PERCEPTIONS OF IMPRECISE REGIONS IN RELATION TO

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

A study submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Information Management

at

THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

by

LINDA MANSBRIDGE

Abstract The Internet is an increasingly important source of information. Many Web searches are

for geographical information or for other information within a geographical context.

However, there is a disparity between the way in which geographical information is

stored in information systems and the way in which most people think about

geographical space. While in some cases this arises from problems with place names,

much ‘everyday’ geography concerns imprecise or vague regions which have no single

or officially-recognized boundary. The boundary of an imprecise region is, by

definition, vague.

The organization of geographical space into areas bounded, usually by lines, is a

necessary component of having a sense of ‘place’. Research in the early days of GIS

necessarily focused on the technology required for establishing effective systems for

presenting geographical information. However, in more recent years, research has

involved workers from a wide variety of disciplines looking at the ways in which

humans perceive their geographical world. The field of psychology has been

instrumental in investigations into how humans form cognitive maps, a mental

representation of the world around them. Cognitive maps do not necessarily match the

empirical reality of geography very closely; distortions in the perception of location and

distance may arise from individual perceptions of a place.

The aim of this study was to investigate how people perceive Sheffield City Centre,

which is a ‘real’ place, known by that name, but having no single official boundary.

This was done by means of a street survey. Participants were also asked about their

perception of where the vague region of the Midlands is.

The results show that while there is broad agreement of the location and extent of these

imprecise areas, there are, too, some variations in people’s perceptions of them. In

particular, this study sought to investigate the possibility that perception may be

influenced by current location. Participants were asked at three main locations in central

Sheffield about their perception of membership of the City Centre of a number of

landmarks. Some differences were seen in the responses from the different locations; in

addition, some differences were seen in responses from residents of Sheffield living in

different parts of the city.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Paul Clough, for his help and encouragement

during the course of my work on this study.

Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Geographic Information Retrieval ..................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Imprecise regions and boundaries ..................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Spatial Cognition................................................................................................................................ 9

2.3.1 Primary learning ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Secondary learning ................................................................................................................... 13

3. Background to the study....................................................................................................................... 14 4. Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Boundaries........................................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.1 Sheffield City Centre ................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.2 The Midlands............................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Pilot study......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Central Sheffield survey ................................................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 The sample surveyed ................................................................................................................ 25 4.3.2 The questionnaire...................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.3 Answer options ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.4 Location selected for the survey ............................................................................................... 27

5. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Survey participants........................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Analysis of results............................................................................................................................. 30 5.3 Sheffield City Centre......................................................................................................................... 30

5.3.1 Distribution of responses .......................................................................................................... 30 5.3.2 Home post codes of participants ............................................................................................... 32 5.3.3 ‘Don’t know where it is’........................................................................................................... 33 5.3.4 Landmarks in the City Centre................................................................................................... 37 5.3.5 Landmarks not in the City Centre............................................................................................. 44 5.3.6 Landmarks on the boundary of the City Centre........................................................................ 47 5.3.7 Landmarks vs. location............................................................................................................. 50 5.3.8 Core of the City Centre............................................................................................................. 52 5.3.9 Outlines of the City Centre ....................................................................................................... 53

5.4 The Midlands.................................................................................................................................... 54 6. Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 58 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix A: City Centre Boundaries .................................................................................................... 66 Appendix B: Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................... 72 Appendix C: Post code areas.................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix D: Outline maps of Sheffield City Centre............................................................................. 77 Appendix E: Perceptions of the Midlands.............................................................................................. 82

1. Introduction

Geographic information systems (GISs) are being used with increasing frequency in

everyday life as well as by industry, government and other organizations, who use them

for planning, marketing and the delivery of emergency services. Geographic

information research was largely in the domain of geography, surveying and computer

science but more recently, with the broadening of the application of GIS, has also

involved a broader range of disciplines, such as the social and environmental sciences,

philosophy and psychology.

This shift in the emphasis of research in GIS from the technological issues necessary for

the development of such systems more towards social aspects and user perspectives is

welcomed by Schuurman (2003). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) uses the technology

for the participation of groups otherwise unheard in decision making and the drawing up

of policies. GIS has been exploited by non-governmental organizations and by smaller-

scale neighbourhood groups. The importance of GIS in community affairs is described

by Romasubramaian (1999). In a legal case of discrimination in Milwaukee, GIS was

used by both of the opposing sides. However, the small community group’s access to

and use of GIS enabled it to support their case against a major insurance company by

showing that the company’s use of GIS data had been selective in a discriminatory way.

Couclelis (1999) considers that GIS and society are inextricably linked, particularly in

the way that the geographical world is defined and represented. She identifies these two

aspects as those that distinguish GIS from other information technologies. GIS

technology developed using ‘geocoded measurement’ based on ‘cartographic tradition’,

and Couclelis outlines the danger of representing the world as only what can be shown

visually, and of omitting other views of the geographical world. There is potential for

the creation of ‘unrealities’, where the real is displaced by the representation; the way

the geographical world is represented by GIS may influence how the world comes to be

defined.

1

Geographic information systems generally have empirical, map-based referents and

officially-designated place names, whereas vernacular geography is more informal and

less exact. This disparity between place names in GIS and how most people think about

places has implications in many areas of life. A search on the Web may be made by

someone looking for information relating to a particular region, for example house

prices, job vacancies, golf courses or road works. The results of their query will be

confined to documents containing the name of the region and will not necessarily

provide the information required.

Possible solutions to bridge this gap of geographical terminology include an interactive

approach and an a priori approach (Montello et al. 2003). The interactive approach, in

which the system determines the geographical location in the query by interrogating the

searcher, would demand more time and thought on the part of the user. In the a priori

approach, the system stores geographical information in a form more similar to the way

searchers think about the real world. Both approaches are dependent on knowledge of

human perceptions of geographical spaces.

The aim of the proposed study is to discover how people perceive ill-defined

geographical space in relation to factors that might be expected to influence their

conceptualization of the space, based on the methodology of Montello et al. (2003). In

their study, Montello et al. asked a sample of 36 individuals to sketch an outline map to

include what they perceived as ‘downtown’ Santa Barbara. In their discussion of the

results, they posed the question of whether an effect would have been observed had they

asked the question at different locations, to what extent a person’s current location

affects their perception of an area such as downtown.

The study recorded here is of a survey conducted at three locations in central Sheffield

investigating whether location affects perception of Sheffield City Centre. This study

also investigates perceptions of the Midlands, an imprecise region on a larger scale than

Sheffield City Centre. The objectives of the study were, firstly, to discover if there is

sufficient agreement on ‘membership’ of the City Centre of landmarks in central

Sheffield to define the City Centre; secondly, to assess the extent to which a sense of

2

place (of the City Centre) is affected by current location; and finally, to compare these

perceptions of the City Centre with how the area is defined by organizations and official

bodies such as the emergency services and the City Council.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Geographic Information Retrieval

Much of the information on the World Wide Web has a geographical context, and many

search engine queries are for spatially-related information. It has been estimated that

approximately one fifth of queries relate to geographical location (Purves and Jones,

2004). A Position Statement from Europe’s GISDATA Scientific Programme considers

the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure as one of the important developments arising

from the increasing use of geographical information in the 1990s, along with similar

developments in Australasia, Japan and Europe (Burrough et al., 1997). The

geographical component of the information is of central importance in the area of

strategic planning and the provision of services. The Position Paper proposes greater co-

ordination between European countries and the development of a European-wide

gazetteer linking place names to a common geographical framework. Attention is drawn

to the use of place names, rather than co-ordinates, in ‘common-sense geography’.

However, Web search engines, in the retrieval of information related to geographical

space, are poorly adapted to cope with, for example, variations in the spelling of place

names, especially between different languages, the ambiguity of place names (the same

name often refers to more than a single location or a place may be known by more than

one name or have an informal name) and the identification of ill-defined or vaguely-

named places without officially recognized boundaries. Kuhn (2001) observes that

much of the geographical information available on the Web is based on the assumption

that it should represent reality in a literal way, and that this has resulted in a large

amount of difficult-to-use geographical data collections and geo-processing software.

