

Tools
1. Float
2. Measuring tape
3. Stopwatch
4. Meter rule
5. 2 Ranging poles
6. A string
7. Measuring tape
8. Clinometer

Quantitative data
River velocity:
To determine the velocity of the river, we measured a length of 8 cm in the middle of the river
and marked it with 2 ranging poles. A float was released recorded the time taken for it to cover
the measured distance was. This process was repeated on the left bank mid-stream and the right
bank to find the average river velocity at each site. Using a floating object was preferable rather
than a digital instrument such as a leak from a flow meter due to potential mechanical
malfunctions and the issues associated with the latter.
𝑠
𝑉= 𝑡
𝑉: 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑆: 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡, 𝑡: 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡

River width

The ranging poles were positioned at the point where the water’s edge on both sides of the
channel and extended tape measures between the two poles to measure the width. This method is
essential for examining the trends and variations in occupied width and determining river
discharge. For more conciseness, we were keen enough to ensure that the tape was not twisted
and precisely positioned the poles exactly at the point where the water met the bank and directly
opposite This process was repeated three times to enhance reliability and consistency in the
measurements.
 Average depth

After measuring the channel width, we subdivided it into 5 equidistant intervals of 1.67cm. In
each interval, we measured the depth using the meter rule. This methodology minimizes biases
in our data by capturing the variation of depth across the channel, rather than a singular point. Its
liability is significant in the field study in determining factors such as the cross-sectional area,
velocity, and river discharge. The use of a calibrated meter rule to measure the depth enables
direct reading, hence is no need for transferring the measurement from the stick to the tape
measure, and strong enough to be positioned vertically into the water to read the depth directly
without transferring the measurement from a stick to the tape measure.

River discharge
River Discharge (Q) is defined as the product of the cross-sectional area (A) and the velocity
(V): Q = AV. The cross-sectional area is obtained by multiplying the width (W) of the river by
the average depth (D). After collecting data from s the river depth and width, we calculated the
river discharge by multiplying the width and the average depth to obtain the cross-sectional area
which we finally multiplied by the velocity. The same calculation was done across eight distinct
river sites. Hence enabling comparison between the upstream and downstream but also finding
its relationship with the river gradient.
River gradient

To determine the gradient we used a method involving positioning 2 poles 8 meters apart with a
string tied and the constant height mark on them. The clinometer was placed against the height
mark on the poles and released the trigger to read the angle. The tape was stretched across the
river and tightened for accuracy. similarly, For accuracy, we measured the gradient at 3 different
points of the string and calculated the average. Gradient measurement would enable us to
examine its relationship with the river discharge. We used a digital clinometer rather than an
analog clinometer to its convenience in automatically detecting and displaying the numerical
value of the gradient. Hence, eliminating the random errors that could be introduced by reading
the scale manually.

QUALITY AND TREATMENT OF THE DATA COLLECTED

Hypothesis 3; Velocity Variation Downstream

The velocity of the river is given by 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝑉)
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑠)
= 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 ∆𝑡

Sample calculation of the velocity for site 1:

−2
𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝐵𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦: 0. 051𝑚
 −2
𝑀𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦: 1. 0988 𝑚
−2
𝑅𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐵𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦: 0. 0784 𝑚

0.05+1.0988+0.0784 −2
3
=0. 0765 𝑚

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mean 0.0765 0.105 0.113 0.108 0.124 0.168 0.231 0.231

velocity
−2
(𝑚 )

The results from the table and the graph show an increase in mean velocity from site 1(upstream)
towards site 8(downstream) With the lowest mean velocity of 0.07 in site 1 and the highest
mean of 0.231 in site 8. Therefore validating my hypothesis that the average velocity of the river
will increase downstream. Other than the exceptional anomalies such as those observed in sites
4, 7, and 8 as indicated by the graph, the general trend suggests an increase in velocity towards
site 8, the final downstream site. These results prove the Bradshaw model which tables an
increase in the velocity of a river downstream. Moreover, this observation of higher mean
velocities downstream suggests a more rapid flow with the increased distance from the source
possibly due to the geological change in the river channel. For instance, the widening and
deepening of the river channel downstream reduces friction hence accelerating water flow along
the channel.

Hypothesis 1; Discharge variation Downstream

River discharge is given by
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒(𝑄) = 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝑉)

But since the cross-sectional area is the product of width and depth, I first have to calculate the
cross-sectional area so as to substitute the discharge variable where

𝐴(𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎) = 𝑊(𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ) × 𝐷(𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ)

Sample calculations for site 1:

𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 1. 26𝑚
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ = 0. 13𝑚
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 =1. 26𝑚× 0. 13𝑚
2
0.164𝑚

Therefore, Discharge(Q) for site 1 can be calculated by

−2
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0. 0765 𝑚
2
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 =0.164𝑚
2 −2
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒(𝑄) = 0. 164𝑚 × 𝐴0. 0765 𝑚 )
3
0.0125𝑚 /𝑠

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Discharge 0.012 0.0225 0.0336 0.0973 0.0443 0.0984 0.305 0.623

3
(Q)𝑚 /𝑠 5
In reference to the linear graph, the trendline indicates an increase in discharge downstream with
the least discharge recorded at site 1 of average 0, and the highest discharge of 0.6 at site 8. The
result confirms the hypothesis that the river discharge increases downstream hence justifying
Bradshaw's model regarding downstream changes in river discharge. The histogram is most
preferable for a clear comparison of discharge values at each site, highlighting the increasing
trend downstream and easily identifying the site with the highest and lowest discharge.
Moreover, it also shows the general trend of the data and possible uncertainties in the data
through the error bars. The second graph(linear graph) is very significant for visualizing the
discharge data points and their trend across each site together with revealing significant
variations and anomalies indicated by the curves in the trend line. The slope in the graph
compares the magnitude of change in river discharge between different sites.

