a coursework investigation -...

- 1 -

A Coursework Investigation

To what extent do Wells, Cheddar and Burnham on Sea

demonstrate the characteristics of a honeypot site?

By Martin Yeo

Wells

A cathedral city

Cheddar

Village and gorge

Burnham

A coastal resort

Martin Yeo Hounsdown School

Somerset Coursework Investigation

Section A Introduction & Background

- 2 -

Title Question:

To what extent do Wells, Cheddar and Burnham on Sea demonstrate the

characteristics of a honeypot site?

In this coursework investigation, I will be collecting and analysing data in order

to find out whether the hypotheses mentioned later are true or not. I will then

be able to answer the title question from my findings.

1. Explain what a honeypot site is.

A honeypot site is a place of attraction to tourists that is comparable to the

attraction of a honeypot to bees. These attractions may be physical, such as

Cheddar Gorge, or human, such as the cathedral city of wells. In a honeypot site

there are many facilities and shops that are there to exploit the increased

tourism, these in turn encourage more tourists, as they make the site more

attractive. If these sites become too popular, they will reach and may exceed

their carrying capacity, which will damage the sites and make them less

attractive. This has been seen along many popular rural walkways, which have

become eroded due to over use. Therefore management schemes are in place in

many areas such as car parks in the New Forest, these encourage tourists to

travel to certain areas and thus protecting other more fragile areas.

2. Suggest reasons for whether you think each of these hypotheses will prove to

be true or not.

Hypothesis 1: Physical and human features attract people to honeypot sites.

True. I think this because you can see with the village of Lyndhurst that there

are areas of natural beauty (Boltons Bench) and human features make it

attractive as well (the village itself).

Hypothesis 2: Honeypot sites will be dominated by shops, services and facilities

for tourists so locals are not adequately catered for.

True. But only in some cases, in areas such as national parks the main interest is

in preserving the „outstanding natural beauty‟, therefore many laws are passed

without the interest of locals in mind. In many cases though, the area may be

dominated by tourist facilities, but the original services that were there before

the tourists remain to serve the local community.

Hypothesis 3: There will be more pedestrians at honeypot attractions.

True. There is definitely a noticeable increase in pedestrians anywhere that has

been classified as a honeypot attraction. There are also more cars, but the

pedestrians have to leave their cars generally to observe the attractions.

Hypothesis 4: Tourist locations will attract visitors from outside the local

environment.




- 3 -

True. A good example of this would be the Lake District, where many people go

for holidays from all over the country. This is often what makes the site

noticeable as a honeypot attraction; I would estimate that 50% of visitors have

travelled further than 25 miles to a honeypot attraction.

Hypothesis 5: Tourist numbers will exceed the carrying capacity of

environments unless they are carefully managed.

True. This is a particular problem with long distance tourists; if they are more

affluent they may buy second homes in a honeypot area. A good example of this

again is the Lake District, where some towns have become ghost towns out of

season, causing shops to close down and leaving no services left for the small

permanent community. The case is being managed to as good an extent as

possible by heavily promoting specially built hireable properties to try and lure

tourists away from buying second homes.

3. Describe the location of the study area and the settlements of Wells,

Cheddar and Burnham on Sea.

Cheddar is 15 miles to the south of Bristol, around 125 miles to the west of

London and 100 miles to the south west of Birmingham.




- 4 -

Cheddar = ST450525

Burnham on-Sea = ST307494

Wells = ST550457

This area in on the coast of Bridgewater Bay, in the Bristol Channel. Burnham

on-Sea is a seaside attraction on the estuary of a small river. Cheddar is a

village near several physical attractions such as Cheddar Gorge. Wells is a

cathedral city with many human attractions in the city itself.

The main road into the area is the M5; the local infrastructure is comprised of

several „A‟ roads and many smaller ones. Bristol International airport is around

20 miles away from Burnham on-Sea. Local stations include Castle Cary to the

southeast, Highbridge and Burnham close to the south of Burnham on-Sea and

Worle in Weston Super-Mare.

The Mendip Hills

These are visible in the backdrop of the picture and sketch of Cheddar Gorge.

The Mendip Hills are made up of limestone rock, which dissolves in contact with

water; it is also a hard, permeable rock. These features allow a unique landscape

of caves and gorges to develop (Karst Landscape), such as Cheddar‟s. It also

allows rivers to flow underground and emerge as resurgent streams when they

meet impermeable rock, a resurgent stream can be seen in the Cheddar Gorge

sketch. Some of the larger caves, such as Wookey Hole, have become major

physical attractions. Wookey Hole has in fact become a human attraction as

well, as companies have taken advantage of the attraction and have turned it

into a museum. The area is popular for walking and wildlife watching as well, the

Mendip Hills have mainly physical attractions. There is also a lot of ancient

archaeology in the area; this is one of the things that tourists came to see.

The Somerset Levels

See the photographs of Sedge Moor for an idea of what the levels look like.

The Levels are an area of low lying, flat land between the Mendip and Polden

Hills. Since the last ice age 110,000 years ago it has been an area of marsh with

water from the hills. The sea regularly flooded the area, this, together with the

rivers, helped to transport and deposit silt and clay; much of the land has

remained water logged and has become permanent marshland. Later on, during

medieval times, drainage schemes took place to turn the land into pastures, and

later during the Georgian times Dutch engineers did the same though some of it

still floods and the land is mainly just summer pasture. The peat lying under the

area has helped to preserve ancient remains, a major attraction.

The Levels are rich with wildlife; they are a haven for wetland wildlife, and an

important migratory location for many species. The marshland is one of the last

refuges in England for the otter, though sea otters are common in Scotland.




- 5 -

The area is in fact rich with national rarities, including as much as eighty species

of water beetle. Several species if bird breed here, such as Redshank and

Heron, many species of bird depend on the high water level during the winter,

like the Teal. And birds of prey like the Peregrine Falcon depend on the

abundance of prey in the area. Man-made ditches called rhymes have become

environmentally important to plants such as Bladderwort. All this makes a

spectacular area physically, and is a major physical attraction.

The Somerset Coast

This is definitely a beach attraction; the graph referring to temperature and

visitors shows this. By far the most important tourist attraction in Somerset,

the coast is easily accessible from the M5 and offers a vast expanse of beaches

and sand dunes. Though originally a physical attraction, the human attraction is

now much greater, with a leisure complex at Brean, numerous camping facilities,

amusement arcades and the inevitable fast food stores. All the settlements on

the coast have become tourist orientated to exploit the massive potential profit

and there are various features such as donkey rides up and down the beaches.




- 6 -

4. In your own words, give the meaning of the following terms that are used in

this investigation.

Affluence – A measure of how wealthy someone is e.g. a family may have the

affluence of £100 000.

Disposable Income – The amount of money someone earns that is left available

to spend on luxuries e.g. a man may earn £5000 a month, having paid taxes and

essentials he has a disposable income of £750.

Tourism – The activity of travelling to places of interest and spending time

there e.g. many people visit the Lake District in interest of its natural beauty.

Catchment Area – The area from which something is likely to attract people,

there may be several different levels of catchment area e.g. Cheddar Gore may

have a total catchment area of 200 miles.

Accessibility – How easy it is to get to somewhere e.g. Somerset is highly

accessible via the M5.

Land use – How an area of land is used e.g. a lot of the New Forest is used to

grow trees for wood.

Multiplier Effect – The process whereby one successful business sparks off a

chain of new businesses in the area e.g. someone sets up a small tourist

orientated shop, this becomes very successful and encourages more shops of the

same kind in the area.

Visitor Management – How a local authority may control the movements, size

etc. of visitor numbers to the area e.g. placing car parks at strategic points will

attract visitors to those points, protecting others.

Carrying Capacity – The number of people an area can take without taking

damage in any way (not just physical) e.g. if an area exceeds its carrying

capacity, one thing that could happen is the local water supply could run out.

Sustainable Tourism – Tourism that helps to support future opportunities in the

tourist business e.g. exploiting tourists with attractive shops could supply money

to the local economy.




- 7 -




- 8 -

5. What are the main reasons for the growth of tourism in the UK?

There are four main reasons why tourism has grown rapidly in the past few

years. These are: greater affluence, shorter working week, an ageing population

and greater mobility.

Greater Affluence

The graph above shows that salaries have increased between 1973 and 1993 by

968%. This has lead to greater affluence. More people have a greater

disposable income, which means they can afford to go on holiday more, buy more

luxuries and take more days off.

