To test the attractiveness of Southampton’s CBD I will do an environmental quality survey of certain sites. This survey requires you to give ratings for the quality of the different aspects that make up the environment. The ratings will be given from 3 to –3, 3 meaning a very good standard of environment and –3 meaning a very bad standard of environment. The 7 different aspects of environment that I will be examining are litter, care of roads and pavement, greenery, street furniture, traffic, noise and pedestrians. The data will then be put into a bi-polar graph. Differences between the bi-polar graphs could help to answer the question are all parts of the CBD similar? High ratings for the environmental quality survey will also prove the hypothesis that Southampton has an attractive CBD.
Field sketches are a good way of testing my hypothesis. I will make field sketches of relevant areas, for example a high street, and annotate them to show how they prove or disprove the hypothesis. For example, a field sketch showing a high street with shops in it that sell high order goods would demonstrate that Southampton has an important CBD. Another example of how field sketches could help to prove my hypothesis, is a field sketch that would show the amount of litter on the streets therefore demonstrating the attractiveness of Southampton’s CBD.
Data that I will not be collecting on the day of the day of the field trip includes the tax disc and population data. The tax disc data will be put into a proportional flow line map, which is an accurate way of displaying from what areas (therefore what distance) people are travelling to visit Southampton. The greater the distance that people are prepared to travel to a settlement the greater its sphere of influence therefore making it an important settlement in the region. My population data will be original data, I will obtain the figures for the populations of towns and cities around the Southampton area from the government statistics website. I will put this information into a settlement hierarchy. My settlement hierarchy will rank the settlements in the area by their population size, greatest at the top and lowest at the bottom. Populations are indicators of importance. The higher Southampton’s population in relation to the local towns the more important it is.
Data Analysis
This graph shows the distance (in miles) that people are prepared to travel to visit Southampton’s CBD.
As you can see, large amounts of people (39%) travelling to the CBD come from within Southampton i.e. 1-5 miles. This is unsurprising because Southampton has a resident population of 217000 people. The most important thing that this graph shows is that 61% of visitors come from up to over 50 miles away. This demonstrates that Southampton has a large sphere of influence, which shows that Southampton is an important city in the region. This data concurs with the flow-line diagram that I created from the tax disc data, which shows that people are prepared to travel from, approximately, a 30-mile radius around the city.
This graph shows why people visit Southampton’s CBD.
The graph illustrates that more people (48%) visit Southampton for shopping than for any other purpose. The graph above shows that 41% of people travel 1-5 miles to Southampton. This means that, at the very least, 7% of the people shopping have come from outside Southampton. To travel this distance they must be buying high order goods, which shows that Southampton is an important city. There is evidence of the high proportion of comparison goods sold in Southampton in the land use survey map overlay. Over a quarter (27%) of people are visiting on business, which demonstrates that Southampton is a centre of commerce and creates a large amount of jobs, meaning that Southampton is an important city in the region.
The graph shows the goods that are bought in Southampton.
The bar chart shows that a majority (at least 52%) of goods bought in Southampton are comparison goods. Shops selling high order goods are generally found in important areas because they have to be situated in areas that have large amounts of people visiting them. This graph is backed up by evidence in the land-use surveys, which show that there are large amount of high order retail outlets.
This graph shows how often people visit Southampton.
The bar chart shows that the greatest amount (29%) of visitors to Southampton’s CBD come daily. This is unsurprising because Southampton has a resident population of 217000 people and most must visit Southampton every day. The second highest percentage of people (26%) visiting Southampton visit less than once a fortnight. Linking this data with information from another graph, which tells us that 48% of people visit to do shopping. Allows you to suggest that many people visit Southampton to shop for comparison good because these are goods that are bought less often. Having shops that sell high-order goods shows that Southampton has an important CBD because these shops are only found in areas with a large sphere of influence. Further proof that Southampton has a high proportion of shops selling high-order goods can be found in the land use surveys and my field sketch.