Finding the correlation between the river discharge and the river gradient

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Discharge 0.0125 0.0225 0.0336 0.0973 0.0443 0.0984 0.305 0.623

3
(Q)𝑚 /𝑠

Gradient 4.2 3.4 3.2 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.5

𝑜
𝐶
In the scatterplot graph above, the x-axis is the channel gradient, and the y is the value for
the river discharge. The blue dotted line shows the correlation between the two variables.
the given data shows a negative correlation graph evidenced by the negative gradient of
the trend line as can be seen from the graph.
To means, that the discharge values increase with the decrease in the gradient. However,
the trendline of the scatter plot shows that out of the 7 data points, only two lie within the
line of best fit, which as a result may raise doubt regarding the validity of the linear
correlation. The same can also be tested using Karl’s Pearson moment correlation
statistical, a statistical measure that enables evaluation of the extent and significant
correlation between the channel discharge and the corresponding channel gradient
downstream

Hypothesis testing using Karl’s Pearson Moment correlation coefficient

To justify my hypothesis I used Spearman’s Rank to test this correlation and to determine if
there is a monotonic component to the association.
Null hypothesis(H0): The river discharge and the river gradient are independent of each other
downstream.
Research Hypothesis: The river discharge and river gradient are inversely proportional.
 Σ[(𝑋 − 𝑋̄)(𝑌 − Ȳ)]
Coefficient 𝑟 = √[Σ(𝑋 − 𝑋̄)² * Σ(𝑌 − Ȳ)²],

Where X and Y data points, X̄ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 Ȳ means of x and y respectively and Σ denoting the
summation of the values.

The calculation for the mean gradient ( X̄)

Mean = (4.2 + 3.4 + 3.2 + 1.5 + 2.2 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.2) / 8

mean= 2.3125

The result from the coefficient result of -0.958 shows a strong negative correlation
between the channel discharge and the gradient of the aperture in terms of its area. The
closer the coefficient is to -1 or 1 the stronger the correlation. In this case, the negative
sign indicates an inverse relationship between the two variables. Whereby, the size of the
discharge increases as the gradient decreases.
The critical value associated with the desired significance level of 0.05(95%) and the
degrees of freedom of 8 in the t-distribution table, shows that the found correlation
coefficient’s absolute value of 0.958 is greater than the critical value of 0.632. This
suggests a stronger likelihood (95% probability) of the research hypothesis and only a 5%
possibility of the null hypothesis. Therefore Research hypothesis (H1) is accepted null
hypothesis(H0) is rejected.

Conclusion
The fieldwork enabled a successful contextualization of the learned concepts under fresh waters
in Option A of IB geography. The findings verify the validity of the Bradshaw model in the
analysis of channel dynamics and have constructed my understanding of geomorphology and the
applicability of the model in real life. My findings confirm The river’s conformity to the
Bradshaw model as it demonstrates the idealized characteristics and changes in variables
investigated such as the river velocity, gradient, and discharge upstream and downstream. I
therefore conclude that the average velocity of the river increases downstream, indicating a more
rapid flow due to the widening and deepening of the river channel, the river discharge also
increases downstream, indicating a greater volume of water being carried by the river and there
is an inverse relationship between the river gradient and discharge. Hence aligns with the
research hypotheses formulated based on the Bradshaw model.
 Evaluation

The investigation was highly essential as it successfully helped us demonstrate the relevance of
the Bradshaw model and the changes in the Karura River. Hence gaining much knowledge
beyond the classroom. However, the fieldwork had a noticeable number of limitations and areas
of improvement. The characteristics of specific sites potentially impacted the measurement,
primary and secondary results. For instance, Site 4 was clogged with logs, twigs, and fallen tree
trunks that hamperd the movement of the float leading to anomalies in the data as the velocity
was slightly lowered. Inaccuracy also arose due to computation errors from the rounded-off
value and random errors encountered in analog apparatus such as the meter rule, measuring tape,
and stopwatch. These errors were minimalized by calculation of mean value and having at least 3
trials for each site. Moreover, site 8 had a bridge that deepened the channel during construction
hence making a sudden change in the gradient of the discharge trendline as that enabled the
channel at that point to hold more water. These together with the tourist activities near 4 and 5
introduced anomalies and irregularities in the data.

For further improvements, a wider scope of investigation in terms of a more comprehensive

study of the river, a larger sample size, and the potential influence of other models would be
considered. Moreover, since the fieldwork primarily focused on the physical characteristics, the
exploration of other factors such as ecological factors is a major area of improvement to
consider. Inaccuracy also arose due to computation errors from the rounded-off value and
random errors encountered in analog apparatus such as the meter rule, measuring tape, and
stopwatch. These errors were minimalized by calculation of mean value and having at least 3
trials for each site. Despite the limitations, the investigation validates Karura River’s conformity
to the Bradshaw model.
References
1. Forest guard. What Is the Flow of the Karura River, Its Threats, and the Measures That

Have Been Taken? 2023.

2. Geocaching. “Geocaching - the Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site.”

Www.geocaching.com, Apr. 2015,

www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5YPRJ_karura-forest-36-ruaka-river-swamp.

Accessed 5 May 2023.

3. JK Geography. “How Rivers Change from Source to Mouth.” Geography from KS3 to IB,

2019, www.jkgeography.com/how-rivers-change-from-source-to-mouth1.html.
Appendices