-
For each of the settlements I chose to study I had to work out how large they were. To do this I used the Internet to find out their population(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/).
- Next I worked out how large the settlement was in it area. This was done by looking at how much space these settlements take on an Ordnance survey map.
- Then I carried out a retail analysis survey using a recording sheet that I had designed. This involves going to each settlement and looking at they types of shops they have to see if there are more higher or lower order shops. We also measured the total number of services.
- Then we measured the sphere of influence of the settlements. This was done by carrying out a tax disc survey. This works by going to the car parks in a settlement and looking at the tax discs (see example below) When drivers pay their road tax the disc say where it was bought which will be near to where the diver lives. This means it tells us where the cars in the car park have come from, this tell us sphere of influence. This method was chosen because lots of data can be collected very quickly. When you survey people it takes a lot longer to gain the same amount of data.
If the larger settlements have the a greater range of shop selling more higher order goods and people travel further to go to these, my hypothesis will be proven correct.
The name on this tax disc is useful as it informs use the post office at which the tax disc was purchased. The problem is this my not have been brought from a hometown but the persons parents post office for example.
My second hypothesis was; as a settlement increases in size it becomes more accessible and has a greater sphere of influence. To test this I did the following things:
- I took the information I had already got from my last hypothesis on Settlement size.
- Next I counted up the number of A road, motorways and railway lines that entered the settlement. I did this using Ordnance survey maps.
- Then I compared this data to the sphere of influence data I had collected from the tax disc survey.
If the settlements with lots of large roads and railways had a large sphere of influence my hypothesis will be proven correct.
My third hypothesis was; settlements that have a tourism function will have a greater sphere of influence than settlements that don’t rely on tourism.
To find out if the settlement had a tourism function we used the information gained from the retail survey analysis sheets. Settlements with a tourism function are ones which have lots of services aimed at tourists (e.g. outdoor clothing shops, hotels, gift shops, tourist information centres). We then created a total for the number of these services. This total was then compared with the sphere of influence data that had been gained from the tax disc survey. The hypothesis would be correct if it turned out that the settlements with many tourist functions had a larger sphere of influence.
Results and analysis
Evidence to test my first hypothesis.
“As a settlement increases in size, the range and number of services will increase. This will increase the sphere of influence.”
*1 - The tax disc data show the average distance travelled to visit this settlement. This was done by adding up the total distance from all the visiting cars and dividing this by the total number of cars surveyed at each settlement. This took along time to calculate but it was the most accurate method.
*2 – This was done by counting up the total number services which were considered to be high order ones and dividing this number by the total number of services.
This graph generally shows that larger settlements like Carlisle and Colchester have more services and that a greater percent of these services are higher order ones and that these bigger places have a larger sphere of influence. But Keswick goes against the hypothesis because it was smaller than Carlisle (only 0.8 Sq miles) and it had a large sphere of influence with many high order services. Although Keswick did not have as many total services as the bigger settlements.
This graph generally shows that settlements with a higher population like Carlisle and Colchester have more services and that a greater percent of these services are higher order ones and that these bigger places have a larger sphere of influence. But Keswick goes against the hypothesis because it has a lower population than Carlisle (only 6000 people) and it had a large sphere of influence with many high order services. Although Keswick did not have as many total services as the bigger settlements.
1/blue= High order 2/purple= Low order.
Carlisle Colchester
Keswick Tiptree
These pie charts show that Tiptree the smallest settlement had the smallest percent of high order goods.
The map clearly shows that Keswick has the greatest sphere of influence. People travel a great distance to visit here. These people tend to be tourists on holiday. Whilst fewer tourists go to the other settlements
To produce this map i used the scale line on the map and a compass so a sto gfet the circular sphere of influence.
Evidence to test my second hypothesis.“As a settlement increases in size it becomes more accessible and has a greater sphere of influence.”
My maps above suggest that the hypothesis could be wrong because Colchester has a bigger area that Carlisle and has a smaller sphere of influence. This is because Colchester is surrounded by other settlements like Chelmsford, Braintree; Ipswich (competition for customers) Whilst Carlisle is on its own (less competition) so people from further around travel to go here. Keswick also goes against the hypothesis because it is small, has poorer access but many people travel far to go here.
The maps also give evidence to suggest the hypothesis could be right because Tiptree not accessible and people don’t travel far to go here.
Overall this hypothesis was not clearly proven. Accessibility does affect sphere of influence, however other factors like nearness to other large settlements has greater control.