£0.00

£50.00

£100.00

£150.00

£200.00

£250.00

£300.00

£350.00

£400.00

1973 1983 1993

Avera

ge w

eekly

in

co

me

Year

Graph to show increased affluence and disposable income

Full time working woman

Full time working man




- 9 -

Shorter Working Week

The bar charts above show that the number of contractual hours that people on

average work has continued to decrease. For instance, a working man in 1973

would have to do 378 minutes more work than a working man in 1993. This is a

factor in the growth of tourism because people have more leisure time as the

amount of time off adds up, with more leisure time people will be looking for

pleasant ways in which to fill the time, so a holiday would seem the perfect

answer.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Full time working woman Full time working man

Co

ntr

ac

tua

l H

ou

rs

Graph to show reduced working week

1973

1983

1993




- 10 -

Ageing Population

The graph above shows that the number of elderly people is rising. This is

shown by the dip from 1961 to 1981 in the percentage of the population that was

under 65; this represents a 5% growth in the percentage of the total population

over 65%. This means that we have an ageing population as the percentage of

elderly people in the population is rising. Because most people over 65 do not

work – they are not meant to – they have more time on their hands, which they

will probably spend on relaxing activities such as travelling to peaceful, beautiful

places around the country, this makes the increased elderly population a large

factor in tourism.

% of population under 65

% of population over 65

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

1951 1961 1971 1981 1989 1991 2001

%

Year

Graph to show ageing population




- 11 -

Increased Car Ownership

1961

2 Cars

1Car

No Car

1971

2 Cars

1Car

No Car

1981

2 Cars

1Car

No Car

1991

2 Cars

1Car

No Car

These pie charts show how

car ownership has grown

since 1961, and that recently

ownership of two cars has

become common. Increase in

car ownership has helped to

increase tourism by allowing

for private transport, much

more attractive than public

transport on long journeys,

and much more readily

available. Not only is private

transport always available

but also public transport is

hard to find for long

journeys.




- 12 -

6. What are the patterns of tourism in Somerset?

Origin of all tourists – Many people travel to Somerset from the Midlands for

any length of time (not just day trips) because it is a good place to visit and not

too far away. I expect the Midlands provide a large percent of tourism to all

their surrounding coastal areas, having no coast themselves. The South East

visits Somerset in fairly large numbers I believe for the same reason the

Midlands does. Except that the South East has an extensive coast, this is

probably the only reason for the reduction in visitors, as they are both around

the same distance from Somerset.

The South West doesn‟t visit Somerset that highly because their own local

areas have the same attractive features as Somerset. For Avon, which

contributes quite a lot of visitors, it is the perfect place for a quick visit, and I

think that most visitors from Avon would be day visitors, as reflected by the

high percentage of day visitors from Avon on the other map. The rest of the

country doesn‟t have a particularly good reason for visiting Somerset and this

would explain the low percentage.

Origin of all day visitors – This is a quite a different pattern, other than the

fairly local area there is a very low percentage of visitors. The South West

appear to have quite a few people visiting on day trips, probably because

Somerset is a reasonable distance for a day trip and an interesting place to go.

It is an even better place to visit for a day if you live in Avon, just the right

distance away with a variety of places to visit. And of course, if you already live

in Somerset then it is the perfect day trip. For the rest of the country it is not

worth it to travel the long distance to Somerset just for a day trip.

Accommodation – To start with I think that a few of each form of

accommodation would have been set up to take advantage of the tourists.

Caravan parks, chalets and campsites quickly proved to be the most popular; this

encouraged new caravan parks, chalets and campsites to be set up, generating a

multiplier effect. So these forms of businesses grew, the others, such as

hotels and rented flats may have declined in number or grown a little depending

on how many the area started with. Of course second homes and relatives are

not dependant on business, though they did influence the number of other

accommodation types in the area.

Divided Bar Graph – 36% of people have visited previously because this section

of visitors are likely to make regular trips there, I‟m referring to something like

20 visits, and there are a large number of people that make a habit of visiting a

certain areas. 35% of people are visiting for the first time because many people

are likely to visit to find out what the place is like, they may be put off after

that, which would explain the reduction in the number of second time visits.




- 13 -

Population Pyramid – It is interesting to see such an even balance in this

pyramid, excluding over 75s as they have reached their life expectancy.

However there are noticeable patterns in the pyramid, which I will discuss.

Most noticeably there are a large number of pensioners, this is because after

they have retired, pensioners have no job constraints on where they live, so they

are likely to move to somewhere more scenic, such as the coast. There is also a

large number of what would appear to be families with children, as indicated by

the large number of 0-14s and 30-44s. This is probably because the parents

have moved to the coast to raise their family in a scenic atmosphere; they are

unlikely to move again until they are free of their children.



Section B Methodology

- 14 -

For each of the following techniques that you will use to collect data on the field

visit, explain:

What the method is.

What you will do on site to use this technique.

How you will use the information collected by this technique including

which hypothesis it is relevant to.

Hypotheses






environment.



Questionnaire

The questionnaire is a way of finding out why people are in the area and how

they got there. Once results are put together a good impression can be made as

to the percentage of people who are visitors, the average pedestrian age etc.

1. Age – this one of the factors that controls opinion bias as age affects

opinion. It is also useful to know what age most visitors and locals are, as

this tells us a lot about who is attracted to the area, and who likes to live

in the area. However, this last part is likely to be made obsolete, as I will

be trying to control bias by interviewing a range of ages.

2. Gender – This is the other factor that controls opinion bias – gender also

affects opinion. Other than this I cannot tell anything from gender, as I

do not know whom the person I interview came with and their reasons for

coming. Therefore I will only use gender to control bias.

3. Where have you come from today? – This is a very important question, as

it helps to build a tourist catchment map along with the catchment survey

(see further on in this section). The catchment map is extremely

important as it shows how attractive the place is because the more

attractive it is the further people are prepared to travel to get there.

4. What town do you come from? – This will show how attractive the whole

area is, as this question refers to the town of origin, where the people

actually live. I can tell the same things as I can from the previous

question except on a larger scale. This will help with Hypothesis 4

because it shows me from how far away they are attracted.

5. Are you a local or a tourist? – This will let me ask the rest of the

questionnaire, as the questions are tailored towards tourists or locals.




- 15 -

This question will also allow me to create a local to tourist ratio. I can

work this out using the answer to the previous question and it therefore

also helps with Hypothesis 4.

Questions for locals

1. What is the purpose of your visit? – This question will help with

Hypothesis 2, as it shows whether locals come to this settlement to shop

for their essentials.

2. How did you get here? – This will help show the local transport links

there are in the area, as their reply will indicate whether they used

private or public transport.

3. What are the main benefits of living in the area? – This will help with

Hypothesis 1; it shows what they like about the area. I will also help with

Hypothesis 2, as they will probably mention the local facilities in the

answer.

4. What are the main problems with the area? – This will also help with

Hypothesis 2, if there are not enough local facilities then they will

mention this. It might also help with Hypothesis 3, the person I am

interviewing may complain about excessive numbers of pedestrians. It

will most noticeably help me with Hypothesis 5, because the person may

complain about too many tourists and the effect they have on the area.

5. Does this place meet all your needs or do you go anywhere else? – This

will obviously help with Hypothesis 2, as the locals will stay inside the

town if it caters for all their needs.

6. What improvements can you suggest this place needs? – Again this will

help with Hypothesis 2, as the locals may not be happy with the number

of shops for them in the area. It could also help with Hypothesis 5;

improvements could include more tourist management techniques.

Questions for tourists

1. What is the purpose of your visit? – Will help with Hypothesis 1 because

their answer is likely to entail an attraction that lured them to the area.

2. What other places will you visit in the area? – This is a fairly reliable way

of showing other tourist locations in the area, the answer is likely to

indicate where else the tourist considers to be an attraction.

3. How did you travel here? – Could help with Hypothesis 5 – too many motor

vehicles could damage the area. More useful just as an interesting and

relevant piece of data to put into a graph.

4. How long is your visit to this area? – In a way shows how attractive the

area is and how much there is to see – the more there is to do the longer

it is necessary to stay for. Again will be interesting when put into graphs.

5. What type of accommodation are you staying in? – Will also be

interesting in graphs, could be helpful with Hypothesis 2 regarding

tourist facilities.




- 16 -

6. Is there anything you dislike and think could be improved about this

place? – This could help with Hypothesis 2, the tourist may not be happy

with the amount of tourist businesses in the area, but it would be more

interesting to see the response lined up with the similar question for the

locals.

Land use Survey

The land use survey is the analysis of businesses on the street. We have split

into groups and allocated streets to survey, afterwards we will share

information and decide whether each business is for tourists or locals. A map

will then be drawn of the entire area showing tourist and local businesses in

different colours, the data will be tallied and put into a pie chart.

The data can be used to show whether the town has a tourist or a local service

bias, and also maps any pattern of businesses in the area. This method is

designed mainly to help with Hypothesis 2 for obvious reasons.

Tax Disc Survey

This method is simply walking along a street looking at tax discs in cars, which

state where the car has come from. This is then entered into a table and drawn

into a map of all the origins that everyone has found.

