# data[].attributes.body
The time in which we carried out the data collection wa only from 3pm to 4pm which is very limited.On the other hand,we can increase the time so that it is more accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI was unreliable as we were only there for a few hours so it cannot represent the data. Since it was a weekday there may have been more tourist than locals as locals would be busy working.

# data[].attributes.body
It is unreliable as we have very limited time to do all the survey. For the tourist count, the results are inaccurate as locals may also be included when we are counting.

# data[].attributes.body
So rite, we should increase the number of group so that there are more data collected. This way, the data collected will be more reliable.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI was unreliable as the results collected are only for a day and hence, the results are largely inaccurate. Therefore, the GI should be conducted over a period of a few days for results to be more accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
the gi was unreliable as we only conducted the investigation on one day when the numbers vary daily. we were unsure if we were actually counting tourists or just locals hence results are unreliable for tourist count

# data[].attributes.body
1) the experiment could have been conducted multiple times in a day
2) it could also have been conducted for more than one day for greater scope

# data[].attributes.body
It was unreliable as we could have gathered more data if we stayed longer and covered more areas. We were only limited to a certain area of Chinatown which does not sum up the general state of Chinatown. For greater reliability, we should have spent a week on this GI process and gather as much data as we possibly could.

# data[].attributes.body
It's  unreliable as for the tourist count, people who look like tourists might not be tourists and are actually locals. Thus making the data wrong and causing the hypothesis to have an unreliable conclusion.
It is also unreliable as data collected from the questionnaire were to varies and it did not allow any proper conclusion on whether the hypothesis is right or wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI is not reliable because of the sample size. we only interviewed a small number of tourist in a short span of time. this does not correctly represent the tourists views. also, we did not carry our systematic sampling. as for frequency of data collected, we only had a short amount of time to collect data. we could have gathered more data over a few more days as tourist count may differ on different days and time. thus the data collected doesn’t correctly represent tourism in chinatown

# data[].attributes.body
unreliable because when doing the tourist count, we were talking and missed out some people. there was also too little time to carry out all the field work methods so more time can be given in the future

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that the GI results are unreliable as it was only carried out on one day over a short period of time. Hence, our  sample size is very small and it may vary over periods of time.
Next, I also feel that it was unreliable as it was our first time carrying out this investigation. Thus, we might not be very familiar with how to properly use the methods to obtain results,  making the results unreliable.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI is not reliable as it was only carried out in one day. During the tourist count, there was no possible way of telling if a person is a local or tourist. There might have been locals that were counted, as well as tourist that were not counted. The scale for the bipolar survey was too small as only 6 people did it.

# data[].attributes.body
I felt that there were likely some mistakes or inconsistencies along the way throughout the investigation that could have affected the reliability of the investigation.For example, my group interviewed the same person twice by accident and realised only later

# data[].attributes.body
It is unreliable. The tourist count could have included locals and hence making the data not accurate. The sample size is small as only a small number of tourists were interviewed, hence data is not representative. The number of tourists to be interviewed should be increased

# data[].attributes.body
Not reliable as we went on a week day, where most locals are at school or work. This thus affected the results of the survey as tourists go to chinatown for different reasons compared to locals. We also counted less locals than there would have been on a weekend, when more shops are open and more people visit the area. We also cannot assume that who we are counting are tourists or locals as they may not dress as a typical tourist might. We assumed who entered the shops mainly from our knowledge and did not ask the shop owners -irina

# data[].attributes.body
The results of the GI are unreliable. the scope is limited as we only visited Chinatown one time. thus, the results may be different if we were to visit multiple times as there might have been anomalies on that specific day that we visited. the survey we did with the tourist was also not useful as the answers were very specific per person, making the data obsolete. due to unreliable data and a limited scope, the GI results were unreliable.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI is not reliable as the counting we did was based on the people who walked pass a shop in 10 mins. However there is no certainty that 100% of them are tourists as some may be locals. The causes an in reliable result as there is no accurate conclusion to form that the people who visited Chinatown were tourists.