Other researchers have made similar observations; Sheppard et al., (1999) note the

tendency for GISs to represent places as crisp, contiguous and non-overlapping, whereas

3

places are dynamic interconnected networks. The strict classification of space into, for

example, urban, residential and rural, gives rise to the artefacts of points and polygons.

Egenhofer and Mark (1995) consider what they term ‘Naive Geography’ to be an

essential basis in the design of GIS. They define Naive Geography as ‘the body of

knowledge that people have about the surrounding geographic world’ (Egenhofer and

Mark, 1995:4). For GISs to be accessible to the average citizen, without the need for

specialist training, the systems must reflect the terminology and reasoning people use

when they are thinking about geographical space.

The storage of accurate, correct data, avoiding repetitious (redundant) data and

inconsistencies, is fundamental to database design. By contrast, naive geographical

reasoning may include both errors and inconsistencies. It is not unusual for people to

use several interchangeable concepts of a geographical space; concepts have different

levels of granularity depending on context and purpose. The sources for the

conceptualization of geographical space are the multiple views gained from our

navigation within it, and this distinguishes it from table-top scale space.

An example is seen in the way in which distances are measured or judged. The

traditional measurement of distance by units of length, used in GIS, may not be the most

appropriate or helpful way in which information of this sort is presented. While it is

empirically true that the distance from A to B is the same as that from B to A, other

factors affect the distance if measured in, for example, units of financial and

environmental cost or the time and effort taken to move something or someone between

A and B or B and A. These can include topographical features, such as hills or stretches

of water, or the means of transport. A discrepancy in the distance between A and B

depending on direction results in the perception of the distance as asymmetrical. These

factors also affect how people think about the distance between places.

World geography is complex and dynamic at every level from very small-scale to very

large-scale representations. Kuhn (2001) suggests that GIS should be designed to

support human activities rather than as models of the world lacking context, and

Egenhofer and Mark (1995) argue that the use of GIS would be greatly enhanced by

4

reasoning that more closely resembles that of humans, with the incorporation of human

concepts and ways of thinking about the world. The goal is the development of formal

models mimicking people’s perception of geographical space.

The retrieval by search engines of geographical information is dependent upon the

inclusion of the name of the area or region specified in the query within a Web page.

Many other Web pages may contain information pertinent to the query but not be

retrieved for this reason. Spatial factors such as proximity or containment are not

understood by search engines (Jones et al., 2002).

Geographical information is organized in GIS by reference to officially recognized

factors: place names, physical features, areas defined by contextual boundaries for

specific purposes such as administrative regions, parishes, or areas covered by public

services, such as education and health. However, in the ‘real world’ people do not

necessarily consider places in these terms nor in terms of their metric location or size.

Real-world data and information may differ between individuals and is usually context

dependent. Similarly, there are different types of users of GIS.

GIS uses co-ordinates to derive the geographic footprint of a place which favours the

placing of geographic objects which are well-defined, and consistently defined, at least

in the short term. Indeed, in some rural areas of the UK, residents are provided with GIS

co-ordinates for their home which they are advised to quote if they need to request one

of the emergency services.

The content and format of digital gazetteers, atlases and other place name-related

information sources available on the Web follow no common standards thereby

inhibiting the sharing of information across the systems (Hill, 2000), and the only certain

way of identifying a particular location may be by its geospatial footprint. This can be

expressed as a single pair of co-ordinates of latitude and longitude, a grid reference, or

by a set of co-ordinates representing the extent of the place.

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) provides a geographic footprint for each object in

the collection (Hill, Frew and Zheng, 1999). The Library built its own gazetteer and, in

5

doing so, identified a need for a standard conceptual schema for gazetteers for the

sharing of information, the expression of location as a point, line or area as appropriate

to the place being described, and a hierarchical system of categorizing features by type.

Further, the often ill-defined nature of geographical features requires ‘fuzzy’ footprints

which take account of uncertain boundaries and locations, and the changes that take

place over time. The ADL gazetteer allows for multiple footprints, variant names in

addition to the designated name, and relationships between entries (such as x is part

of y).

2.2 Imprecise regions and boundaries

‘Perception is of two sorts, one of the senses, one of the understanding. Perceptions of

the latter sort depend only on the things perceived, while those of

the former sort depend also on our senses, and are therefore apt to be deceptive.’

(Russell, 1961:89)

In her paper on the certainty of uncertainty, Couclelis (2003) points out that in addition

to its functions of ‘data storage, manipulation, management, visualization and analysis’,

GIS is also used to synthesize geographical information from a variety of sources in the

production of, for example, maps and graphical representations of the geographical

world. These products are subject to the limitations of knowledge. A lack of knowledge

may arise from issues related to quantity and quality of data or to the social context or

theoretical framework of the research from which they are derived. However, lack of

knowledge is inherent in geographical information. While the term ‘information’

implies a measure of validity or truth, knowledge about the environment is based on

sujective information, impressions and beliefs (Moore and Golledge, 1976).

Couclelis cites the sorites paradox as an illustration of some of the problems related to

the representation of geographical vagueness.

If 1 grain does not make a heap, 1+1 grains do not make a heap, 2+1 grains do not

make a heap...then 9,999+1 grains do not make a heap either. (Couclelis, 2003:169)

6

When applied to geographical space, whether urban or rural, this illustrates the

difficulties involved in the categorization of places, of naming them and of bounding

them.

The location of a place can be by reference to its boundaries, which enclose the place, or

to its ‘core’, which is within the place. A region with imprecise boundaries, or with

boundaries that depend on context for their location, can be described in terms of the

features or towns within the region. Lacking officially-defined boundaries, the regions

of Britain may be represented with some imprecision or elasticity. For example, the

Midlands may be described as the region containing Nottingham and Birmingham;

likewise, the ‘Black Country’ is another imprecise region which is itself in the imprecise

region of the Midlands. Encyclopaedia definitions of the Midlands refer first to the

‘Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia’ [6th - 9th centuries] and then to the counties included

in the region, from Derbyshire in the north to Oxfordshire in the south (e.g. Hutchinson,

1999). The core of the Midlands, perhaps Birmingham, is likely to be identified as such

by non-residents as well as by those who live there. However, towards the margins of

the region, there is more likely to be equivocation: is Chesterfield (Derbyshire) in the

Midlands? is Oxford in the Midlands? For each there is another, possibly overlapping

(imprecise) region to which it could belong (the North and the South, respectively).

Burrough (1996) points to the problems associated with the Aristotelian principle of the

excluded middle, in which every statement is either true or false, in the context of

geographical information, especially with respect to vague regions or areas whose

boundaries are not fixed or certain. He illustrates this with the following example:

‘A Cockney was said to be someone who was born within the sound of Bow Bells in the City of London, but does this depend on the direction and strength of the wind, or on the background level of traffic noise?

(Burrough, 1996:15)

The different ways in which geographical space may be viewed, by different people or

by the same people over time, is seen in the perception of boundaries. Leung (cited in

Worboys, 1998) describes the boundary between two areas as a zone with continuously

changing attribute values for each of the areas. In other words, rather than being a sharp,

7

linear demarcation between one area and another, a boundary is itself a heterogeneous

area; the nature of each area being most evident in that part of the zone closest to it and

absent in that part of the zone furthest away from it.

A boundary not only encloses an area of land into a unit with a place name, which has

some functional and/or social integrity, but separates it from other bounded areas

(Egenhofer and Mark, 1995). It is seen from at least two territories, inside and outside

the bounded area. The location of the boundary may not be agreed by those on either

side: there may be multiple locations of a boundary separating two named areas, each

depending on the functional context of the boundary.

This is not uncommon for boundaries between countries, especially over time, as

conflicts and agreements often have an impact on the placing of a national boundary.

Thus, many boundaries, even ‘official’ ones, lack certainty. Burrough (1996) suggests

that ‘Poland’ has a meaning for Polish people that may not fit easily into the area

enclosed by its present-day boundaries, reflecting the numerous changes of the border in

the country’s history. Jones et al. (2003) consider time, as well as space, to be a

fundamental characteristic of geographical places.