I have used a logarithmic graph here, as these highlight the changes more clearly.
It shows that Tiptree has the worst accessibility with no main roads or rail lines and the smallest sphere of influence. This proves the hypothesis right. But Keswick has a larger sphere of influence and poorer access as well, this proves the hypothesis wrong.
Evidence to test my third hypothesis:
“Settlements that have a tourism function will have a greater sphere of influence than settlements that don’t rely on tourism.”
The above graph clearly shows that there is a correlation between the number of tourist facilities and sphere of influence. Tiptree had few tourist related services (i.e. 2) and had the smallest sphere of influence (i.e. 4.09 miles). Whilst Keswick had the most tourist facilities (i.e. 29) and had the greatest sphere of influence (108.9 miles). These results prove the hypothesis correct, tourist related facilities do encourage people from greater distances to visit a settlement; this means the sphere of influence is increased.
Conclusion
The aim of my project was to examine how the textbook theories on range of services, accessibility, size of settlement, and tourism function control sphere of influence of settlements. To see how these theories control sphere of influence I need to examine the results of my hypothesis.
My first hypothesis was; as a settlement increases in size, the range and number of services will increase. This will increase the sphere of influence
By looking at my pie charts, graph and maps for this hypothesis it can be seen that bigger settlements do have more services and often these are higher order ones and a big sphere of influence. But sometimes smaller places that attract tourists, have a large sphere of influence (e.g. Keswick).The U.K. maps I have included show average sphere of influence of each settlement. These also highlight that Keswick has the greatest sphere of influence.
My second hypothesis was; as a settlement increases in size it becomes more accessible and has a greater sphere of influence. My graph clearly shows that accessibility does affect sphere of influence but it appears not to have lots of control on it, because Keswick was smaller, had not great access, but a great sphere of influence. I think that other factors pay a more important role at controlling sphere of influence and if people really want to go somewhere nice like Keswick they will put up with bad roads.
My third hypothesis was; Settlements that have a tourism function will have a greater sphere of influence than settlements that don’t rely on tourism. My results for this test showed that there was a strong correlation and that people travelled further to Keswick and Keswick had a tourist function. Although it’s hard to say whether the tourists go to Keswick especially to use the available facilities. I would have thought that these facilities are a sign not a cause of tourists going here and that the main reason tourists go here is because of the beautiful surroundings of the National Park. I would think that without the mountains few people would go to Keswick. I would have liked to study this idea further if I had had more time by carrying out a questionnaire.
The results from my hypotheses help me to fulfil my aim. They show that many factors do have a control on the sphere of influence of a settlement. For example, people do travel further to larger places, which have more shops, and people can travel further to places with good access. But it seems that the function of a settlement has a big impact on sphere of influence because Keswick and its tourism attracted people from a long way away.
It would have been interesting to repeat my study in winter when the tourists were not in Keswick; I think my results would have been very different then.
Project evaluation
Overall I feel that my project has been a success I have managed to test my hypothesis and achieve my aim. Although I felt that I would have liked more time in Carlisle as I was not able to survey the city in enough detail and I’m sure there may have been more services that I missed out in the survey. Also when we were in Carlisle it rained heavily which made collecting data difficult.
If I was to take my project further I would also like to study how people’s values can affect sphere of influence. I’m sure Keswick had a large sphere of influence partly because people have a good opinion of the place (no crime, nice place). I would predict that places like Brixton and Dagenham would have a smaller sphere of influence because of people think that there is more crime. I would have also liked to examine how the spacing of settlements affects sphere of influence as it appears that isolated settlements (Carlisle) have a greater sphere of influence because of less competition. I would also have like to done this project again in winter when no tourists were there, I predict that then the sphere of influence of Keswick would have been a lot smaller.
Research into sphere of influence can prove very useful to people because it helps people to understand how to attract people to a town this can then help local business.
References
Geography - An integrated approach, David Waugh.
This source of information proved very useful it helped to provide the background theories for my investigation.
This web site was used to gain the maps for my project.
This web site was used to gain the maps for my project.
Getting around Cumbria- The Lake District, Cumbria county council.
This travel book helped me to find information on bus routes and roads entering Keswick and Carlisle, although, its maps were not very detailed and I found the Ordnance survey maps more useful.
Ordnance survey maps for the Lake District and Colchester area.
1:50,000 Land ranger map
These maps proved very useful at providing information on roads and railway lines entering each settlement.