Next, the GI is unreliable as the investigations and tests that were carried out were done consecutively and one at a time, not simultaneously. This makes the data less reliable as there is a difference in the presence of people at different timings.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI is unreliable.
The data was only collected on one day. It is not a conclusive representation of the tourist views. The data should have been collected over more days.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that hypothesis 1 was unreliable because we had done the GI from 3 to 5 and did not do it at other timings of the day so the tourist count could be flawed. Moreover I feel that for hypothesis 3 the bipolar survey could be flawed since we could have compared Chinatown with other places of Singapore which caused the survey to be too strict

# data[].attributes.body
Results were definitely unreliable.

Scope was very limited as we were only given an hour and a half to finish up our collection data & finding tourists to do so. Furthermore, we did not visit all 6 streets to interview the different tourists & only stocked to one lane given to us.

During our tourist count, we only carried it out x2 at the same lane & shop which made our results inaccurate as we only relied on the number of tourists at that certain shop.

# data[].attributes.body
It is unreliable as we only did the GI on the weekdays not the weekends.Thus, it is not representative of the tourists

# data[].attributes.body
The investigation was unreliable as it was only carried out in one day and we had limited time.

# data[].attributes.body
The entire process was plagued with unreliability. For example, one of the goals was to determine the visitor’s reason of visit to Chinatown. This was executed by counting the number of people who entered a certain category of shop or visited a specific attraction and then tabulating the total number of visitors for each shop or attraction. We assumed the visitor’s reason of visit by using the number of visitors per  shop/attraction. This is highly unreliable as their presence at the shop/attraction might not be related to their initial reason of visit to Chinatown in the first place

# data[].attributes.body
1) allocate more time at chinatown Bc more time to interview the tourists as we only interviewed a handful
2)

# data[].attributes.body
It is not reliable because we only conducted the GI on one day and only for 1+ hours so we could not collect more results and calculate an average.
i think the GI can be calculated across the week so that the results will not be limited and be more acurate

# data[].attributes.body
We should have stayed there longer so that there were more time to collect data to increase the reliability of the results.

# data[].attributes.body
the results were unreliable. there was not enough time to interview as many people as possible. if we had enough time to interview more people, there will be a more accurate answer as there will be be more viewpoints about Chinatown.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI is unreliable. The tourist count may have included non-tourists which will cause the results to be inaccurate. Moreover, the results would have a greater accuracy if the GI was conducted over a few days. The land use survey would differ frm street to street and the sample size for the questionnaire could have been larger.

# data[].attributes.body
The GI was not reliable as there were many tests based on the students' perception such as asking every fourth tourist to do the survey and this gave the students some control over who they asked, giving the possibility of being biased to the students. Also, it was hard to tell consistently whether a person was a tourist or a local as visual cues are unreliable.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not very reliable as the data was collected only one on day and there was not a lot of data hence it is not very frequent. Thus, we should have stayed longer to collect more data from the tourists
Secondly, since we are collecting the data, it might have been more unreliable since we might miscount or miss people, resulting in inaccurate results

# data[].attributes.body
It is unreliable as it is the first time we are doing the fieldwork and collecting results. There are also too many reasons why people visit Chinatown.

# data[].attributes.body
- The GI is not reliable the tourist count might be invalid because the people who went into the shops might be locals and not all tourists.
- We only carried out the investigation on one day at one time which makes the data less reliable because the scope is very small.
- The perception survey is subjective, different people have different opinions so the data is unreliable.

🤩🤩🤩

# data[].attributes.body
-The GI can be more reliable by doing the collection of data throughout a span of a few days or a year. This ensures that the data is consistent and it's much easier to detect an outlier in the data.
-The bi-polar survey can maybe specify the degree for (for example) pollution. There is not a lot of clear indication of how much pollution is considered to be in +1 or -1, so the data becomes rather subjective.

# data[].attributes.body
The results were unreliable. We dismissed doing the systematic sampling of people for the questionnaire and many of the results contradict each other. Tourist count also could have included non-tourists which make the results inaccurate. The questionnaire was answered with more than one response making it inconclusive. Bipolar perception is quite subjective which can cause results to vary and be inaccurate.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the entire geography investigation, we believe the entire process is unreliable. It is unreliable because we had limited time and area to carry out our investigation.