The tendency for smaller-scale geographic ‘footprints’ to change over time has also been

noted by Lam et al. (2002) in their work on a neighbourhood-specific gazetteer of Los

Angeles County. The strategy they developed for ‘defining’ neighbourhoods gave rise

to overlapping boundaries. They considered that this is a desirable feature of the

gazetteer, for the reasons that neighbourhood boundaries change over time and that they

are, in any case, ‘fuzzy’ or imprecise. They noted that this could represent a flexibility

some residents of the neighbourhood would welcome in some circumstances, such as

selling their house, since it might be possible to include their property in a more

desirable, and therefore more expensive, neighbourhood.

Historical factors, in addition to social factors, can also play a role in the perception of

the location of boundaries in small-scale geographical space. This is illustrated by

Ferrari’s example of the boundary of an Italian village (Ferrari, 1996). Amongst the

inhabitants of the village, there is a consensus that a single point is the boundary of the

8

village; this point is not a prominent feature, merely the corner of a house. Ferrari

suggests that its status as ‘boundary’ probably dates back to a time when it was the limit

of the area from which the local abbey collected taxes, and persists in the villagers’

perception of the borderline despite the loss of its practical applications.

In a discussion of urban spaces, Campari (1996) draws attention to the uncertainty and

invisibility of administrative or bureaucratic boundaries. In the minds of people, urban

areas are subdivided not only by bureaucracy and the functional areas of utilities, but by

their social characteristics and qualities, such as house prices and open spaces. The

necessity for administrative boundaries and their dependence on the physical entities of

a city are acknowledged; while such boundaries are often drawn up to enclose areas

according to quantitative criteria, such as population size, physical entities do not move,

as people do. Nevertheless, administrative or district boundaries can divide streets,

blocks and, indeed, neighbourhoods. Therein lies their uncertainty. Urban spaces are

complex and subject to differing cultural interpretations which can lead to an

overlapping of informally recognized areas based on, for example, religious buildings or

residential areas of a particular socio-economic group.

2.3 Spatial Cognition

Geographical cognition is a particular type of spatial cognition. It concerns large-scale

spaces which cannot be perceived in their entirety, as a hand, table or room can be.

Such spaces are described as ‘transperceptual’ by Downs and Stea (cited in Mark et al.,

1999:748) in that geographical-scale spaces are: ‘experienced only by integration of

perceptual experiences over space and time through memory and reasoning, or through

the use of small-scale models such as maps’.

The concepts of geographical space are often different from those of manipulable,

smaller-scale space. While the latter occupy three dimensional space, and are perceived

to do so, geographical space is essentially two dimensional: the vertical axis becomes

disassociated from the horizontal axes (Egenhofer and Mark, 1995).

9

The ability to ‘place’ oneself geographically (on a large- or small-scale) requires some

concept of boundaries and some knowledge of where they are. The determination of

boundaries involves both absolute reference points, such as north/south or left/right, and

relative reference points such as north of/south of or left of/right of (Ferrari, 1996).

While the absolute referent is fixed, even though it may not be known with certainty, the

relative one is more fluid and may be influenced by non-geographical factors.

The use of maps to represent geographical space is very ancient, dating from the 14th

century BC, with lines of latitude and longitude first used in the 3rd century BC. The

usefulness of maps in investigations of perceptions of a place is strongly influenced by

an individual’s prior experience of using them. Furthermore, an individual’s

understanding of a place based on direct experience may differ from that learnt from

maps. A map shows spatial relationships of the area it covers as a whole, whereas

spatial relationships gained from direct experience are built up gradually.

2.3.1 Primary learning

Geographical knowledge learnt from direct experience with the real world, by

navigating through it, is termed ‘primary learning’ by Kitchen and Blades (2002). The

three main theories of primary learning are outlined as being based on environmental

cues, such as landmarks; path-based information; views and scenes, or ‘vistas’.

Nevertheless, geographical knowledge gained directly from moving through space

involves physical environmental features, perceived visually for the most part, combined

with the intangible subjective aspects of moving through space, such as the time and

effort taken and the aesthetic qualities of the space (Montello, 1997).

As Bennett (2002) points out in a workshop concerned with Geo-ontology, while

geography is seen as a study of physical aspects of the world, ontology is an abstract

discipline concerned with concepts. However, the perception of geographical space, and

spatial behaviour, involve reference both to external information, such as maps, and to

some acquired knowledge of the environment (Kitchen & Blades, 2002); acquired

knowledge will necessarily differ between individuals according to their daily lives and

past experiences.

10

An individual’s knowledge of geographical space grows with time, taking on greater

depth or breadth or both. Liben’s conceptual model of the interaction between

individual and environmental factors contributing to the knowledge gained by an

individual illustrates the potential for differences in perception of a geographical space

(Kitchen and Blades, 2002). He suggests that the cultural and individual history of an

individual forms the basis of that individual’s acquisition of geographical space and, by

extension, is a fundamental influence in how it is perceived.

Characteristics of the

INDIVIDUAL

(Physical, Cognitive,Socioeconomic)

Characteristics of the

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

SPATIAL ACTIVITY

REPRESENTATION

Cultural and individual HISTORY

(Biological, Social,

Psychological)

Figure 1 Liben’s model of cognitive map knowledge acquisition. (Kitchen and Blades, 2002:34)

The term ‘cognitive map’ was first used by Tolman (1948) in his study of the behaviour

of rats navigating a maze, and is used as an ‘umbrella term’ (Kitchen and Blades, 2002)

to describe the cognitive processes by which humans acquire and mentally represent

spatial knowledge. While there is general agreement that the term cognitive map is

taken to mean a mental representation of an external environment, there is a divergence

of views on the form this representation takes (Tversky, 2000). A cognitive map may

range from a mental image similar to a map on paper, with metric and relational

11

qualities, to a collection of information which differs according to purpose; the latter is

termed by Tversky, a ‘cognitive collage’ rather than map (Tversky, 1993).

In his work on lateral thinking, Edward de Bono places perception as the first stage of

thinking (de Bono, 1987). The second stage is one of processing the perceptions and

subjecting them to logic and reasoning; it is only in this second stage that something is

done with our perceptions. He defines perceptions as ‘a particular way of looking at

some part of the world’; they are the patterns which have formed as a result of

grouping, or isolating, features and relationships formed from exposure to the world

directly or indirectly.

Work carried out by psychologists on the mental representation of geographical and

environmental information suggests that spatial mental models are hierarchical and, as

such, are subject to distortions of judgement and memory of spatial relations (Mark et

al., 1999). An example cited is a study by Tversky (1981) showing the general

positioning by Americans of South America as due south of North America, whereas

most of it lies further to the east than North America. Within the hierarchy, the

geographical elements of North and South America are mentally organized as in

alignment by virtue of their comparability rather than any consideration of metric

qualities, which determine their physical representation on a map.

In addition, a study by Stevens and Coupe (1978) showed that distortions of relative

geographical direction and distance may result from the hierarchical conceptualization

of geographical space. In their study on the judgement of spatial relations, they found

that judgement seemed to be based on the relative direction of a city as that of the state

containing the city, rather than the city itself. If the state containing the city is to the

east, then so, too, is the city. This can result in gross distortions: Reno (Nevada) is

north-north-west of San Diego (California) but was judged to be east of San Diego. This

can be explained by a hierarchical cognitive map in which the category of state is

superordinate to the category of city. Similarly, distortions were found for distance

between places depending on whether the places are in the same or different categories

or clusters, suggesting an influence of the hierarchical organization of the cognitive map.

12

However, not all distortions or biases can be explained in this way (Egenhofer and

Mark, 1995); other factors such as an association of colder climate with a more northerly

location may influence the judgement of relative latitude between places.

A place that is known usually has associations for the individual (Sheppard et al., 1999):

they may have been there alone or with others; in summer or winter, sunshine or rain; or

for a specific purpose which may have had its own associations. While knowledge of a

place is affected by familiarity with that place, familiarity is usually more complex than

simply ‘knowing a place’. The term can encompass meanings from mere recognition of

the place name to include emotions associated with the place itself or the place name

alone (e.g. fondness, fear, safety). There are many factors which can influence not just

the way an individual feels about a place but about where and how extensive it is. In

other words, in practice, places are more than a place name with co-ordinates and do not

mean the same for all people or even for one individual over time.