This data is designed to help with Hypothesis 4; it shows how far someone has

come to see this place. As well as giving a straight answer for this, we can also

see how far a tourist is prepared to travel to get to this place.

Pedestrian Counts

This involves standing at a preselected point for ten minutes and counting

everyone that passes in that time. This is then drawn into a diagram on a map

that resembles contour lines (isoline map) in a way and shows different levels of

pedestrians in the area.

This is designed to help with Hypothesis 3, but shows the data in a more

interesting way, mapping where different numbers of pedestrians are.

Transect Walk

A walk in an area that may be damaged from over use, stopping at various points

and drawing a small sect of the ground (1m x 1m). This data has no further

analysis put to it.

The research is designed to help with Hypothesis 5, because it shows how

healthy the spots in the ground are. The more vegetation there is, the less

regularly the spot is stepped on. If all it is is rocks and dirt then the area has

been noticeably damaged.




- 17 -

Photographs

This is just general photographic evidence that could be used for most of the

hypotheses, but mostly for Hypothesis 1, which explores attractions to tourists,

which could have pictures taken of them.

Field Sketch

A sketch of the main lie of the land, identifying key human and physical points

such as steep cliffs, or a cathedral. I will use a field sketch of Cheddar Gorge

to help with Hypothesis 1, as Cheddar Gorge and other features that can be

seen from the top of it are major attractions.

Informal Interviews

Any extra relevant information picked up while talking to people along the way,

could be useful for any of the hypotheses.

Individual Investigation

My individual investigation will be a return trip to Wells deeper into the summer

(the original trip takes place at the end of May). I will repeat the tax disk

survey and I will also ask 10 people on the street where they come from, thus

imitating that particular question on the survey. I can then compare these

results with the original results and analyse the differences – I expect there to

be more tourists in the second visit.

This will particularly help with Hypothesis 4, as it relates to people outside the

local environment (tourists), but it may also help with Hypothesis 5. If for

example 9 of the 10 people I interview in the streets come from outside the

local environment, it is likely that tourists are dominating the area and may be

having a damaging affect.

Recreational Potential Index

This is a score sheet scoring many different human features of a settlement,

such as parking facilities, 5 is the top score and 1 is the bottom score. Once the

scores are added up the number is then doubled, giving a percentage index of

the attraction potential (what the area has to offer) of the honeypot site. This

helps with Hypothesis 1, exploring the human attractions side of it.

Honeypot Matrix

A more detailed survey of various features in the studied area, such as who the

businesses are aimed at, and evidence of damage. What has been written down

will be analysed to help with several Hypotheses – the comments relate to

Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5.



Section C Hypothesis Testing

- 18 -

I will now review everything mentioned in the methodology, I will use what I

have found to prove or disprove my hypotheses.

Hypotheses






environment.



Questionnaire

1. Age – As I had predicted, there was not much difference between ages, as I

had tried to get a good range of people to interview. But it is noticeable

that given it was a week in term time and these surveys were carried out

during the day, I interviewed no one who was below 18.

2. Gender – The same as above, I had a good balance of gender, though I had

not taken into account the presence of couples in my methodology. This

meant that I had a new unexpected category of gender.

3. Where from – For Wells, the catchment for the questionnaire was spread

out very sparsely to the north, which is understandable because the north‟s

population is sparse and Somerset is much nearer the South Coast. Most of

the visitors came from around Bristol (local) or spread along the south as far

as London or Exeter. There were also a large number of visitors from around

the previously industrial area around Manchester and Liverpool. Strangely,

there were a large number of foreign visitors, which makes me think that

that other countries have a bigger appreciation for architecture

The catchment for Cheddar is very nearly circular, as far north as Liverpool

and Manchester, as far west as the south coast of Wales and as far east as

the M2. There were only a few visitors from the centre of this circle; the

majority were part of the perimeter. Cheddar is a very popular place to visit

for a variety of reasons, I think this is why there is such an even spread

around the country.

Burnham on Sea‟s catchment is far smaller than the other two, most visitors

were from close to Bristol, and there were only a very small number of




- 19 -

visitors from any further north than Birmingham. Burnham on Sea is mainly a

seaside resort, there are plenty to chose from around the country, so it is

unlikely someone is going to travel as far as Burnham on Sea if there is

another resort closer to home. Notice that most of the visitors outside the

locality are from inland areas where there aren‟t any close by resorts.

All three maps undoubtedly back up Hypothesis 4, as there are a healthy

number of visitors from outside the local environment for all three locations.

4. Local/Tourist -

Chart showing the percentages of Locals vs.

Tourists in Wells

60%

40%

Local

Tourist

Though there are still a larger number of locals than tourists, 40% is still a

very larger number of tourists compared to locals, this shows just how

attractive Wells is to tourists.

Chart showing percentages of Locals vs. Tourists

in Cheddar

20%

80%

Local

Tourist




- 20 -

This is an incredibly large number of tourists versus locals, I think this could

be a dangerously large number in terms of facilities for locals and damage to

the area, I will find this out later. This chart makes Cheddar look like an

enormously attractive place to tourists in my mind.

Chart showing the percentages of Locals vs.

Tourists in Burnham on Sea

50%50%Local

Tourist

Burnham on Sea I would have expected to have fewer tourists than any of

the other sites, as it is only really attractive for the beach – Britain is

surrounded by water. Also, there is a lot of housing (this should mean more

locals), which is particularly popular with the elderly; this may explain why I

didn‟t see more local people – mobility problems for elderly people.

Questions for Locals

1. Purpose of Visit -

Chart showing why locals were in Wells

50%

33%

17%

Leisure

Errands

Job




- 21 -

Evidently some locals feel that they still can carry out errands in Wells, but

it is also interesting that half of them are in town for the same reason as

tourists – leisure. I will get a better impression of Hypothesis 2 later in the

question about whether the area meets the person‟s needs.

The chart for Cheddar wasn‟t very interesting since I only interviewed two

locals, one was there for their job and the other was running errands. I

won‟t get a very good impression about Hypothesis 2 in Cheddar from the

questionnaire; I will have to rely on other methods. Though there is the fact

that 80% tourists is such a large number that this itself says something

about Hypothesis 2.

Chart showing why locals were in Burnham on

Sea

20%

80%

Leisure

Errands

It seems that Burnham on Sea is fairly supportive for locals, and I can see

that because being a seaside resort, all the tourist-based facilities are on

the Esplanade, which runs along the beach. The streets further in have

much more sensible shops, including a supermarket.




- 22 -

2. Transport used – This was in both sets of questions, so I have combined all

answers into one chart:

Chart showing modes of transport for visitors to

Wells

20%

60%

20%

Foot

Car

Coach

Private transport is as usual the most popular, because you can go where you

like when you like. Going on foot is only practical if you live in the locality,

coach trips can be attractive if you are only interested in one place. There

is a noticeable lack of public transport used; this is unusual considering that

I did see a bus depot in Wells.


Cheddar

10%

60%

30%

Foot

Car

Coach

Again, no public transport, but this time I don‟t think I saw any evidence of

it. Cars still have the same popularity, but coaches are now more popular

than walking, but this of course just further demonstrates that tourists are

far more common than locals in Cheddar.




- 23 -


Burham on Sea

30%

50%

20%

Foot

Car

Coach

Given the age of the population of Burnham on Sea in general, I am surprised

to see so many walkers, but then again that generation do walk when other

generations would take the car. Once again the car is popular and coaches

are being used by some people, this again surprises me after all I‟ve said

about people only coming to Burnham on Sea for the beach, because I

wouldn‟t expect people going to the beach to use coaches.

3. Benefits of area – The locals in Wells enjoyed factors such as the

tranquillity of the area and how pretty it was. This helps Hypothesis 1, as it

shows that the physical factors in the area are attractive to people.

Given there were only two locals in Cheddar, I did not get a wide variety of

answers, but it is rather obvious what the answer is in an area like Cheddar.

They both liked the fascinating scenery on their doorstep, and I think that

means that Cheddar is very attractive physically.

The locals in Burnham on Sea liked being next to the sea and to have a beach,

but that is of course why they probably moved there in the first place. This

is the only reason I can think of why Burnham on Sea would be attractive

physically, but it definitely is because of it.

No one mentioned any human attractions when being asked about the benfits,

though Wells residents may have been referring to the village when saying

that the area was pretty. And it is human work that has made the Cheddar

caves more attractive, as they are now safe to look round and have

information boards and tour guides.

4. Problems with area – On the whole, Wells residents were happy with the

area, although one couple were unhappy with the cost of cathedral entry,




- 24 -

they felt that being locals they should have to pay less if at all to get in. I

think the only noticeable thing I can gain from this is that Wells is slightly

tailored to tourists, who they know will pay more money to enter the

cathedral, especially given they are only going to visit once.

