Amy Hewitt Evaluate the success of your investigation and suggest how it could be improved I investigated tourism in Bonnets and Memorable in line with the Butler Model. The investigation considered Memorable to be a tourist destination in decline whereas Bonnets was a thriving tourist destination. The investigation proved the majority of our hypothesis, and was therefore arguably successful. However there were limitations and improvements that could have furthered the success of my investigation.
Firstly, one of the most crucial limitations I had was time. This included time Of year but also time available to conduct the investigation. In terms of the time of year, I was limited by the fact the investigation was happening in November. This meant there were not as many tourists that would have been anticipated for the height of the tourist season. It also meant that the demographics were different to what would have been expected. Bonnets tends to appeal to younger people and families but our results didn’t reflect this.
This was due to the fact that it was during term time so many children will have been in school. It would therefore have probably been more successful to do the investigation during the school holidays as the results would be more accurate of each location as a ‘tourist destination’. Another limitation of time was that we only had half a day to conduct our investigation. This meant that the investigation at some points was rushed, particularly in the Environmental study where the amount of area that need to be studied meant we may have compromised the accuracy.
It therefore may have been more appropriate to study a small area of both Bonnets and Memorable in order to improve the reliability. As we only had a day, we spent half a day considering each action; the whole group went to one location then the other. This meant our results were limited as Memorable was done in the morning, typically a quieter time for tourists, and Bonnets investigation was taken out in the afternoon. To get a more reliable and accurate results we should have done the same time of day at each location.
This could have been done by splitting the group into two. It would have meant we were able to conduct the pedestrian flow at the same time, which would have meant the results more successful to compare. Although our investigation was successful and this ay have only made a small difference it would have improved certain aspects of our investigation including pedestrian flow. Another aspect of the investigation which could have been improved was that of the subjectivity of the environmental study.
With a group Of 16 we split into 8 groups Of 2, from here we surveyed an area of the town and rated the environment from -2 to 2. The way of rating the environment was successful however, we could have improved the reliability by still splitting into groups of 2 but instead each group could have looked at all 8 sites. F-room all the data we received we could eave got an average from each site. This would have increased the reliability as we would have had the opinion of 16 people rather than only 2.
Although the majority of our results in the environmental study seemed to be in line with what we would have anticipated I feel the success could have been furthered by increasing the reliability and accuracy in this context. One of the largest issues we encountered was predominantly in Bonnets, this was language barrier. The selection of interviewed people was limited as many of the people we came across were Chinese. This particularly an issue in regards o working out the distances tourists had traveled.
If we had interviewed a larger selection of Chinese then this may have changed our results significantly, the divide between the distances traveled would have been larger. From our results the most significant difference was that of those traveling shorter distances. This could have been different if we were able to interview a wider scope of people. This is difficult to overcome. However, it could be improved by using Google translate to communicate with individuals from other countries. Although our results were a success as they did show a significant difference.
I think that this would have improved the validity of our investigation. In conclusion, although there were many successes from our investigation there were improvements that could have been made. The most important aspect of considering improvements is considering the balance of accuracy and reliability with the resources available. In the investigation think that the majority of it was successful, it proved most of the hypothesis that were part of the investigation. The few changes that I have outlined in this evaluation including language, time and subjectivity could further the success of my investigation in the future.