Sheppard et al. (1999) suggest that while place and boundaries are closely linked to

identity, the traditional physical and geographical bases of place may be of diminishing

importance in community identity as modern communication technologies bring people

together forming new types of electronically-based communities.

2.3.2 Secondary learning

The acquisition of geographical knowledge from textual descriptions and graphical

representation, most obviously maps, is termed ‘secondary learning’ by Kitchen and

Blades (2002); in other words, this is not knowledge gained from direct experience.

Secondary learning is necessarily part of an individuals geographical knowledge of

places they have no direct experience of and of areas that are too large-scale to allow

direct experience to be the basis of a cognitive map, such as continents, countries and

regions. Although it has been found that cognitive maps built on textual sources are

similar to those based on cartographic representations, the latter appear to be longer-

lasting (Mark et al., 1999).

The medium of speech, as opposed to the written word, is another means by which

geographical knowledge can be passed on and acquired. A study by Saarinen et al.

13

(cited in Kitchen and Blades, 2002) compared how individuals drew a map of the world

with their assessment of the relative importance of secondary sources of information in

contributing to geographical knowledge. It was found that the best maps were drawn by

those who rated atlases, books and school experience most highly, while the poorest

maps were drawn by those who rated television, travel and talking to people as

important.

The influence of media coverage of a place on individuals’ cognitive maps is equivocal.

Some, but not all, studies suggest that it may enhance geographical knowledge of the

place being covered. In this context, it is worth noting that, in the survey of the

Midlands, recorded here, it was apparent that the extensive media coverage of the

London bombings, which included many references to towns in the Midlands, had not

had a great impact on the geographical knowledge of the participants of the survey

despite their concurrency.

Virtual reality can provide an intermediate means of gaining geographical knowledge

which, while mimicking movement through space, does not provide the same richness of

sensory stimuli that movement through real space does. Perceptions of kinaesthesis and

smell, for example, are not experienced through the medium of virtual reality.

3. Background to the study A study by Montello et al. (2003), in which a method for measuring vague regions was

tested, formed the theoretical framework for this study. The purpose of that research

was to investigate individual perception of the location and extent of downtown Santa

Barbara. The study used a questionnaire-type method of three tasks: participants were

asked to draw an outline of the downtown area on a base map of the wider region; they

were then asked to repeat the task but with 50% and 100% confidence that the outline

enclosed the area; finally, participants were asked to site the ‘core’ of the area. The

study showed broad, although not exact, agreement in the definition of the location and

extent of downtown.

14

The authors considered the possibility that bias had been introduced by the presentation

of the base map, which may have affected the responses: if the map had included a

larger or smaller area, would the respondents’ outlines of downtown have been

different? They suggested that one way of eliminating any map bias would be to ask

people at various parts of the town whether they were in downtown Santa Barbara or

not. This study adopted that approach to the City Centre of Sheffield, focusing on

membership of the City Centre of current location and of landmarks listed on a

questionnaire. Like downtown Santa Barbara, Sheffield City Centre has no officially-

recognized boundaries but is nevertheless a ‘real place’, appearing as a destination for

buses and acknowledged as an area of Sheffield by the City Council.

The study differs from that of Montello et al. in that participants were not asked to give

answers at different confidence levels. It was felt that a street questionnaire should be

relatively simple to avoid deterring potential participants. In addition, comparison was

made between individual perceptions of the small-scale, local area of the City Centre

with those of a larger-scale, (possibly) more distant region by asking participants about

the Midlands; the format was consistent with that of the section on the City Centre.

4. Methodology

4.1 Boundaries

In order to draw up lists as objectively as possible of landmarks and towns in and around

Sheffield City Centre and the Midlands, some background research on boundaries was

done by consulting authoritative sources.

4.1.1 Sheffield City Centre

While many organizations use some means to define the City Centre, there is no

unanimity on where exactly the boundary is placed. Outlines of the City Centre as

defined by the organizations below are shown in Appendix A.

15

Sheffield City Centre Alert Scheme

The City Centre has a single fixed boundary for the purposes of emergency evacuation

of the city and for providing ‘information about events in the City Centre area that may

impact on the “normal work” of organisations located in the area’ such as transport or

traffic problems or demonstrations (Priority Alert, 2005). The boundary was drawn up

by South Yorkshire Police in conjunction with Sheffield City Council Emergency

Planning Team, and with the Fire and Rescue Service and the Ambulance Service as

participating organizations.

This suggests that the need to co-ordinate the work of local agencies, such as the police,

health authorities and local government, as outlined in the discussion of local

geographical information strategies in the UK by Craglia and Signoretta (2000), seems

to have been addressed, at least in the planning for emergencies affecting the City

Centre.

Open Forum For Economic Regeneration

The Open Forum For Economic Regeneration (OFFER) is a company and registered

charity accountable to the government for its role in leading Sheffield’s Community

Empowerment Network.

A visit in person was made to the organization’s offices to ask the City Centre worker

about their definition of City Centre. Their original definition was decided on by

internal discussion within OFFER. However, the boundary currently used was extended

to include the Kelham area, which lies just north of the original northern boundary. This

adjustment was made by the City Centre worker to enable OFFER to work with the

already established Kelham Action Group.

Sheffield City Council

Sheffield City Council does not use a single definition of the City Centre, although they

do have a definition based on the Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 1998 (Sheffield

City Council, 2005). For the purposes of the UDP, the City Centre is defined in the text

in the following way: ‘essentially, it is bounded by the Inner Ring Road to the west and

16

south, and the rail lines to the east and north’. The UDP document refers to a series of

10 maps defining the areas of Sheffield, with the City Centre area being defined as

shown on Map 10. Map 10 is entitled ‘Central Area Area 10’ and is shown in

Appendix A3.

Sheffield City Council, Planning Department

The Planning Department does not use area boundaries when dealing with planning

applications. According to information provided by a Planning Officer, the

department’s use of boundaries within the Sheffield area is more or less restricted to the

allocation of work between the area teams. The ‘City Centre and East Team’ deals with

applications concerning the east of the city as well as the City Centre.

Sheffield City Council, Council Tax Department The Council Tax Department divides its work into 14 areas consisting of a ‘circle

around the City Centre with the remaining areas spreading out [from the centre]’. They

use a system of street codes drawn up 25-30 (or more) years ago when the rating system

was still in operation. This system was described as ‘very unofficial’. All properties

have a Property Reference Number, the first two digits of which are the street code. If a

Property Reference Number begins with ‘00’ it is deemed to be in the City Centre. The

Council Tax Officer described the outer boundary enclosing the ‘00’ code by means of

street names in a clockwise direction from the northeast corner of the area (see

Appendix A4 for the boundary described). It is of interest that when naming the streets

on the northern limits of the ‘00’ code, the Officer commented that although Queen

Street and Bank Street did not have that code, they were ‘probably closer to the City

Centre than the Moor [for example]’; this implies that he considers the City Centre to be

focused around the Cathedral area.

The Council Tax Officer made reference to the boundaries of the Unitary Development

Plan as probably being the only boundaries recognized by the Council as official

boundaries.

17

City Centre Management

City Centre Management is the body responsible for ‘City Centre Ambassadors’ who

work in conjunction with South Yorkshire Police in reducing street crime. The

Ambassadors patrol the City Centre which, by their definition, includes the area within

the Inner Ring Road, but not the area in the north-west between Broad Lane and

Shalesmoor. Again, the northern boundary is the one that differs. It does not extend as

far north as that used by the Alert Scheme, OFFER, or South Yorkshire Police.

Emergency Services

None of the emergency services uses the term City Centre in a formal or official way.

When responding to emergency calls, a more specific location is needed, such as a street

name, although the Ambulance Service would require more detail than, say, the High

Street. However, if the call is made from a public telephone, the Service automatically

has information about its location.