The residents of Cheddar were unhappy with the high number of tourists in

the area, this is understandable given they appear to dominate Cheddar

completely. Hypothesis 2 is most definitely true in this case, 80% of

interviewees were tourists locals felt strongly enough to mention it,

unfortunately they did not mention how damaging this was to the area.

There weren‟t any major complaints about the area in Burnham on Sea, but

someone did complain about the distance to the shops, but I don‟t think that

helps with our investigation.

This question has helped with Hypothesis 2, but not with Hypothesis 5 as I

so confidently predicted.

5. Does area meet needs? –

Chart showing if Wells met the needs of locals

83%

17%

Yes

No

Wells has thankfully not yet succumbed completely to tourists and is still

serving the locals well, only one person felt that the area was letting them

down.

Cheddar is unfortunately another story, admittedly I did only find two locals,

but I would not expect anything better had I found more. The opinion is 50-

50, one person felt their needs were met, and the other did not. This shows

along with other methods that Cheddar is well on its way to becoming




- 25 -

completely tourist orientated. So Cheddar is backing up Hypothesis 2 being

true.

Chart showing if locals thought Burnham on Sea

met their needs

60%

40%Yes

No

Evidently Burnham on Sea is on its way to being another Cheddar, with 40%

of locals having to go somewhere else to fulfil their needs. But this doesn‟t

quite back up Hypothesis 2, I would need a higher percentage to say no if

that was to happen.

6. Suggested Improvements – Half of the locals in Wells felt that their town

was acceptable, but issues that came up were the local council and parking. I

cannot see how they would find parking unacceptable, there is plenty of it,

but of course if there are a lot of visitors then there may not be enough, or

the car parks could be in the wrong place. But unfortunately these views will

not help any of my hypotheses, as they have not mentioned anything about

tourists.

Locals in Cheddar suggested more convenient shops; at the moment most of

them are designed for tourists. So yet again Hypothesis 2 appears to be

true in Cheddar if not anywhere else. I am still surprised that no one

mentioned anything about the path erosion going up to the top of the gorge,

but that can be taken care of in our own investigations.

The only relevant improvement for Burnham on Sea is that one woman would

have liked to have seen a wider range of shops. This suggests that though

there is a very wide range of shops for tourists, locals have to make do with

a small number of choices. So as with the last question it appears that

Burnham on Sea is halfway between Wells and Cheddar in terms of services

for locals.




- 26 -

Questions for Tourists

1. Purpose of Visit – Frankly, the answers to this question were obvious

(tourism, day trip, journey etc.), or maybe I worded the question wrongly,

but whatever was wrong, the only useful answer out of all the answers was

one from Burnham on Sea. An Austrian woman said she had come to Wells to

see the architecture, now obviously she hadn‟t travelled all the way from

Austria just for that, but it was the architecture that made Wells one of

her destinations during the visit to Britain. So this means that at least for

Wells it is the human features as well as the physical features that attract

people there.

2. It appears that most visitors have, as predicted, planned a journey around

the area to several other points of touristic interest. Cheddar and Wells

featured highly, as did other small, attractive places in the area such as

Glastonbury and the caves. Others were also visiting larger places such as

Weston Super Mare and Bath; and there were also exceptions like someone

was visiting Tintagul in Cornwall, admittedly they were from America. One

group was on a journey around the entire country from Cornwall to Scotland,

and they had dropped into Cheddar. This question has helped me realise that

the areas we were investigating rate very highly in other opinions as they

took the time to go there.

3. Transport – Already covered.

4. Length of visit –

Chart showing how long tourists visiting Wells

were staying in the area

25%

25%

50% Day

Day-Week

1-2 Weeks

I did not expect long stays to be so popular; evidently visitors feel that

Wells, and probably the surrounding area, merit a stay of over a week. This

means that Wells is very attractive to visitors.




- 27 -

Chart showing how long tourists visiting Cheddar

were staying in the area

37%

37%

13%

13%

Day

Day-Week

1-2 Weeks

2 Weeks<

This is more what I expected, though there are people who are staying for a

longer period of time, the majority of people are staying for under a week or

even just as a day visit. I do find this slightly surprising given Cheddar is

the most popular place for tourists out of our three. But equally it fits

together with that, the more results in a graph the more authentic the

pattern, so maybe this is what the pattern the other two settlements would

show had I found more tourists.

Chart showing how long tourists visiting

Burnham on Sea were staying in the area

40%

40%

20%

Day

Day-Week

1-2 Weeks

This graph has just backed up my theory, it shows the same king of pattern

as did Cheddar, so either there is just more to take in in and around Wells or

because of the low number of tourists I did not get a correct representation

of the trend.




- 28 -

So it appears to me that anything beyond a week is a bit too long for most

people and it is more convenient for a day or weekend trip.

5. Accommodation –

Chart showing the accomodation used by tourists

visiting Wells

25%

25%25%

25%

Relatives

B&B

Hotel

N/A

An interesting balance, I would certainly expect the accommodation quoted

in this graph to be the most popular. I am also weary of drawing any

conclusions from this as I only interviewed four tourists. It is worth taking

note that only half of these people used a business to stay in the area, which

will only trigger half the multiplier effect than if they all stayed using a

business.


visiting Cheddar

24%

13%

13%13%

37%B&B

Hotel

Caravan/Camping

Holiday Home

N/A

This, I believe, is a better representation of accommodation figures; a large

proportion of people did not stay more than a day so did not need




- 29 -

accommodation. B&Bs are by far the most convenient, especially if you‟re

only staying for two days. Anything after two days and it is more realistic to

consider other accommodation such a hotel or holiday home. The figures on

this graph will encourage a larger multiplier effect than the graph for Wells,

and I expect there is high demand in the area for forms of accommodation.


visiting Burnham on Sea

20%

40%

20%

20%

B&B

Hotel

Holiday Home

N/A

This graph is surprising for several reasons; first of all, it does not follow

the trend of Cheddar, which I have been taking as the model for

accommodation figures. Secondly, hotels are the most popular, when I would

have thought that only people with a high disposable income would stay in

them. Third and most surprisingly, no one that I interviewed was staying in

the numerous and successful camping and caravan sites in the Brean Sands

sand dunes. I am not sure why this is.

From these graphs I can tell that Hypothesis 2 is likely to be true since most

of the interviewees have found a business to stay at if they were staying for

more than one night.

6. Dislikes and Improvements – Tourists in Wells didn‟t have too much to say

but the one complaint that did come up was parking. This is interesting

because parking was also an issue raised by the locals, and again I am

surprised because in my view there was definitely enough parking. So either

they are just not looking or I have not got the right idea of just how many

people want to park in Wells. But whereas when the locals presented this

view I could not analyse it, when tourists bring it up too then I can say that

it goes against Hypothesis 2, which states that the attraction will be

dominated by facilities for tourists. But Wells cannot even cater for them

properly.




- 30 -

In Cheddar, everyone was happy, despite the number of people I interviewed,

someone from the US even commented that it was better than where they

came from.

The people from Burnham on Sea were unhappy with the conditions of the

toilets, which again goes against Hypothesis 2, which is interesting.

Otherwise there were no complaints, and I am not surprised considering the

fact that Burnham on Sea‟s main income is tourists visiting the seaside.

Land use Survey

The map for Wells has a fairly equal spread of touristic and local businesses,

and as should be expected there are less tourist businesses than local ones. But

18.5% is still a very high number of businesses for tourists, and this shows that

Wells is indeed a honeypot attraction. It is looking like Hypothesis 2 will not be

true in Wells, although there is still plenty to fulfil tourists‟ needs.

Cheddar has a comparatively huge percentage of tourist businesses – 43.7%,

this is the trend I have begun to expect in Cheddar, in fact I am surprised

there weren‟t even more tourist businesses and even less local businesses. In

Cheddar there is also a noticeable pattern, at the bottom of the gorge most of

the businesses are for locals. But further up towards the caves (and this is why

I think this pattern has developed), most and nearly all of the businesses are

for tourists. Unfortunately due to a mistake in communication we missed the

street in between these two stages, which is disappointing because it would have

been interesting to see what businesses were on that street. Hypothesis 2 is

still not quite true in Cheddar – tourist businesses are not dominant – but

tourists would be very at home in Cheddar.

In Burnham on Sea there is also a pattern, although more subtle, on the

Esplanade, which faces out onto the beach, touristic businesses are more

common than local businesses. However, further inland this is reversed, with

local businesses being dominant. The percentage of tourist businesses is 32.8%,

so once again Burnham on Sea is the compromise between Wells and Cheddar.

Hypothesis 2 is yet again not true here, but yet again tourists would be

perfectly happy, especially near to the beach.