These graphs show the age and gender of the people questioned in the questionnaire. It simply shows that a wide range of people answered the questionnaire and therefore shows that the results are a fair representation of the people who are visiting Southampton’s CBD.
These maps show the road links to Southampton. The map on the left shows that all major local road links are directed towards Southampton. These road links are necessary because of Southampton’s sphere of influence. The map on the right shows that there is a direct motorway link to London. This is important because most big businesses have links to London. Southampton’s sphere of influence is also demonstrated in the proportional flow line map, which shows that people travel to Southampton from within a 30-mile radius.
The diagram above is a settlement hierarchy, which shows the populations of the eight biggest settlements in the region in descending order.
A settlement’s size (indicated by its population) is a sign of its sphere of influence. Southampton’s population is 30744 bigger than the next biggest city in the region, Portsmouth. This means that Southampton must have the most amount of services because it has the biggest population to serve. In areas of high population specialist services that provide high-order goods are found because they need a large surrounding population to be profitable. These high-order goods and services attract people from other smaller settlements. This increases the amount of people served by Southampton meaning that Southampton has a larger sphere of influence. A large sphere of influences is a sign of an important city. Proof of Southampton’s large sphere of influence is also found in the proportional flow-line map that shows that people travel from within a 30-mile radius to visit Southampton.
For the pedestrian counts I created a cloropleth isoline map overlay.
The cloropleth isoline showed that the pedestrian density is much higher at 12.15 pm than at 10.45 am. For example, 206 people were counted at site 1 at 10.45 am but at 12.15 pm 350 pedestrians were counted. I think this happened because people travelling to Southampton like to get there at around midday. It is clear by looking at the cloropleth that certain areas of the CBD are busier than others, I would consider the busier areas to be the core of the CBD. The high amount of pedestrians in the core of the CBD shows that Southampton’s CBD is important because there must be something to attract them. By looking at another method of data collection, the land use survey, it is possible to ascertain what is attracting the pedestrians. The land use survey shows that in the areas of high pedestrian density there are a large amount of specialist shops and high-order services. These services attract more pedestrians because they are often the main reason that people visit Southampton as demonstrated in the survey that said that 48% of visitors go to Southampton for shopping. A large proportion of specialist shops and services in the CBD demonstrate that it is important because it creates a large sphere of influence, meaning that people are prepared to travel large distances to visit. An area with a large sphere of influence is an important area in the region. The higher density of pedestrians in certain areas relates to the core/frame theory of the CBD where the CBD can be split into two parts the core (the busiest area) and the frame (the surrounding less busy area). My cloropleth isoline allows me to conclude that the area around sites one and two is the core of the CBD and the surrounding area is the frame
The proportional flow line map shows where people travel from to visit Southampton
The map shows that people are prepared to travel from within a 30-mile radius from places like Poole, Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Lymington to visit Southampton. This demonstrates that Southampton has a wide sphere of influence because people from as far away as 30 miles are being served by Southampton. This shows that Southampton is an extremely important city in the region. I think Southampton has a large sphere of influence because of the high proportions of specialist shops as demonstrated by the land use survey. My proportional flow line map leads me to the conclusion that Southampton has a large sphere of influence and this is backed up by the result from one of the questions in my questionnaire, which said that 69% of visitors to Southampton travel over 5 miles.
The land use surveys shows how the land is used in various parts of the CBD. This is useful for comparing Southampton’s CBD to widely recognised urban models. The three urban models I will be looking at are: the Hoyte sector model, the Burgess concentric ring model and the Harris & Ullman’s multiple nuclei model.