Fire Prevention Officers categorize areas by postcode when organizing their activities

whereas the Ambulance Service does not categorize the city by area at all. When

attendance is required, the nearest ambulance is identified by satellite tracking. Standby

ambulances are situated at a few places within the (unofficial) City Centre, such as the

Bus Station, Fargate or Arundel Gate, and the locations are based on the record of

frequently made emergency calls; the crews have some discretion in the selection of

these locations.

South Yorkshire Police formally recognize an area called ‘Sheffield Central’ which has

an official boundary and includes the City Centre, but it extends further east and south-

east by approximately 4.5 km than most other definitions of the City Centre do. The

southern boundary zigzags to form a triangle, with its southern apex about

1 km south of the Inner Ring Road, which includes Sheffield United Football Club.

Comparison of boundaries

A comparison of the definitions of the ‘City Centre’ by these official bodies shows that

the southern and western boundaries are reasonably consistent, and are marked by the

18

inner ring road. Two exceptions to this are South Yorkshire Police (see above), and the

UDP definition, which appears on the map as extending westwards to include of

‘Western Bank’; this area is not included in the textual description which states that the

western boundary lies on the Inner Ring Road. The eastern boundary is approximately

the same for all definitions (apart from the Police Service’s ‘Sheffield Central’ area)

differing only in following either the railway line or the adjacent road (Sheaf Street and

Shoreham Street). However, there is greater variation seen for the northern boundary,

with the most southerly-placed being that used by the Council Tax Department. The

more northerly-placed northern boundary is that of the UDP. The northern boundaries

of OFFER and the Alert Scheme differ from each other in that OFFER’s boundary

extends further in the north-west corner and the Alert Scheme’s extends further in the

north-east corner.

As Cohn and Gotts (1996) point out, the placing of a boundary to enclose a vague region

is necessarily arbitrary to some extent. It will depend not only on the perceptions of

those deciding on the boundary, but on the purpose for which a boundary is deemed

desirable.

4.1.2 The Midlands

In a similar way to Sheffield City Centre, the boundary used to describe ‘the Midlands’

differs according to source, and varies in the different contexts and purposes for which

the Midlands is defined. The definition given for the Midlands by two encyclopaedias

(Hutchinson, 1999; Wikipedia, 2005) is, in the first instance, by reference to the

mediaeval kingdom of Mercia. Mercia covered the area of central England bounded by

the Thames in the south, the Humber in the north, East Anglia to the east and the Welsh

border to the west. Both encyclopaedias go on to define the present day Midlands by the

counties included in the region (see Table 1). According to Wikipedia, the decline in

manufacturing and the changing nature of the region as it has become less industrialized,

is held to be of importance in influencing perceptions of the Midlands, such that

Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire are now sometimes also considered to be in the region.

19

Hutchinson’s definition divides the region into East, West and South Midlands:

E Midlands Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire. W Midlands the former metropolitan county of West Midlands created from parts of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire; and (often included) S Midlands Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire. (Hutchinson, 1999)

In other words, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire are not in themselves

part of the Midlands in this definition, but only as part of the West Midlands, an

administrative area. Herefordshire and Lincolnshire are not included at all. Rutland is

included, although not by name since in 1999, the publication date of the encyclopaedia,

Rutland was part of Leicestershire.

Wikipedia Hutchinson Enc. Brit. Direct.gov Derbyshire √ √ √ √ Bedfordshire (√) Buckinghamshire (√) Gloucestershire (√) Herefordshire √ √ √ Leicestershire √ √ √ √ Lincolnshire √ √ √ Northamptonshire √ √ √ √ Nottinghamshire √ √ √ √ Oxfordshire (√) (√) Rutland √ √ √ Shropshire √ √ √ Staffordshire √ √ part √ √ Warwickshire √ √ part √ √ West Midlands √ √ √ √ Worcestershire √ √ part √ √ Table 1 Counties included in the Midlands

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the ‘Midland counties of England’ as ‘(usually)

the central counties south of the Humber and Mersey and north of the Thames,

excluding (sometimes) the coastal counties and the counties on the Welsh border’. It

goes on to give a definition specific to hunting: ‘the counties of Leicestershire,

Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire’. The

Encyclopaedia Britannica and Direct.Gov both include all the counties specified by

Wikipedia and Hutchinson’s except Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and

Gloucestershire.

20

On-line weather forecasts are often available by region. Four examples for the Midlands

are shown below.

BBC, 2005 Sky News, 2005

Times Online, 2005 The Met Office, 2005

The BBC’s weather Web page shows the Midlands as an area large enough to include all

anticipated perceptions of the region, which is approximately the original area of

mediaeval Mercia. The Sky News weather page shows an area which is nearly as

extensive, but does not quite reach to the Humber and names only four towns, including

Gloucester; interestingly, Gloucestershire is not included in the definitions of either

encyclopaedias quoted above except as a possible recent addition in the entry in

Wikipedia. However, neither of these Web pages provides a boundary; the impression is

21

of an area portrayed which will include the area sought without the commitment of

exactness.

The areas shown on the weather Web pages of Times Online and the Met Office both

enclose a specific area to define the region. They differ only in that Times Online

includes Northamptonshire whereas the Met Office does not. Both encyclopaedia

definitions include Northamptonshire. However, the Met Office has a rather unusual

system of naming British regions: the area of Britain shown for the ‘West Country’ is of

the counties of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset and Avon (but not Devon, Dorset or

Cornwall); South-east England consists of Oxfordshire, Surrey, Middlesex, Greater

London and Kent (but not Sussex).

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2005) in the USA provides a GIS freely

available on the Internet to locate places worldwide. Point locations are given in the

form of latitude and longitude, and the co-ordinates given for the Midlands are those of

Ashby-de-la-Zouch: 52° 45' N, 1° 30' W. It is assumed that GNS has identified this

point as the spatial centre of the region. If that assumption is correct, then the GNS

excludes Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, and either includes or excludes both

Shropshire and Lincolnshire (and possibly Cambridgeshire).

4.2 Pilot study

A pilot study was carried out prior to the survey in central Sheffield. The results of the

pilot study affected the form and content of the final questionnaire used in the street

survey.

The questionnaire was piloted among students and other members of Sheffield

University to test how long it takes to answer all the questions and to check that the

questions were clear and unambiguous. Some of these participants volunteered the

comment that the questions were straightforward, even though they did not know where

all the locations and towns specified are. The time taken to complete the questionnaire

was found to be between five and ten minutes. None of the participants found any of the

questions objectionable; all were willing to answer all the questions. However, it was

22

concluded that the original layout of the questionnaire was a little intimidating in that the

lists of locations and towns appeared very long. The format of the lists was changed in

the subsequent version.

Some reactions to the questions influenced the way in which the instructions and

explanations of the project were given. It appeared from the participants’ hesitance and

general body language that not knowing where somewhere is caused some self-

consciousness or even embarrassment. This led to a greater emphasis being placed on

explaining that the City Centre and the Midlands do not have a single unequivocal

definition and that the answers to the questions are not right or wrong, merely the

perception of the participant.

The pilot exercise also demonstrated that places that are clearly well-known to a

participant are not necessarily known by name. For example, almost everyone gave

shopping as one of their reasons for visiting the city centre but some said they did not

know where the landmark ‘Fargate’ is; Fargate is the main shopping area of Sheffield

city centre. It is difficult to imagine that someone who goes shopping in the city centre

does not go to Fargate.

Knowledge of the location of towns in England was evidently a problem, and it was

apparent that lack of geographical knowledge was causing some embarrassment, despite

frequent reassurance that ‘Don’t know where it is’ appeared many times on all

completed questionnaires. In an attempt to avoid causing discomfort to the participants,

and to reduce the likelihood that responses would be randomly guessed ‘Yes’ or ‘No’,

the original list of 42 towns in the piloted questionnaire was cut to 32 in the final

questionnaire. Most of the towns retained are either large towns or county towns

bearing a similarity to the name of their county, so that they might be ‘placed’ on a

mental map of the country more easily. The exceptions to this rule fall into two

categories: Buxton, Chesterfield and Worksop are all within 40 kilometres of Sheffield

and judged to be more likely to be known for that reason; Burton-upon-Trent,

Cheltenham, Chester, Grantham, Shrewsbury, Stratford-upon-Avon and Swindon are all

23

towns that may be perceived as bordering on the Midlands and without larger better-

known alternatives near to any of them.