- 31 -




- 32 -

Tax Disc Survey

Other than in Norfolk, the catchment for Wells never strays much more than

fifty miles from a motorway. The catchment reaches almost to Newcastle, half

way up the Welsh south coast, not very far south to Exeter, to London and to

the Norfolk coast. So people have travelled only when it is vaguely convenient,

they have not for instance travelled from North Wales where it is a long way

and there are no nearby motorways. But people have travelled from places like

Birmingham where the whole route is on motorways and it will not take too long

to get there (partially due to motorways).

The catchment for Cheddar contains some vital differences, first of all the

catchment extends all the way to the south east peninsular and further along

the welsh south coast. There is also someone from the Isle of Wight but most

surprisingly there is an anomalous person from John o‟Groats, there are no other

visitors from further north than Newcastle. I would put these expansions down

to the popularity of Cheddar, which has everything to suggest it is more popular

than Wells, and arguably excluding John o‟Groats there are still motorways on

the extensions of the catchment.

The catchment for Burnham on Sea is larger than I expected – the only

attraction I can see is the beach, and you don‟t have to travel from Perth for a

nice beach, you don‟t even have to travel from south Wales. The catchment

ranged from Perth in Scotland to mid-Norfolk, along the south coast to

Plymouth, midway along the south coast of Wales and the catchment narrows

close to Sheffield. I am very confused, what I consider to be out of the least

worth visiting attraction out of the three gets a catchment area to rival

Cheddar. What‟s more, but some of the places are far away from any motorway,

close to The Wash for instance. My only explanation is that people have been

attracted to the area by the spectacular scenery, Cheddar and so on; and then

they have gone to Burnham on Sea because it is the local beach resort.




- 33 -




- 34 -

Pedestrian Counts

The isoline map for Wells shows that pedestrian numbers are most dense around

the cathedral, the numbers drop steeply just around the cathedral and the

green in front of it. Numbers are then drop off steadily from there, except

down the High Street and St. Cuthbert‟s Street, where they remain in the 50-

100 bracket for longer than the rest of the area. Certainly this map would

suggest the presence of tourists, as locals are unlikely to have a reason to visit

the cathedral more than once a week, but there is an increased concentration in

the area surrounding the cathedral. The cathedral is likely to be the most

popular place for tourists to visit and this is where the concentration is so that

speaks for itself. Therefore Hypothesis 3 is true in Wells.

In Cheddar there are two „hills‟ of concentration, one much higher than the

other. The first is located around the local businesses towards the bottom of

the gorge; this is around 75 people shorter than the other „hill‟ at the top of the

gorge. This area is concentrated around the caves and museum, which is an

attraction to tourists and not locals. Therefore I can safely say that it is

obvious to me that there are a large number of pedestrian tourists in the area,

as I can identify which pedestrians are likely to be tourists and which are locals

using this map. Hypothesis 3 is true in Cheddar as well.

In Burnham on Sea the concentration is around the supermarket and further up

the High Street, this suggests to me that there weren‟t many tourists in

Burnham on Sea. If there were a lot of tourists then I would expect to see the

concentration on the Esplanade and the beach, which is targeted at tourists.

Instead I am seeing the concentration around areas that are more popular with

locals such as the supermarket. Therefore I don‟t think Hypothesis 3 is correct

in Burnham on Sea.




- 35 -




- 36 -

Transect Walks

On the Cheddar Gorge transect walk we stopped at five different points and

recorded what was on the ground there. There was certain evidence of damage;

first of all there was plenty of ground where any form of plant life including

grass had been worn away. Secondly there was plenty of polished rock and

limestone pavement. It is noticeable that plant life survives next to hard rock,

this is because walkers would rather step on the dirt than a rock for risk of

injury, therefore no one places their foot around the rock and it is safe for

plants to grow. The damage is definitely there and therefore in Cheddar I

would say that Hypothesis 5 is correct.

On the Brean Sands (Burnham on Sea) transect walk we did not take anything

down, but observed just how much damage walking in the wrong place can do.

Because of the number of walkers in the dunes (especially with the numerous

campsites), special walkways have been made to protect the dunes. But these

walkways don‟t often take the fastest route and many people cut across the

sand. In several places grass has anchored itself into the sand, which also stops

the sand from shifting, which creates a permanent dune. But with all these

people taking shortcuts the grass has become damaged in places and has died,

once this has happened the strong wind from the sea can pick up the sand and

once again the dunes move around. This can inconvenience human beings, who

rely on consistency. I would again say that Hypothesis 5 is correct in Burnham

on Sea.




- 37 -




- 38 -


Wells

Disadvantages Points Advantages

1 2 3 4 5

Room for a few people Room for many people

Only one activity offered Wide range of activities

No refreshments Good refreshment facilities

Very difficult to get to Easy to get to

Expensive Good value

Dirty and run-down Clean and well-maintained

No supervision Instructors or safety staff

Rowdy and mistreated No louts or vandalism

Rarely used Popular

No parking facilities Large car park

Sub-Totals 0 4 9 12 10 Total Points 35 (70%)

Some of this I would suggest is just how Wells has always been; room for many

people, activities and accessibility I think have always been like that. The

refreshment facilities and the cost of products are all to do with business

factors such as the multiplier effect and supply and demand. Maintenance and

the car parks have been in response to the popularity of the town by the council.

So the authorities in Wells haven‟t needed to go to an enormous amount of

effort to get a 70% percentage index, which is very high. If this score sheet

really does work and does represent the attractiveness of an area then I would

say that Hypothesis 1 is definitely true in Wells.




- 39 -

Cheddar


1 2 3 4 5









Rarely used Popular



Again, I don‟t think the space is down to efforts by the council. But I do think

that accessibility will have been improved given the popularity of Cheddar, and

so will the maintenance and number of car parks. The wide range of activities

has definitely been enhanced by businesses, such as the ones that do tours

around the caves. Refreshment facilities are profitable in the area, this is why

they are so good, and the number of tourists in the area has boosted the prices;

this could be referred to as the only comprimise of this table, the higher all the

other factors are, the more attractive the area is and the higher the prices are

likely to be due to market forces. As you would expect, Cheddar has scored the

highest percentage index of the three settlements – 78%, this is the mark of an

extremely successful honeypot site. I would say that Hypothesis 1 is true in

Cheddar.




- 40 -

I think Burnham on Sea has tailored the space for tourists itself after it

realised its popularity, the activities too, such as donkey rides, have resulted

from the popularity of the beach. I would have expected better refreshement

facilities to have developed in a place like this, admittedly there are lots of

them but they are all the same small burger vans. Accessibility would have been

the same if it wasn‟t a honeypot attraction. Burnham on Sea isn‟t the kind of

place where the prices will go up to much, maintenance is average, and the

supermarket car park caters very well for the town. I would have expected

more safety than there was on the beach. 72% is what I would expect for a

seaside attraction, it didn‟t really fall down particularly on anything other than

safety, nor excel at anything major. In terms of human attractions I wouldn‟t

say there was much to say Hypothesis 1 is correct in Burnham on Sea, but

physically it is very attractive.

Honeypot Matrix

Wells:

Wells has good road access from the A39 and the A371.

There are several car parks in the city including facilities for coaches.

There is a bus station in Wells, which supplies frequent service to places as far

afield as Yeovil.

Tourists are attracted by the cathedral, the medieval street and the market.

The area has great scenic value in terms of architecture but not noticeably in

terms of landscape.

The majority of businesses in the area are for locals, but there are plenty for

tourists as well.

There are toilet facilities, but not many.

Burnham on Sea


1 2 3 4 5









Rarely used Popular






- 41 -

To help tourists get around there are several signs directing them to places

such as the cathedral, this could also be identified as management of tourists to

protect Wells from damage, by sending the tourists to specific places.

There are plenty of litterbins in the area.

There is no obvious damage or pressure to the area due to overuse.

For Wells Hypothesis 1 is only true for human attractions, as the human

features in the area are both attractive (architecture) and useful (accessibility,

car parks etc.) There is not much physical/scenic value to the area.

Hypothesis 2 is not correct, there are businesses for tourists, but local

businesses are decidedly dominant.

Hypothesis 5 is incorrect, there is no evidence of damage or pressure in the

„city‟ and it would be rather difficult with the lack of natural features (eg.

paving stones not earth).

Cheddar:

The A371 passes close to Cheddar but there are also several „B‟ roads in the

area.

There are several small car parks, but not much space for larger vehicles.

I didn‟t notice any evidence of public transport in Cheddar.

Tourists are attracted to Cheddar to see the caves and the landscape, and also

cultural traditions such as local cider and cheese.

Cheddar is extremely scenic, particularly the gorge.

Businesses on Cliff Street are devoted to tourists, although other areas

towards the bottom of the gorge are almost all local businesses.

There is a large area at the top of the gorge with education on the gorge and

caves, I expect this includes an information centre and the like.

Several toilet facilities are located in Cheddar, there are also plenty of

litterbins.

There is a large trail leading up to the top of the gorge, not to mention several

caves containing trails and information boards.