The land use in the CBD appears to follow the pattern shown in the Burgess concentric model to some extent. By using the pedestrian counts I have already identified the area around Above Bar Street as the CBD. Around this area there are some signs of industry and urban renewal, as you can see on the pie chart at site 9 where there is 8 % of change (urban renewal) and 3% urban renewal. These land uses are what you would expect to find in a zone of transition. The further away you go from the CBD, the greater the amount of residential areas, particularly out towards the west at sites 10 and 13 where there is 46% and 54 % residential areas. For these reasons the land use survey shows that Southampton’s CBD is partly similar to the Burgess concentric ring model and this shows Southampton is a typical urban area. However there are parts that contradict the Burgess model. For example, to the northwest of the CBD where you would expect to see some housing, there are 38% offices and professional services. Although there is some industry around the CBD there is little to show that there is a clearly defined zone of transition. I think this has happened because Southampton’s CBD is quite spread out because it has changed in recent years with the building of a new shopping centre less than 5 years ago. The shopping centre took up large part of the zone of transition as part of urban renewal and this is why there appear to be only the remnants of a transition zone around the CBD I would conclude that the Burgess model has some similarities with Southampton but on the whole they don’t match.
Parts of the Hoyt model match up with Southampton. There is a high proportion of residential areas to the west of Southampton, for example at site 10 where 46% of the land use is residential. The lack of industrial land uses around the CBD contradicts the zone of transition. I think that this is because most of Southampton’s industry is found near the docks as its main function is shipping, this area was not included in my land use survey and therefore I cannot comment on it.
I think the urban land use model that comes closest to Southampton is Harris & Ullman’s multiple nuclei model. On this model the zone of transition is seen directly to the west of the CBD. Although there is no clearly defined zone of transition next to the CBD, I think this is the area where the shopping centre West Quay now stands. Another way in which Southampton matches the multiple nuclei model is the idea of a mini-CBD or Business centre. I think this is found in Southampton at site 8 where the Marlands shopping centre is found. At site 8 there are 13% major shopping units, 20% clothing and shoe shops and 33% specialist shops. These are the kind of land uses you would expect to find in the CBD but on the smaller scale, therefore I think it is a good representation of a mini-CBD. I think that Southampton matches well with the Harris and Ullman model. I think this shows that Southampton is important because this model is designed to represent what large (and therefore important) cities are like.
The land use survey demonstrates that Southampton is important because of the high proportion of shops selling high-order goods. In the core of the CBD, 46% of the land used are shops selling comparison goods. The high proportion of high-order goods in Southampton shows that Southampton because people will travel a long distance to buy them. The pedestrian counts demonstrate this because they show that there is a high density of pedestrians in the core of the CBD. This means that Southampton has a large sphere of influence, which means that Southampton is an important city in the region.
The bi-polar graphs show the quality of the environment in Southampton’s CBD.
By adding up the total marks given for the environment on each site you can get an indication of the quality of the environment. The environmental quality survey for site 10 gave a total of 13 marks and the total marks for site 5 were –2. This shows clearly that the quality of the environment is better in site 5 than site 10. In site 10 is right in the core of the CBD and site 5 is in the frame. I would conclude that the CBD is more attractive in the frame than in the core. This is backed up by the land use survey, which shows that in sites 1, 2 and 5 there are no parks and open spaces. Parks and open spaces help to make the area more attractive and these are found in ay of the sites surrounding the core of the CBD.
My field sketch helped to determine the importance of the CBD.
It pictured two clothes shops and a bookshop. These are shops selling high-order goods. This is a sign of importance because people are prepared to travel long distances to visit these stores. This is demonstrated by the pedestrian count which shows a high proportion of visitors to Southampton around the area that I pictured in my field sketch. Therefore Southampton has a large sphere of influence, meaning that it is an important city in the region.
The traffic counts showed that the biggest proportion of traffic is found outside the core of the CBD. This is not particularly useful in finding a conclusion on the importance of Southampton although it could suggest that the core of the CBD is well designed for pedestrian making it an attractive place to visit.
