Social Analysis
Socially, there are many problems and benefits of tourism.
If you look at Figure 1 you will notice that the majority of buildings are used as private housing, yet many tourist facilities are thrown into the private housing areas. This may cause many problems between local residents and tourists (refer to Figure 10) such as conflict due to every day goods not being stocked in local shops - something the local residents need - due to it being replaced by souvenirs for tourists, and tourists trudging past local residents houses peering through windows and causing damage to their property. Still referring to Figure 1, it is clear the many local facilities are next to mixed and tourist facilities, this may cause much conflict between the residents and tourists if tourists begin to use the local facilities unable to realise they are not meant for them. It could also suggest that tourist facilities are overpowering local which is why mixed have been created; eventually, all local facilities could become mixed or simply tourist due to demand, this would force locals out of Castleton due to the lack of necessities provided and Castleton could become a dormant village due to lack of residents, creating a significant challenge for Castleton. Another significant challenge of tourism in Castleton is that as more tourists visit, more residents move away due to conflict or the quiet lifestyle they had once envisioned, the rural idyll they had wished for, being savagely taken from their grasp. Tourists take away heritage and traditional culture from the community as shown by Figure 1, many buildings have been taken for their use. This may create dormitory villages, as the pressures for new development just become too much for the local community.
Looking at Figure 2, it is shown that Cross Street was the busiest place for pedestrians to be, an astounding 36 people walked past the point in which i stood in the space of 5 minutes, compared to the measly 3 people who walked past when standing in Back Street. The 33 people difference may be down to Cross Street being the main street of Castleton and therefore has many tourist attractions such as shops and cafes. Weaving Avenue had 25 people walk through it, suggesting it is popular but not quite as much as Cross Street. Weaving Avenue is the residential area, this could mean that the people who walked through Weaving Avenue were in fact residents, rather that tourists, going about their day to day business. Consequently, this may make the results of the Weaving Avenue Pedestrian Count (Figure 2) anomalous due to the possibility that is was corrupted by residents being counted rather than tourists. I would in fact only expect a few - perhaps 3/4 - tourists pass through Weaving Avenue, perhaps on their way to a tourist facility or activity. It does however show how Castleton is a 'chocolate-box village': many people visit due to the social and environmental attraction.
Referring to Figure 5, the majority (30%) of tourists said how they visited Castleton for the scenery, suggesting they would be no bother to the residents, this lowers the risk of conflict and suggest the tourism 'honeypots' do not create significant challenges in Castleton.
If you take a look at Figure 7, it shows that just under 1/2 of people travelled in groups of 3-5, 1/4 of people travelling in groups ranging from 6-10+ people, and 3/10 of people travelling either by themself or in a pair. The larger groups of 6 people and above can be deemed as a nuisance to Castleton's residents, as they are more likely to be rowdy and loud. This then brings on the challenge that perhaps tourism creates more crime/ accidents: are these groups of people, perhaps even gangs, stealing from this quaint little village?
Taking a look at Figure 16 & 17, you can see that the crime rates in Castleton are far less than those of Burntwood (my hometown and a place that does not get much tourism). This suggests that the 'honeypots' get greater policing around the area to keep a good appearance in the media.
If you look at Figure 1 you will notice that the majority of buildings are used as private housing, yet many tourist facilities are thrown into the private housing areas. This may cause many problems between local residents and tourists (refer to Figure 10) such as conflict due to every day goods not being stocked in local shops - something the local residents need - due to it being replaced by souvenirs for tourists, and tourists trudging past local residents houses peering through windows and causing damage to their property. Still referring to Figure 1, it is clear the many local facilities are next to mixed and tourist facilities, this may cause much conflict between the residents and tourists if tourists begin to use the local facilities unable to realise they are not meant for them. It could also suggest that tourist facilities are overpowering local which is why mixed have been created; eventually, all local facilities could become mixed or simply tourist due to demand, this would force locals out of Castleton due to the lack of necessities provided and Castleton could become a dormant village due to lack of residents, creating a significant challenge for Castleton. Another significant challenge of tourism in Castleton is that as more tourists visit, more residents move away due to conflict or the quiet lifestyle they had once envisioned, the rural idyll they had wished for, being savagely taken from their grasp. Tourists take away heritage and traditional culture from the community as shown by Figure 1, many buildings have been taken for their use. This may create dormitory villages, as the pressures for new development just become too much for the local community.
Looking at Figure 2, it is shown that Cross Street was the busiest place for pedestrians to be, an astounding 36 people walked past the point in which i stood in the space of 5 minutes, compared to the measly 3 people who walked past when standing in Back Street. The 33 people difference may be down to Cross Street being the main street of Castleton and therefore has many tourist attractions such as shops and cafes. Weaving Avenue had 25 people walk through it, suggesting it is popular but not quite as much as Cross Street. Weaving Avenue is the residential area, this could mean that the people who walked through Weaving Avenue were in fact residents, rather that tourists, going about their day to day business. Consequently, this may make the results of the Weaving Avenue Pedestrian Count (Figure 2) anomalous due to the possibility that is was corrupted by residents being counted rather than tourists. I would in fact only expect a few - perhaps 3/4 - tourists pass through Weaving Avenue, perhaps on their way to a tourist facility or activity. It does however show how Castleton is a 'chocolate-box village': many people visit due to the social and environmental attraction.
Referring to Figure 5, the majority (30%) of tourists said how they visited Castleton for the scenery, suggesting they would be no bother to the residents, this lowers the risk of conflict and suggest the tourism 'honeypots' do not create significant challenges in Castleton.
If you take a look at Figure 7, it shows that just under 1/2 of people travelled in groups of 3-5, 1/4 of people travelling in groups ranging from 6-10+ people, and 3/10 of people travelling either by themself or in a pair. The larger groups of 6 people and above can be deemed as a nuisance to Castleton's residents, as they are more likely to be rowdy and loud. This then brings on the challenge that perhaps tourism creates more crime/ accidents: are these groups of people, perhaps even gangs, stealing from this quaint little village?
Taking a look at Figure 16 & 17, you can see that the crime rates in Castleton are far less than those of Burntwood (my hometown and a place that does not get much tourism). This suggests that the 'honeypots' get greater policing around the area to keep a good appearance in the media.