There are plenty of measures to prevent environmental damage; gravel has been

laid down on part of the gorge walkway to prevent erosion, the higher part of

the walkway is fenced of with a high fence and a kissing gate to prevent horse

or bike riding. Despite these efforts there is still plenty of path erosion and

limestone pavement all the way up this walkway.

In Cheddar I would say Hypothesis 1 is totally correct, the area has great

physical beauty as well as attractive human features such as the cheese. So

tourists have flocked to the area and the services have grown to accommodate

the visitors making the area all the more attractive.




- 42 -

Despite the larger number of businesses for tourists in Cheddar compared to

the other two areas, I would still say that Hypothesis 2 is incorrect because the

locals are still adequately catered for.

Hypothesis 5 I think is correct in Cheddar; despite efforts to prevent further

path erosion I believe it is already too late. The paths have been reduced to

bare rock and limestone pavement is evident in numerous places.

Burnham on Sea:

Burnham on Sea is surrounded by a good network of roads, the M5 passes close

by, as does the A38 and there are several „B‟ roads that come off both of these

into the town.

The large car park for the supermarket caters very well for Burnham on Sea,

but I did not see any parking for large vehicles such as coaches.

There is evidence of an adequate bus service for the area.

The coast and beach attract tourists to this area, but also the atmosphere that

comes with this.

It is also the beach that gives the area its scenic value.

The esplanade is tourist orientated in terms of businesses, but there are plenty

of businesses for locals further inland.

The information centre on the promenade provides tourist information.

There are also toilet facilities on the promenade.

Although there are no paths or trails in Burnham on Sea, there is in Brean

Sands, in an attempt to control the erosion of the semi-permanent dunes.

There are plenty of litterbins in the area.

The paths and trails in Brean Sands is the only attempt to control environmental

damage in the area.

The only environmental damage there is likely to be in Burnham on Sea is on the

beach, which I expect is overused. But out of town in Brean Sands is definitely

overused and there is sand erosion on the dunes.

Hypothesis 1 in Burnham on Sea I think is correct, the beach (a physical factor)

will have first attracted tourists to the area, but the beach is way more

attractive when complimented by an attractive and town that can cater for

tourists (human factor).

Hypothesis 2 I definitely do not think is true in Burnham on Sea, the esplanade

gives tourists all they are likely to need, but locals get their fair share as well,

with plenty of local businesses on the streets further back.

Hypothesis 5 is true in Brean Sands, the damage there is quite obvious, but

Burnham on Sea itself is an urban area and has not sustained noticeable damage.




- 43 -

Hypothesis Proving

This is where I piece all the conclusions I have drawn and decide whether each

Hypothesis is correct or not:


Question 3 for locals certainly showed that the interviewees found the places

they were in physically attractive, and perhaps they were referring to human

attractions as well. Question 1 for tourists I had hoped would reveal more than

it did, but I did get one answer from an Austrian woman who said she had visited

Wells to see the architecture. Here are some pictures of attractions in the

area:

The cathedral and the medieval street in Wells are major human attractions and

must be one of the main reasons why tourists visit this town.

The caves and the gorge are major physical attractions in Cheddar, and are also

a major reason for tourists to visit.




- 44 -

There are also plenty of noticeable attractions on my field sketch; some are

labelled, such as Brent Knoll and the Mendip Hills. And of course Cheddar Gorge

itself.

The recreational potential index certainly implies that the human attractiveness

of the area is related to how many tourists visit. The higher the percentage

index the score, the more tourists I observed in the area. The honeypot matrix

also suggests that both physical and human attractions attract tourists,

although in Wells it is mainly human attractions.

So I would say that Hypothesis 1 is totally correct in Somerset.

Hypothesis 2: Honeypot sites will be dominated by shops, services and

facilities for tourists so locals are not adequately catered for.

Question 1 for locals showed that some locals came into Wells for their errands,

the locals in Cheddar did not reveal very much – there were only two of them.

And in Burnham on Sea most of the locals used the town for their errands.

Question 4 for locals indicated that both Wells and Cheddar were using the

increased popularity due to tourists to raise prices and the like, there were no

complaints like this in Burnham on Sea.




- 45 -

Wells still caters for the needs of their locals very Well, and Burnham on Sea is

adequate. But Cheddar is a different story, with only two locals to be found and

the opinion being 50-50, I don‟t think Cheddar caters for the locals‟ needs and

that Hypothesis 2 is true in this settlement.

Question 6 for locals suggested the same thing, Wells had no relevant

complaints, locals in Cheddar are unhappy and there were occasional complaints

in Burnham on Sea.

Question 5 for tourists suggests that Hypothesis 2 could be correct; a lot of

the accommodation used is from businesses.

Question 6 for tourists goes against Hypothesis 2 in both Wells and Burnham on

Sea, as they could not cater properly for tourists. Cheddar, according to all

eight tourists I interviewed, had no problems with it, and this again indicates

that Hypothesis 2 is true only in Cheddar.

In the land use survey I found that Hypothesis 2 is not true for this in any of

the settlements, although Cheddar was closest to it. This was because there

were plenty of businesses for tourists but still plenty for locals. This is also

exactly what the Honeypot Matrix indicates as well.

Putting this all together, I have come to the conclusion that Hypothesis 2 is not

true in any of the settlements, although it is almost true in Cheddar.


In Question 4 for locals, there were complaints from Cheddar locals of too many

tourists, but this was the only relevant complaint.

But the main method for this Hypothesis is the pedestrian count. Having

analysed the isoline maps for each settlement I have come to the conclusion

that Hypothesis 3 is true in both Wells and Cheddar, but not Burnham on Sea,

which suggested that locals were the main pedestrians in the area.


environment.

The questionnaire catchments for all three settlements found there to be a

healthy number of visitors from outside the local environment, and support

Hypothesis 4 entirely.

This was also found for the question on being a local or a tourist, more tourists

were found in Cheddar than anywhere else (80%).




- 46 -

The tax disk catchments definitely showed visitors from outside the local

environment, and there were some very interesting catchments. But the main

thing is that Hypothesis 4 is definitely correct for all three settlements.



The transport used to get to the area is still primarily cars, which could have a

damaging effect.


For my individual investigation I returned to Wells deeper into the summer than

the original investigation and repeated the tax disk survey and the questionnaire

catchment. The aim was to help with Hypothesis 4, as I expected to see more

visitors from outside the local environment when I went back at a time when

tourists are more active. It was carried out without many problems, but I do

not feel the data is particularly accurate; this can be discussed in detail in the

evaluation section.




- 47 -

Surprisingly, this catchment is nowhere near as big as the original one for Wells,

even though it was conducted at the height of the summer holidays. I think

that this is because it was carried out from between 10 and 12 in the morning,

rather than after lunchtime.

The tax disk catchment spreads as far north as just south of the „ex-industrial‟

area around Manchester and Liverpool. It goes along the south coast from

Canterbury to almost as far as Plymouth, and there is a large cluster around

Wells. I expected it to be larger than the catchment from the previous survey,

but this did not happen.

The questionnaire catchment is equally small, only going as far as Abergavenny

and Portsmouth, whereas the original catchment was as spread out as the one

for tax disks.

However, I still think that Hypothesis 4 is correct, as there has been plenty of

other evidence to show this.



Section D Conclusion

- 48 -

This is where I bring all the conclusions about my hypotheses together and

decide the answer to this question:

To what extent do Wells, Cheddar and Burnham on Sea demonstrate the

characteristics of a honeypot site?

A honeypot site is a place of attraction to tourists that is comparable to the

attraction of a honeypot to bees. These attractions may be physical, such as

Cheddar Gorge, or human, such as the cathedral city of wells. In a honeypot site

there are many facilities and shops that are there to exploit the increased

tourism, these in turn encourage more tourists, as they make the site more

attractive. If these sites become too popular, they will reach and may exceed

their carrying capacity, which will damage the sites and make them less

attractive. This has been seen along many popular rural walkways, which have

become eroded due to over use. Therefore management schemes are in place in

many areas such as car parks in the New Forest, these encourage tourists to

travel to certain areas and thus protecting other more fragile areas.

Wells

In Hypothesis 1 I found that Wells was extremely attractive in terms of human

attractions such as the cathedral.

In Hypothesis 2 I found that Wells still caters for its locals very well despite

good tourist facilities.

In Hypothesis 3 I found that a large number of the pedestrians in Wells were

tourists.

In Hypothesis 4 I found that a large proportion of visitors to Wells were from

outside the local environment.

In Hypothesis 5 I found that there was no evidence that Wells was suffering

damage due to overuse.

Therefore I feel that on balance Wells does demonstrate most of the

characteristics of a honeypot site and certainly attracts many people from

outside the local environment

Cheddar

In Hypothesis 1 I found that Cheddar was extremely attractive both physically

and artificially, the human attractions are there as a result of the popularity of

Cheddar due to physical attractions.