Conclusion
The hypothesis for this investigation was: Southampton has an important and attractive CBD. The methods I used to investigate were: a land use survey, pedestrian count, field sketch, questionnaire, tax disc survey, environmental quality survey and population data.
After carrying out the investigation I have come to the conclusion that Southampton has an important CBD and that it is attractive in the frame but less so in the core of the CBD.
Key points
- Most pedestrians were counted in the core of the CBD around Above Bar Street and the shopping centre West Quay.
- It is in this area that you find a large amount of high-order shops
- The majority of visitors travel from within a 30-mile radius
- The CBD is more attractive in the frame of the CBD than in the core
- Southampton has a higher population than any other settlement in the local area, which means that it serves most people
- Southampton has good road links with London
- Transport routes in the local area lead to Southampton
Southampton is well linked to most of the settlements in the local area and this shows that it has large sphere of influence. Evidence from the proportional flow-line map also suggests that Southampton has a large sphere of influence as it shows that people travel from within a 30-mile radius. The result of the questionnaire also links with the idea of a big sphere of influence because it says that the majority of visitors travel over 5 miles to visit Southampton. The settlement hierarchy also shows that Southampton has a large sphere of influence because it serves the most people as it has the largest population. A large sphere of influence is a sign of an important city
The environmental quality survey, showing that Southampton is more attractive in the frame of the CBD than the core, links with land use survey because the land use survey shows that there are more parks and open spaces outside the core of the CBD.
The land use survey shows that there is a large amount of high-order stores in the core f the CBD. The cloropleth isoline also demonstrates this because this is where the greatest concentration of pedestrians are found. As you move away from the core there are less high-order shops and consequently less pedestrians. My field sketch also showed that there are large amount of high-order shops in Southampton. The questionnaire backs up evidence from the land use survey because it shows the majority of visitors are there for shopping. High order goods create a large sphere of influence for an area because people are prepared to travel a long way to visit them. A large sphere of influence means that Southampton is an important city.
Evaluation
My methods allowed me to draw a conclusion on my hypothesis. However, my conclusion could be incorrect if the methods used to gain my results have faults.
The pedestrian counts relied on the human eye to count number of pedestrians. This could create inaccuracies in the data, particularly in busy areas. In busy areas, such as West Quay, more than one person passes a certain point every second and therefore it is nearly impossible to tally the correct amount of people. This could have resulted in slight inaccuracies in the data because of people being missed on the tally. The number of pedestrians counted may then be lower than the actual amount in each area. However, I believe that the conclusion gained from my data is still valid because even if all the data had been counted correctly, for example if a ticker counter (a device which counts one every time the button is pressed, it can be operated without the user having to look at it) had been to used to improve speed of tallying, then the results would still have shown the same pattern on my cloropleth isoline (high concentration of pedestrians around the core of the CBD) because the data would be in the same proportion as the same method would be used for each site. Therefore I think the conclusion made from the pedestrian count is still valid.
The traffic counts relied on the human eye to count the amount of traffic. This was difficult to do especially in areas that had two or more lanes on the road because there were large amounts of traffic, which made it difficult to tally every vehicle that went past. This could have resulted in slight inaccuracies, as the traffic could have been under-counted. To avoid this problem a ticker counter (a device which counts one every time the button is pressed, it can be operated without the user having to look at it) could be used, which would increase the accuracy and speed of the tallying. I do not think that the lack of a ticker counter affected my results because they are in the same proportion because they all were counted by the same method. Therefore I think the conclusion gained from the proportional circles, that there is a higher density of traffic in the frame of the CBD than in the core, is still valid.