The Sheffield landmarks for which the response in the pilot study were ‘Don’t know

where it is’ are presented here (Figure 2) because this response was influential in

modifying the questionnaire for use in the street survey.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Lady

's B

ridge

Cam

po L

ane

St M

ary'

s C

hurc

h

Moo

rfoot

Park

Hill

Wes

t Bar

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Fitz

alan

Sqa

re

Wic

ker

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Vict

oria

Qua

ys

Law

Cou

rts

Lead

mill

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Farg

ate

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Ice

Rin

k

Riv

er D

on

Wes

ton

Park

Kel

ham

Isla

nd

Wai

trose

Bus

Stat

ion

Cat

hedr

al

Col

e Br

os

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

l

Moo

r

Pond

s Fo

rge

Tow

n H

all

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

Figure 2 Number of ‘Don’t know where it is’ responses, Pilot survey

Lady’s Bridge and Campo Lane were both largely unknown (by name, at least) by the

participants of the pilot survey. Nevertheless, they were retained in the final

questionnaire as it was judged that they were likely to be better known in the general

population of Sheffield than amongst members of the University. St Mary’s Church was

not kept as a landmark in the final questionnaire partly because it was not known by

many in the pilot survey but also because it was clear that many people initially

confused it with the Catholic Cathedral Church of St Marie which is in the centre of the

city, whereas St Mary’s is just outside the Inner Ring Road.

24

Other landmarks were omitted in the modified questionnaire either because they were

unanimously classed as out of the City Centre (Hunters Bar) or because they were not

widely known but are very close to another, better known, landmark (Cole Bros/John

Lewis, directly opposite the City Hall; Moorfoot, directly adjacent to the Moor;

St Mary’s Church was replaced by the nearby and much better known Sheffield United

Football Club). West Street Post Office replaced the less specific West Street, which

some people thought was in the City Centre at one end and either out of the city or on its

boundary at the other. Similarly, West Bar was omitted as the more specific landmark

of the Fire and Police Museum is situated at one end of West Bar; it was judged that

West Bar as a whole could legitimately fall into more than one category of answer.

4.3 Central Sheffield survey

4.3.1 The sample surveyed

Data on individuals’ perceptions of Sheffield City Centre were collected from residents

and visitors, including some long-term visitors from outside the UK. Individuals were

approached at three locations in central Sheffield. Selection of participants was as

random as possible, although an attempt was made to approach unaccompanied

individuals since the questionnaire was not completed by the participants themselves,

rather, the questions were asked and responses noted down; solitary participants were

selected to avoid the possibility of composite or advised opinions. This was not

successful in every case as a few participants were solitary only because they were

waiting for their companion who arrived before the completion of the questionnaire but,

usually, the participants were by that time more keen to give their own opinion than that

of their companion.

Surprisingly few people who were approached in the final locations chosen declined to

take part. Most of those said they did not have enough time, were on their way to or

from work, or meeting someone. A few declined before they were asked: there are

many market research surveys carried out in the city and participation is not very

popular.

25

4.3.2 The questionnaire

Some background details were requested to provide information about factors which

may possibly influence perceptions of the City Centre. These included where in the city

the participant lives (residents) and works/studies (if applicable) and for how long they

have lived and worked/studied there. Following the pilot study, the participants were

also asked what region of the country they ‘come from’ as this might have influenced

their answers to the section about the Midlands.

Since this was a street questionnaire, with quite a long list of landmarks, participants

were not asked to indicate a level of confidence (as in the study by Montello et al.) with

which they placed a landmark in, out, or on the boundary of the City Centre or the

Midlands.

Based on the various existing definitions of Sheffield City Centre, a series of landmarks

was compiled to include those within, outside and on the boundary of the City Centre.

There are parts of this area that present no obvious landmarks; that is to say, areas that

are predominantly residential, notably the north-west section of the central area. The

pilot test of the questionnaire had no landmark in this area but, subsequently, one was

added (Shalesmoor) which it was judged might be known as the tram stop bears the

same name.

Several landmarks were included for the reason that, although they are certainly within

the City Centre, they are well-known and would therefore be easy questions to answer.

It was felt that the list should include some very well-known landmarks to gain the

confidence of the participants. These well-known City Centre landmarks included the

Town Hall, City Hall, Cathedral and Crucible and Lyceum Theatres. Some landmarks

were omitted because the participant might have been predisposed to include them by

virtue of their name, for example the Central Library. Streets in general were avoided,

with some exceptions, since part, but not the whole length, might be perceived as in the

City Centre.

The final questionnaire was ‘slimmed down’ in appearance as it had become apparent

that the layout of the pilot questionnaire was rather intimidating. The number of

26

landmarks in the City Centre was only reduced by three (to 38), but appeared to be much

shorter.

Towns in central England were selected on a similar basis to the locations in central

Sheffield, i.e. to include towns that might be viewed as on the boundary or outside the

Midlands as well as those considered to be in the Midlands. The list of towns on the

pilot questionnaire was quite long and included towns close to each other. Several

towns were subsequently omitted because they were not known by most participants.

The final questionnaire used in the central Sheffield survey is shown in Appendix B.

4.3.3 Answer options

Five options were offered for answers on the pilot questionnaire: yes, no, maybe, on the

boundary, don’t know where it is. The option of maybe was included because it seemed

possible that it might give an indication of context, that a landmark might or might not

be in the City Centre depending on the purpose of a visit. However, it was omitted after

the pilot study since it did not appear to be selected on that basis, rather as a way of

saying ‘don’t know’ (whether it is in the City Centre or not as opposed to ‘don’t know

where it is’) and confused the analysis of the results of the pilot study. By excluding this

option, the final questionnaire demanded a decision on the part of the participant as to

membership of the location or town in the City Centre or the Midlands; while ‘don’t

know where it is’ was a necessary possible choice of answer, ‘don’t know’ was not an

option.

The option of ‘Don’t know where it is’ is abbreviated to DKW in Section 5, Results.

4.3.4 Location selected for the survey

After the provisional questionnaire had been modified in light of the pilot exercise, the

first location in which members of the public were asked to participate was Moorfoot.

This was selected because although the Moor itself is generally considered to have

membership of the city centre, the small area of Moorfoot is probably not considered a

focus for shopping or meeting up with friends or family members. Except for the

presence of a Post Office and public toilets, it is more a place people pass through on the

27

way to and from the Moor and other locations in the centre. These factors place it as a

possible boundary point for the city centre. However, these same factors were perhaps

reasons for the difficulty in finding people willing to take part in the survey at that

location: fewer people are there and those who are there are usually in a hurry, many of

them on their way to or from work. This southern location was shifted slightly, by about

50 metres, to the Moor.

The next location selected was the Peace Gardens, which is a busier place and

somewhere that people choose to eat their lunch or meet up with friends. This proved a

more successful location with respect to the number of people willing to participate.

The third location was the Railway Station on the east of the city.

All the locations are quite busy places, with seats or benches.

Castle Market, in the north-east of the city, was another location considered, but there

was an insufficient number of willing participants.

5. Results

5.1 Survey participants

A total of 93 people took part in the survey and all participants answered the section on

Sheffield City Centre. The number of participants in each of the three locations selected

for comparison was as follows: 23 on the Moor; 20 in the Peace Gardens; 22 at the

Railway Station, a total of 65.

The larger number of people surveyed on the Moor and at the Station resulted from the

re-assessment of completed questionnaires. Initially, questionnaires with a high number

of ‘don’t know where it is’ (DKW) responses were considered unsuitable for inclusion.

However, in the light of the variability of frequency of this response, and the occurrence

of a high number from several participants who had always, or for a very long time,

lived in Sheffield, those excluded at the start of the survey were reinstated: the lack of

28

knowledge of some landmarks does not invalidate the responses to those that were

known.