Section D Conclusion

- 49 -

In Hypothesis 2 I found that Cheddar adequately caters for its locals but is on

the verge of being inadequate and concentrating too much on tourists.

In Hypothesis 3 I found that a considerably large number of Cheddar‟s

pedestrians were tourists, centred round the major tourist attractions.

In Hypothesis 4 I found that most (80%) of Cheddar‟s visitors were tourists and

the maps showed that a larger number of visitors were from outside the local

environment.

In Hypothesis 5 I found that there was significant damage on the footpath up

the side of Cheddar Gorge from overuse.

Therefore I feel that on balance Cheddar definitely demonstrates the

characteristics of a honeypot site and it is obvious that a comparatively huge

number of people visit Cheddar and the surrounding area.

Burnham on Sea

In Hypothesis 1 I found that Burnham on Sea has the physical attraction of the

beach and has many human attractions in terms of the quality of the area.

In Hypothesis 2 I found that Burnham on Sea still caters adequately for the

locals as well as the tourists.

In Hypothesis 3 I found that evidence suggested the majority of the

pedestrians were in fact locals and that therefore Hypothesis 3 was incorrect.

In Hypothesis 4 I found that Burnham on Sea attracted a fair share of visitors

from outside the local environment.

In Hypothesis 5 I found that Brean Sands, which are close to Burnham on Sea,

have sustained considerable damage from people not sticking to the marked out

trails and walking over the dunes.

Therefore I feel that on balance Burnham on Sea demonstrates some

characteristics of a honeypot site, with the noticeable absence of an increased

number of pedestrians.



Section E Evaluation

- 50 -

This where I need to evaluate the reliability of some of my methods and the

data from them.

Questionnaire

First of all, I feel that the sample size (10) was far too small and that it should

have been around 30. By only using 10 results I encountered several problems,

such as analysing data from the locals in Cheddar; there were only two out of

the ten I interviewed. Had I interviewed or at least shared with other groups

around 30 people I would have then had 6 locals to analyse data from.

The limitations of this method are that data is dependant on how much the

person being interviewed has to say; if they don‟t feel like telling you much you

can‟t pressurize them. Many people turn down the request to answer the

questionnaire, so it can take quite a long time to collect the data. This survey is

also dependant on factors affecting whether people feel like being out and

about, for instance weather.

If the questionnaire were to be conducted in a particular area then the next

problem would be that the people interviewed would again be biased. For

instance if all the questions were conducted outside the caves in Cheddar then

most of the interviewees would be tourists. Thankfully I conducted the

questionnaire over a fairly large area most of the time, but in Cheddar this large

area was primarily toward the top of the gorge, and this may be why so many of

my interviewees were tourists (80%).

The most useful question was whether the visitor was a tourist or a local,

because at this is at the root of my studies. The least useful question was the

purpose of visit for tourists, as I think I worded the question wrongly in

relevance to what I was trying to find out, so that I got irrelevant results.

There was also a problem with bias, I aimed to balance the gender and age of

the people I interviewed (as this affects the views they have), but this was

extremely difficult. For instance, in Burnham on Sea the majority of the

pedestrians I saw were elderly ladies, so it was very difficult to balance the

gender and age of the interviewees. Added to this is the fact that in a situation

such as Burnham on Sea, to get an unbiased sample would not represent the real

views of the area because the majority of them are of a particular age and/or

gender.

I feel that the data may not have been accurate due to the small sample size

and other small mistakes. However, I think that the data has at least given an

impression of the trends that were likely to appear had I interviewed more

people.




- 51 -

Some of the answers interestingly went against the results of the rest of my

methods, I believe that‟s just because of human opinion – it doesn‟t always agree

with real data.

I have managed to draw many conclusions from the questionnaire data, although

some of them were unexpected and I didn‟t get some of the answers that I

predicted I would get. A lot of the conclusions that I drew from the

questionnaire data quickly became obsolete as conclusions from other methods

stacked up against them. Hard facts are much more trustworthy than human

opinion, and this was an accepted fact from the start. But questions such as

“where do you come from?” result in hard facts anyway. Whereas “why have you

come here today?” result in ambiguous answers. So due to the nature of these

answers I could only draw strong conclusions from some questions, but some of

them were thwarted by insufficient sample size. For example my graphs on

accommodation have too many categories when analysing just four answers.

So improvements that could be made are a larger sample size, better

worded/thought out questions and making sure that the time of day, year and

weather conditions are the same when the survey is carried out. Keeping moving

is another key factor; the survey should be carried out all over the area

wherever there are pedestrians to keep answers unbiased.

There are many other methods of proving the hypotheses that some of the

questions are relevant to, and ultimately they were much more successful. But

some of the questions were very useful, such as “where have you come from?” I

think that asking questions that are completely relevant to the hypotheses

would have been more successful, for example “have you noticed any damage to

the area?” This would be more effective than hoping that the interviewee would

mention damage in their answer to another question.

For a better yield in results without going out and asking 30 different people,

there could have been organised sharing between research groups. The

questions were designed this way – we were all asking the same ones – but we

only shared the data if we thought it necessary, unlike some of the other

methods where we made sure that we shared all the data together.

Land use Survey

I feel that all the streets that needed to be covered have been covered; the

other ones did not have many businesses on them. One of the main problems

with collecting data was that group communication was paramount. Each

research group would be assigned a particular street to cover, and then the data

would be shared at a later time. The first problem with this was discovered in

Cheddar, where two streets had similar names, this resulted in two groups




- 52 -

covering the same street and the other street was completely neglected. The

biggest disadvantage of this method is the sharing of data in my view.

The next problem also stemmed from this – when the data was being collected

the collector would write down exactly what the business was. Later on when

the data was being shared the data would be read out as what the business did

e.g. T. Wells Carpets would be read out as a carpet shop. But the data needed

to be plotted as to whether the shop was for locals or tourists (some people had

a third section called tourists/locals); this is a matter of opinion and means that

not everyone has the same diagram. But more importantly some people could

easily have got it wrong in terms of if the business was for tourists or for locals.

Some groups also came across the problem that some properties were vacant

and being converted. Common sense would easily have come to the conclusion

that these properties should be left out, but think again and you realise that the

land is still being used, or more accurately will be used, and it is unknown

whether this will be for tourists or for locals.

The most useful map was that of Cheddar, this showed a definite pattern of

where the touristic businesses were and where the local businesses were. This

pattern even disproved all my other conclusions about Hypothesis 2 in Cheddar.

Having spent most of my time toward the top of the Gorge, I had only got a

proper impression of the touristic part of Cheddar. The map shows clearly that

further down, toward the bottom, the locals of Cheddar had their own area that

catered perfectly well for them.

The map of Wells was almost useless however, the businesses were completely

evenly spread: there was no pattern as to where the different businesses were.

I even expected there to be more tourist businesses closer to the cathedral but

there weren‟t.

One of the good things about this method is that so long as enough streets are

covered in the area, the data will not be biased and will be reasonably accurate.

That is the good thing about buildings, in a day they don‟t move or change at all,

though they may move fairly quickly depending on the kind of area it is, what I

mean by this is that if I returned to Cheddar next year some of the businesses

may have moved on and been replaced. All the maps disprove Hypothesis 2, and

as I said, if it wasn‟t for the map of Cheddar I would have said that Hypothesis

2 was true there.

This method was very successful and managed to answer Hypothesis 2 with

strong conclusions and with the other relevant methods only there for backup. I

don‟t think it would be safe to apply these conclusions elsewhere, as all three

settlements came up with very different results.




- 53 -

It may have been slightly more useful to have checked every single street for

businesses, but weighed up against how much more time this would have taken it

would not have been worth it. If a history were kept of the businesses in the

area, it would have been interesting and useful to plot a map for each year in

terms of the types of businesses in the area. By doing this the multiplier effect

would probably have been visible.

Although there are other methods relevant to Hypothesis 2 (mostly questions in

the questionnaire), this one is the most useful and produces the most certain

conclusions. The other main method is the honeypot matrix, but this is no

better than the land use survey and instead agrees with and compliments this

method.

The main improvement for the group sharing would be spending more time

assigning streets to groups and making sure each group know what they‟re doing.

When sharing data I think it might be more effective if everyone agreed on

whether a business is for tourists or for locals when plotting. As it was we were

packing a large amount of work into a small space and if we had just spent more

time over it I feel that it may have been more effective.

Tax Disk Survey

With the tax disk survey, plenty of data was collected, at least 30 disks were

recorded for each group and even after that we shared the data so that the

catchment map was very detailed. There were no problems as such when

collecting the data, given there were so many cars to chose from, but plenty of

the tax disks didn‟t say where they were from, one of the many examples are

hire cars, which have special disks. I also got some very suspicious looks, and in

fact when I was repeating the survey for my individual investigation someone

asked me if I was checking for parking permits.