The environmental quality survey relied on my opinion to give ratings on different aspects of the environment. This could be slightly unreliable because the ratings given are completely subjective. I could improve this by using a more scientific method rather than relying on my opinion. For example, to measure the amount of litter in the environment, I could measure out a certain area of land and count the amount of litter inside it. The number of litter found in that area could then be linked to a rating for the quality of the environment. Although this change to my procedure would improve the accuracy of my results, I still think the procedure I used allows me to draw a valid conclusion. This is because the sites were both surveyed by me and therefore I would have used the same parameters by which to rate the environment. My ratings for the environment quality will probably be different to those of another person, however I think I would still draw the same conclusion because the ratings for both sites were based on the same opinion. Therefore I think that my conclusion that the frame of the CBD is more attractive than the core of the CBD is valid.
The tax disc data was secondary data and therefore was collected by other people so I don’t know how accurately the data was collected, which could make the data unreliable. Another problem with this method, which could suggest that it is unreliable, is that it relies on the assumption that people register their cars in the same place as they live, which is not necessarily true. There are numerous reasons for people not registering their cars in the place they live, for example, people might not buy their cars locally and therefore there tax disc will not be registered in the same place as where they live. In my data there were three cars that were from Leeds. This must have been purely coincidental as it is preposterous to suggest that Southampton’s sphere of influence reaches as far as Leeds. To avoid distorting my proportional flow-line map I didn’t include anomalies, such as, the three cars from Leeds. Although there are clearly faults in the data collection method, I think that the conclusion that Southampton has a large sphere of influence is still valid because a large proportion of cars came from within a radius of approximately 30 miles and they can’t all have been registered in different places.
Field sketches were another method that I used to prove or disprove the hypothesis. This method is slightly unreliable because it is susceptible to human error in the accuracy of the drawing. Taking photos rather than sketching could eradicate this inaccuracy. It is also subjective because the person sketching may focus on certain aspects rather than just sketching what is in front of them. The evidence offered by field sketches is also somewhat unreliable because it depends on the angle and perspective that the sketch is created from. My field sketch could be unreliable and therefore the conclusion, that Southampton has a lot of shops selling high-order goods, could be incorrect. However, this conclusion is backed up by the land use survey and answers in the questionnaire which both indicate that there are a large amount of shops selling high-order goods in Southampton.
The land use survey was vital in proving my hypothesis, unfortunately the reliability of the survey could come into question. Some of the land uses in the various sites around Southampton were difficult to categorise into the different categories. This lead to some land uses being categorised incorrectly, which lead to slight inaccuracies in the data. This could be avoided by making the categories more clearly defined. This would improve the accuracy of my data but I don not think there would be drastic changes to the results because there were only a minimal amount of land uses that were difficult to categorise. Therefore I think my conclusion, that there are a large amount of shops selling high-order goods in the core of the CBD, is still valid.
The data for my settlement hierarchy was secondary data and was taken from a very reliable source, the government statistics website. The government obtained the population data from the census that took place two years ago, during that time the populations could not have changed significantly. Therefore I think that my results are reliable and that the conclusion drawn from them, that Southampton is the most important city in the region is valid.
Questionnaires are used around the world for sourcing information, however, it is widely recognised that they are not 100% reliable. This is because people do not always answer the questions correctly. This happens for a variety of reasons, for example, the person questioned does not understand the question or they give the answer that they think you want rather than the honest truth. This problem could be solved by making the questions very clear in what they are asking and the possible answers. Another problem with questionnaires is that it is difficult to get certain people to answer them. For example, people who are in Southampton for business often will not have the time to answer a questionnaire whereas a shopper is in a less of a rush. This point is backed up in my questionnaire where over half the people questioned were shoppers. This bias could not be reflecting what Southampton is really like in showing that the majority of people visiting Southampton are there to shop. The unreliability of this questionnaire could suggest that the conclusion, that the main purpose for visiting Southampton is shopping, is invalid. However, I would counter this by saying that proof of the high proportion of shoppers is seen in the amount of high-order goods that are on sale as shown by the land use survey.
Overall I feel that the conclusions gained from my data collection methods are valid despite some possible problems with the methods. This is because the problems in the methods are either minimal, do not affect the results or produce conclusions that agree with other conclusions from different methods.