However, the variable number of DKW responses resulted in very different effective

sample numbers for some landmarks. For this reason, results for landmarks placed in

the City Centre, not in the City Centre and on the boundary of the City Centre are

presented as percentages of those who did know the landmark, rather than the number of

participants giving each of those responses.

Results described as being from ‘all participants’ are those from the total number of

participants, 56 women and 37 men. There were 65 participants from the three

locations, 23 from the pilot study, and five from locations which were deemed

unsuitable due to the lack of willing participants. The distribution of participants

amongst the age groups is shown in Figure 3.

30

14

11

15

10

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 26 years 26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-65 years Over 65 years

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

Figure 3 Age distribution of survey participants, all participants

‘Location’ refers to the place where the questionnaire was answered, i.e. the Moor,

Peace Gardens, Railway Station and Sheffield University (Pilot study). ‘Landmarks’ are

29

those in the list of places on the questionnaire. Responses to the question about the

Midlands were not considered in relation to location.

5.2 Analysis of results

The results were coded and entered on an SPSS data file. The data from the three

locations were analyzed using the chi square test. However, the expected frequency is

small for many categories and breaks Siegel’s ‘rule of thumb’ concerning restrictions on

the use of the chi square test: if the number of categories is greater than 2, no more than 1/5 of the expected

frequencies should be less than 5, and certainly none should be less than 1.

(Ebdon, 1985:67)

The results are presented as percentages of responses from participants who knew where

the landmark is situated. In the comparison of perceptions between the three locations,

only data obtained at those locations are used. In presenting results that are dealt with

independent of survey location, responses recorded on all 93 questionnaires for Sheffield

City Centre are used.

In general, results from the pilot study, held at Sheffield University, are not discussed in

great detail. This is because the differences in the questionnaire make direct

comparisons dubious: there are no results from that survey for the additional three

landmarks on the final questionnaire, that did not appear on the pilot questionnaire. The

answer option of ‘maybe’ also confuses comparisons. Nevertheless, when these factors

do not seem to cloud the results, consideration is given to those from the survey at the

University. The results from the pilot study are also included in the figures.

Of the 93 participants, 18 were unwilling or unable to answer the question about the

Midlands; a total of 75 questionnaires were completed for that question.

5.3 Sheffield City Centre

5.3.1 Distribution of responses

Responses from all participants placing landmarks in the City Centre totalled more than

those placing landmarks outside the City Centre and on the boundary combined (see

30

Figure 4). This suggests that the perception of the participants broadly fits in with a

boundary following the Inner Ring Road, which encloses most of the landmarks on the

questionnaire.

57

27

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

In the City Centre Not in the City Centre On the Boundary

% o

f res

pons

es

Figure 4 Distribution of responses to Sheffield landmarks

The low incidence of placing a landmark on the boundary may be because, despite

attempts to include landmarks covering all the categories of response, the participants

were not able to find many places from the list that they perceived as marking the

boundary. Another explanation is that people’s perceptions of Sheffield City Centre are

not in the broader sense of a coherent place called the City Centre, bounded in a definite

way, but rather of individual places and landmarks and whether they are part of the City

Centre or not. Several participants expressed the view that the City Centre is somewhat

spread out, rather than a strongly connected and easily definable area. It is also possible

that the option of ‘Boundary’ seems equivalent to ‘Don’t know’.

There is a reasonably even distribution of the response of ‘Boundary’ across the three

locations: 13% of all responses on the Moor, 9% in the Peace Gardens and 11% at the

Railway Station. The distribution of the responses ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are also evenly

distributed and a summary of the quantitative distribution of responses is shown in

Table 2, below.

31

Moor Peace Gardens Railway Station In the City Centre 49% 51% 45% Not in the City Centre 23% 23% 20% Boundary 13% 9% 11%

Table 2 A comparison of the distribution of responses between the three locations

5.3.2 Home post codes of participants

A majority of participants on the Moor resident in Sheffield, 17 out of 21, live on the

eastern side of the city (see Appendix C). The map shown in Appendix C was compiled

after informal conversations with estate agents about the variation in house prices and

the ‘desirability’ of different areas of the city. Generally, the more desirable, and

therefore more expensive, areas of Sheffield lie to the west and southwest, closest to the

Peak District. In addition to this area, properties in the City Centre have, in recent years,

also become fashionable. The area of S7 may be regarded as intermediate between its

neighbours to the east and the west in terms of desirability and house prices. The post

code area of S6 may also be termed ‘intermediate’ in that it is a traditionally less

wealthy area, with ‘disadvantaged status’ as judged for the purpose of EU funding, but is

becoming more popular thanks to the combination of its location on the western side of

Sheffield and the development of the tram route to Malin Bridge and Middlewood. The

S18 post code is on the outskirts of the city and regarded by some as part of Sheffield

only officially or by virtue of the Sheffield post code.

These are necessarily broad generalizations which include many anomalies and should

be recognized as such. However, the predominance of residents from the eastern and

northern parts of the city amongst those surveyed on the Moor is perhaps a reflection of

the nature of the Moor. It is a pedestrianized shopping area with most of the shops

offering cut-price goods, such as book remainder shops and shops where each item costs

₤1, although there is also a branch of a major supermarket and two department stores. It

accommodates market stalls and several mobile food outlets for street-eating.

By contrast, the Peace Gardens is a recently reconstructed area of outdoor seating, water

features and fountains adjacent to the Town Hall and with a large continental-style cafe

32

bar on its edge. It is also close to the main shopping area of Fargate and only about

250 metres from the top end of the Moor. Of the 15 people who were surveyed in the

Peace Gardens who were residents of Sheffield, eight lived in the same eastern area of

the city as the majority of those on the Moor, and the remaining seven lived either in the

western part of the city or in the intermediate areas of S6, S7 or S18.

Participants of the survey at the Railway Station who were resident in Sheffield also had

home postcodes that were fairly evenly distributed between the eastern and western

sides of the city.

Of the 20 participants of the pilot study who were resident in Sheffield, 12 lived on the

western side of the city. The postcode area where most student accommodation is found

is S10 and, although only seven of the participants were students, it is an area that is

very convenient for those working at the University as well as for students.

5.3.3 ‘Don’t know where it is’

The option of ‘don’t know where it is’ (DKW) was recorded for 18% of all possible

responses (483 out of 2660). However, there was not an even distribution between the

different locations where the questionnaire was conducted, as shown in Figure 5.

33

128 131

201

0

50

100

150

200

Moor Peace Gardens Railway Station

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

Figure 5 Number of ‘DKW’ responses from the three locations

The highest incidence of DKW was found at the Railway Station. This is perhaps

unsurprising as railway stations are peopled by those who are passing through,

departing, arriving or meeting others; in other words a population of great diversity and

mobility. Questionnaires completed at the Railway Station were from people covering a

range of familiarity with Sheffield; some knew it very well, having lived in the city for

many years, while others knew it only slightly from a brief period of living in Sheffield

or from visits from their homes in nearby places such as Chesterfield and Derby.

Several individuals at the Railway Station willing to participate were unsuitable for the

reason that they didn’t know Sheffield at all.

A lower incidence of DKW was seen from participants surveyed on the Moor, and in the

Peace Gardens. The proportion of participants on the Moor who reported that they had

always lived in Sheffield was high: 15 out of 23; of the remaining eight, three had lived

in Sheffield for many years (20, 23 and 42 years). By comparison, four participants at

each of the other two locations reported that they had always lived in Sheffield; eight

34

participants in the Peace Gardens had lived in Sheffield between 10 and 55 years and

four participants at the Railway Station had lived in Sheffield between 10 and 36 years.

The distribution of DKW responses between the landmarks is shown in Figure 6.