There were however, several disadvantages with the actual method. First of all

it assumes that everyone buys their tax disks close by to where they live, which

is not always true and it is not unlikely that I could end up noting down a visit

from Nottingham when that person really came from London. The second

problem is from conducting the survey all in a particular area; first of all it is

likely to give results from people who are all there for the same reason. For

example Burnham on Sea supermarket car park is likely to contain mostly people

from the localised area doing their shopping (at least the area of the car park

closest to the supermarket). And then when it comes to sharing results you may

find that several other groups have studied the exact same area and all have the

same results.




- 54 -

This is another method that is dependant on people, so there will be fewer cars

from outside the local environment at 8am than 2pm because tourists will still be

travelling to their destination. This also means that different ratios of

locals:tourists will be found at different times of year (what my individual

investigation intended to prove).

I found all of the data helped a lot with Hypothesis 4; there was no data that

wasn‟t really useful. I believe that with such a large sample size, and what I

believe is a spread out survey area, my results are credibly representative. All

three maps supported Hypothesis 4, which I think I could have answered before

even doing the survey – this was indeed the method that produced the clearest

conclusions.

I have definitely proved Hypothesis 4, with clear conclusions that are obvious if

you look at the catchments. I believe that I could apply these conclusions to any

sites that demonstrate some of the characteristics these sites do, because so

many of the visitors to these sites are from outside the local environment.

The only improvements I could make would be to make absolutely sure that I

cover the entire of the town centre and that I conduct the survey at the same

time of day, week and year. I think this was done fairly reliably anyway. There

is no more reliable way of telling where the owner of the car lives than the tax

disk, but I must point out that using tax disks in by no means foolproof. The

other method that can be used to solidly prove/disprove Hypothesis 4 is to use

the questionnaire catchment instead. Ultimately I think this would be more

reliable, and you could even ask extra people where they came from having

completed 30 questionnaires.

There was nothing wrong with the way we shared the data, all it required was

someone with good geographical knowledge of the UK to tell us where each place

that we had written down was on the map.

Pedestrian Counts

I feel that 10 minutes and the range of points at which the pedestrian counts

were conducted was adequate to produce enough results. There was a large

problem in Burnham on Sea due to the weather, it was pouring with rain, which

meant that areas where there was shelter (e.g. the overhang at the

supermarket) were bustling with people and areas such as the seafront where

there is no shelter the was hardly anyone around.

This is also another method affected by the time of day, so that to make sure

the data is completely accurate, someone has to be standing at each point for 10

minutes recording pedestrians. Otherwise you could end up counting the same




- 55 -

person at different points, and it can only be a proper representation if

everything is done at the same point in time.

I found the data for Cheddar most useful, as the two peaks clearly show where

the locals congregate and where the tourists congregate. Burnham on Sea

however had a fairly even spread of pedestrians throughout and the pedestrian

count was not useful. The data is not biased as such, but neither is it

representative – the weather was changeable and these pedestrian counts were

not all carried out at the same time. However, I still feel that the data may

represent real trends and that this is really the level of pedestrians in different

areas.

The isoline maps supported Hypothesis 3 in both Wells and Cheddar, but in

Burnham on Sea it turned out that the highest concentration of pedestrians was

around the supermarket, indicating the majority of pedestrians were in fact

locals.

This method has single-handedly proved/disproved Hypothesis 3 – depending on

which town. Given the answers varied from town to town I would say that it is

not safe to apply these conclusions to other honeypot locations. The conclusions

I made were definite, but different from each other.

I think the only way to do this method properly would be to have one person on

each point at the same time, and maybe they could record over a period of just

one minute to reduce the chance of recording the same person twice. To make

the results really (and unnecessarily) accurate the points could be more

frequent so that the isoline map is more detailed. It would be useful to look at

the pedestrian counts for every hour in the working day, see how they change; I

would expect there to be more pedestrians around local facilities to start off

with, but the bias would then slowly change to tourist facilities. There is no

other easy method to measure pedestrians that I can think of.

Honeypot Matrix

It can happen that not enough detail is put into the honeypot matrix, and that a

vital detail is missed. Also, it can sometimes be difficult to find the answer to

some of the questions if you haven‟t had a detailed enough look around the

settlement. This method is only designed to help with other methods relevant

to the same hypotheses and cannot really stand on its own, as the factors I am

commenting on are very specific. The honeypot matrix agreed with the

conclusions I made for each hypothesis – as I said it is designed to help with

them. I wouldn‟t recommend coming to any conclusions based purely on the

honeypot matrix, it certainly helps to reinforce conclusions, but that is all it

does. If I needed to make this method more detailed, I would just add more




- 56 -

questions relevant to each hypothesis, but given this is unnecessary then I would

not go to all the effort.


This method is very easy and non-problematic to complete, as all that is done is

to give the settlement ratings for different features. Of course this does have

the limitation of that is all you do, but then this is like the honeypot matrix, it

aids in proving/disproving a hypothesis, but doesn‟t do this by itself. I thought

the category about prices was a bit contradictory, if all the other categories

scored highly, then the area must be in high demand, and therefore the prices

are likely to be higher. But then again I‟m sure prices have an effect on the

area‟s popularity and it is necessary to keep this category in there. I think that

most of the questions are well chosen, which makes this method a very good

representation of the human attractions of the area. This method helped prove

Hypothesis 1 in Wells and Cheddar, but only just in Burnham on Sea, I think it

was very influential when it came to hypothesis proving. I would recommend the

recreational potential index for analysing the human attractions of any

settlement or area. I don‟t think any improvements could be made to this

method, it has been very well thought out so that it can analyse the human

features of a honeypot attraction effectively.

Field Sketch

The field sketch depends highly on drawing skill to make sure that you can

replicate what you are seeing down on paper. The other problem is making sure

that you take in everything within a plane of view. To make it easier a picture is

taken first, and then the sketch can be done from the picture, which shows the

area that should be drawn. If it rains, then a serious problem is presented if

you are drawing out on an open hilltop, another reason for taking a picture and

sketching later on.

This method does not help to prove/disprove any hypotheses, but instead is used

to show some of the main features from Cheddar Gorge out to the coast. The

original method was so unreliable that the improvement has already been made –

taking a picture first.

Transect Walks

I think enough data was gathered, data should simply be gathered whenever

there I a noticeable change in terrain. There were no problems collecting the

data, we just simply stopped at certain points, measured out a box, drew what

was in the box and moved on. The only problem there might have been is that

due to the erosion the path up the side of Cheddar Gorge is hazardously slippery

and could have caused an injury.




- 57 -

The limitation of this method is that drawing a small section of ground means

that you have to look out for any section that is worth drawing. But the

advantage of doing it this way is that it doesn‟t take nearly as long just to pick a

few key sections of path. We did this entire exercise as a group so there are no

problems on the cooperation front.

Box D was particularly interesting because there was a particularly large and

dangerous rock in the middle. And in its shelter there was a shrub growing, this

showed that so many people were stepping on the area that the only way life

could exist was to take shelter where no one was stepping. There was no least

interesting box; all the others were useful in one way or another. I believe that

I have a good spread of data by examining the entire path, and that the data is

not biased as a result. The results put me in no doubt that Hypothesis 5 was

true in Cheddar.

If a transect walk like this one was carried out somewhere else and the same

kind of results were found I would say that that area has definitely suffered

environmental damage.

I don‟t think much would improve if I used more data, and the method could only

be made more reliable if we looked out for any different types of section than

the ones drawn already. There aren‟t many obvious or easily executable

alternatives to this method.


I think that I surveyed enough tax disks, but as I said before about the

questionnaire I did not ask enough people where they came from. But I was

trying to keep as many factors consistent as possible, and this meant doing the

same survey including the same quantities. For the reliability of the method,

see the relevant sections (this is a repeated method).

I unfortunately did not conduct the survey at the right time of day, and I think

this had an extremely adverse affect on my results. My original survey took

place just after lunchtime, at the peak of tourism time; but my repeated survey

took place at 10am, when most tourists are still travelling to Wells. So my

results showed a smaller catchment that originally, despite being deeper into

the tourist season. This is reflected further by the fact that I conducted my

survey on pedestrians later on (11am) and got a larger catchment and a larger

number of people from outside the local environment than with the tax disk

survey.

Although this method suggested that Wells does not follow the usual pattern of

tourism, I disregarded it having realised the large error I had made. Thanks to

this error my individual investigation has been a failure in terms of providing any




- 58 -

conclusions, on the plus side I conducted the survey well and there were no

problems while I was there.

So obviously the way to improve this method is to keep all variables other than

the time of year the same. So the survey would be conducted over the same

area of Wells and at the same time of day and so on. For any other

improvements see the relevant sections (this is a repeated method).

a coursework investigation -...

Documents