Title of investigation: Does tourism have an environmental impact on Brighton.

Hypothesis: Tourism has an environmental impact on Brighton

Suitability as a Geographical study: Fits with the geography course as tourism is a geographical issue.
Background / Location:
 Brighton receives 8 million tourists a year who spend £408 million.
 It’s the UKs top 5 city and top 10 for overseas visitors.
 Close to school so easy to get to.

Theory / Geographical models – links to investigation:

 Butler Model of resort development: Brighton is in Stage 4
 If a tourist location doesn’t aim to make sure that the location is maintained to a high standard there is a chance that tourist numbers to the location
will reduce.

Methodology:
Method How it was done?
In groups of 5 we did an EQS,
and we read the categories and
had to rate it from +2 to -2 (good
Environmental to poor).
Quality Done at 2 sites, one a residential
Survey area where tourism is not evident
(Quantitative, and one at Palace Pier, one of the
subjective) most popular destinations.
We discussed the rating to give
it.
My teacher then worked out
mean scores for both sites.
Photo analysis At each of the locations where
(Qualitative, we carried out an EQS we took a
subjective) photo of the area that we were
collecting the data in.
Geography fieldwork Human Investigation 2023
Why it was done? Sampling method and reason Links to hypothesis
To assess the environmental impact
that tourism has.
This will help prove/
We could compare the results to an
Stratified sampling: provide data that will
area that is untouched by tourism.
Teacher chose the locations so tell me the
It also meant that a judgement is
that we would find data that environmental impacts
made and couldn’t be impartial.
allows us the accept/ reject that tourism has on
hypothesis. Brighton- and the extent
Means makes the data more
to which they occur.
accurate as it is a greater sample
set.
This was done to give visual Random. Provides visual
representation to the EQS, and to Photo backs up the EQS data, if presentation of the sites
effectively “back up” the scores we had used systematic in order to prove that
that were given. sampling to take the photo may tourism does have

show nothing useful.
Data Analysis:
Interpretation of the bipolar graph:
The bipolar graph shows the mean of the data that
was collected.
It shows that the categories were given a negative
score at Brighton Palace Pier, but they were given
more positive scores at the comparison site in Hove.
The overall school for the Pier (-3) is much lower
than the overall score for Hove (8)
Explanation:
Data supports hypothesis. We can see that there is
noise pollution, traffic and big groups of people.
Links to other data
This links with the annotated photo of Palace Pier,
visual represented in my annotated photo
(qualitative) and therefore backs it up.
Evaluation of presentation method:
+ Good – simple, quick and easy to read
+ I used the mean data, so it means that the bias was taken out, as well as any anomalies.
- There is lots of information shown on one graph that can make it difficult to read if you are new to it.
- You don’t know what the ratings actually mean as they aren’t on the graph i.e. what’s does -2 actually
mean?
environmental impacts
on Brighton.
Interpretation of annotated photo:
They back up what I have found in the
EQS.
Explanation:
I feel that my photos backs up my
hypothesis
Links to other data:
This photo links to my bipolar graph as it
visualises the scores I gave the sites.
Evaluation of presentation method:
Photographs are useful as they give a first-
hand account of what we saw on the day.
It is qualitative data which supports the
quantitative results which I have found.
However, they may contain errors, for
example I could have chosen to take a
photo of a group of people- but the rest of
the area was empty- this would be showing
biased information.

Conclusion:
•Tourism is having a negative environmental impact on the Palace Pier area of Brighton (and potentially in other tourist hotspots too)
•This is enough for me to conclude that my hypothesis “Tourism has an environmental impact on Brighton” is true, and that the
environmental impact is negative.

To what extent is this conclusion reliable?

1. To some extent – 2 pieces of evidence support this, and it relates directly to the theories associated with mass tourism.

Geography fieldwork Human Investigation 2023

2. However, these impacts do only tend to be at peak season (summer!) but outside of the summer month’s tourist numbers drop off significantly
therefore the impacts are not as prominent. So my conclusion is only valid of the data and time that I carried out the data collection.
3. I only collected the data at one tourist “hotspot” I can’t say with reliability that tourism is having an environmental impact on the whole of
Brighton.
4. Conclusions therefore to some extent reliable, although my results may also be different for the weekend where I might see even greater
differences between Palace Pier (PP), and Poets Corner (PC), as greater tourist numbers would be expected, and therefore a greater difference
between the two sites studied.
5. As my data collection methods were subjective, the data may not be reliable as I may have shown bias in order to get data that accepts the
conclusion
Evaluation: how could methods of data collection be better, so results are more accurate and conclusion more reliable
Metho Impact on results and Impact on results and conclusion
Problem Solution
d conclusion
1. I could have rated the
categories to a score that
would support my 1. Done a traffic count/ pedestrian
1. It is subjective.
hypothesis so I could say count and a decibel reading using 1. Removes bias as its objective:
2. Only went to one
that I was right (bias). phone app (more objective data) more accurate results and reliable
tourist hotspot (small
2. Only one site visited so 2. Gone to more than one tourist site conclusion.
EQS sample size)
cannot say that tourism e.g. the laines and the Pavilion then 2. Increases sample: more accurate
3. Only went on one day
has a negative impact on worked out averages. results and reliable conclusion.
of year (small sample
whole of Brighton 3. Retake throughout the year/ revisit 3. Reflects changes through the
size)
3. One day of the year, not throughout the year on different days year: more accurate results and
truly representative of and in different seasons. Had a reliable conclusion.
whole year: results not greater sample size.
accurate therefore
conclusion not reliable.
1. Random sampling: I 1. Bias results and not 1. Take pictures in correlation with the 1. Removes bias
took a photo but I may accurate. Does not take systematic points mentioned above; 2. Reflects changes through the
Photos have chosen an area of into account the full also take a whole profile picture. Or year. Leading to accurate results
the Pier to take a aspect of the area or of take a panoramic shot. and conclusions, which are valid
photo that would Brighton as a whole. 2. Retake throughout the year/ revisit through the year.
support my 2. Not truly representative. throughout the year on different days
hypothesis….therefore This could lead to and in different seasons.
it would be biased. conclusions which are
Geography fieldwork Human Investigation 2023
 not reliable and
2. One day of the year:
conclusion which may
not true of all other
not be seen on different
seasons
days.

Geography fieldwork Human Investigation 2023