43

3433

31

28 2827 27

2422

2119 19

18 18

1211 11

4 4 4 43 3

2 2 2 21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45C

ampo

Lan

eLa

dy's

Brid

gePa

rk H

illM

appi

n St

reet

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Kelh

am Is

land

Shal

esm

oor

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Furn

ival

Squ

are

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Fitz

alan

Sqa

reR

oyal

Vic

toria

Hot

elLa

w C

ourts

Wes

ton

Park

Show

room

Vict

oria

Qua

ysR

iver

Don

Wic

ker

Ice

Rin

kLe

adm

illW

est S

treet

Pos

t Offi

ceFa

rgat

eW

aitro

seM

oor

Cas

tle M

arke

tC

athe

dral

Shef

field

Uni

ted

FCW

inte

r Gar

den

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

lPo

nds

Forg

eBu

s St

atio

nSh

effie

ld U

nive

rsity

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Tow

n H

all

Cru

cibl

e

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

n =

93

Figure 6 Landmarks of unknown location, all participants

Several of the landmarks seemed to be broadly unknown, at least by name, by

participants in general. For some of these landmarks, for example Devonshire Green,

the Fire/Police Museum and Mappin Street, the proportion of participants who answered

DKW was evenly spread across the three locations. However, for a number of

landmarks with a high incidence of DKW, there were differences between the three

locations.

The same number of participants (10) on the Moor and at the Railway Station did not

know where Kelham Island. At the Peace Gardens, however, only 4 of the participants

answered DKW to this landmark.

35

Kelham Island houses an industrial museum, and the nature of the location surveyed

seems likely to be related to the knowledge shown of the landmark; while there are seats

at both the Peace Gardens and the Moor, people are not likely to visit the Moor for its

own sake whereas they do visit the Peace Gardens simply to sit and relax. The seats on

the Moor are used more by people waiting for their companions to emerge from shops,

or eating ‘on the hoof’. The subjective impression that participants on the Moor were

predominantly from lower socio-economic groupings may be supported by the fact that

the shops there are predominantly aimed at people on a low budget. To speculate on any

relationship between familiarity with Kelham Island and the different characters and

amenities found on the Moor and in the Peace Gardens would be unwise and impossible

to justify without larger samples from the locations.

Participants on the Moor were more familiar with long-established landmarks, some of

which may have represented former boundaries of the city. An example is Lady’s

Bridge, which crosses the River Don and leads on to a road which used to be the site of

many of Sheffield’s major steel works before they were demolished in the late 1980s.

Lady’s Bridge is ‘one of Sheffield oldest landmarks’ (Vickers, 1978:16). A larger

number of participants on the Moor also knew where Shalesmoor, the Police

Headquarters and West Street Post Office are than at either of the other two locations.

A number of landmarks were almost universally known amongst participants of this

survey. All knew the whereabouts of the City Hall and the Railway Station. Somewhat

surprisingly, one person did not know where the Town Hall is: a young woman at the

Railway Station, who has been attending Sheffield University for one academic year. It

seems likely that she is familiar with the building itself but simply does not know it by

name. The Bus Station was known by all except one participant in the Peace Gardens;

similarly, the Crucible Theatre was known by all but one participant at the Railway

Station. The Hallamshire Hospital, Ponds Forge and Sheffield University each scored

two DKW responses.

Despite being identified as a well-known landmark in the pilot survey, Mappin Street

may have been a poor choice for inclusion in the questionnaire. Part of Sheffield

36

University is situated on Mappin Street which would, therefore, naturally be part of the

mental geography of members of the University amongst whom the pilot survey was

carried out. In the pilot survey, Mappin Street was placed in each of the categories

except for DKW and so appeared to be a good candidate landmark.

5.3.4 Landmarks in the City Centre

Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre as a percentage of all people surveyed are

shown in Figure 7. The six highest ranking landmarks are centred around the Town Hall

and Fargate, and the nine highest ranked landmarks, are all perceived to have

membership of the City Centre by more than 90% of all participants.

99 99 99 99 99 9892 91 91 89 87

77 74 7369

65

57 57 5653 51

47 47 4437 35

2217 16 14 14 14 14

6 62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

City

Hal

lC

ruci

ble

Tow

n H

all

Cat

hedr

alFa

rgat

eW

inte

r Gar

den

Fitz

alan

Sqa

reFu

rniv

al S

quar

eM

oor

Cas

tle M

arke

tC

ampo

Lan

eFi

re S

ervi

ce H

QBu

s St

atio

nSh

effie

ld H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Show

room

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Wes

t Stre

et P

ost O

ffice

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Pond

s Fo

rge

Riv

er D

onLe

adm

illD

evon

shire

Gre

enLa

w C

ourts

Map

pin

Stre

etLa

dy's

Brid

geFi

re/P

olic

e M

useu

mR

oyal

Vic

toria

Hot

elVi

ctor

ia Q

uays

Wai

trose

Kelh

am Is

land

Wic

ker

Shef

field

Uni

vers

ityIc

e R

ink

Shef

field

Uni

ted

FCPa

rk H

illH

alla

msh

ire H

ospi

tal

Wes

ton

Park

Shal

esm

oor

% o

f res

pons

es

Figure 7 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre, all participants

This indicates a general agreement on landmarks in a small central area of the city as

being in the City Centre.

The ‘top ten’ landmarks placed in the City Centre by all participants compared with

those at the three locations are shown in Table 3, below.

37

All % Moor % Peace Gardens % Railway Station % Sheffield University

%

Cathedral 99 Cathedral 100 Cathedral 100 Crucible 100 Cathedral 100City Hall 99 City Hall 100 City Hall 100 Moor 96 City Hall 100Crucible 99 Fargate 100 Crucible 100 Cathedral 95 Crucible 100Fargate 99 Furnival Square 100 Fargate 100 City Hall 95 Fargate 100Town Hall 99 Town Hall 100 Town Hall 100 Town Hall 95 Town Hall 100Winter Garden 98 Winter Garden 100 Winter Garden 100 Winter Garden 95 Winter Garden 91Fitzalan Square 92 Crucible 96 Bus Station 95 Fargate 94 Moor 91Furnival Square 91 Fitzalan Square 94 Castle Market 95 Fitzalan Square 94 Fitzalan Square 87Moor 91 Campo Lane 93 Moor 95 Furnival Square 92 Campo Lane 80Castle Market 89 Castle Market 91 Fitzalan Square 94 Fire Service HQ 91 Castle Market 78

Table 3 Highest ranking landmarks placed in the City Centre

While there are some differences in the percentages, it should be noted that the sample

sizes differ slightly between the four locations and that the ‘All’ sample consists of the

pooled results from all four locations together and a further five participants from other

locations. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to state that there is a general consensus

that the top-ranking seven landmarks perceived as being in the City Centre by all

individuals surveyed are all in the top 10-ranked landmarks regardless of location:

Cathedral, City Hall, Crucible, Fargate, Town Hall, Winter Garden and Fitzalan Square

(in italics in Table 3).

All seven of the landmarks perceived as the ‘core’ of the City Centre (Section 5.3.8) are

amongst those perceived as in the City Centre by more than 90% of participants,

regardless of location, with the exception of Castle Market (89%).

There are some differences between the results from the different locations, however.

These differences are more marked further down the ranking of landmarks in the City

Centre. The greatest differences apparently related to location, are seen for the

Showroom Cinema, the Railway Station, the River Don, West Street Post Office,

Waitrose and Kelham Island. This is shown in Figure 8, below.

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cat

hedr

alC

ity H

all

Cru

cibl

eTo

wn

Hal

lFa

rgat

eW

inte

r Gar

den

Fitz

alan

Sqa

re*F

urni

val S

quar

eC

astle

Mar

ket

Cam

po L

ane

Moo

rFi

re S

ervi

ce H

QBu

s St

atio

nS

. Yor

kshi

re P

olic

e H

QSh

effie

ld H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Show

room

Pond

s Fo

rge

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Riv

er D

onLe

adm

illW

est S

treet

Pos

t Offi

ceM

appi

n St

reet

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Law

Cou

rtsLa

dy's

Brid

geR

oyal

Vic

toria

Hot

elFi

re/P

olic

e M

useu

mVi

ctor

ia Q

uays

Wai

trose

Kelh

am Is

land

Wic

ker

Ice

Rin

kSh

effie

ld U

nive

rsity

*She

ffiel

d U

nite

d FC

Par

k H

illH

alla

msh

ire H

ospi

tal

Wes

ton

Park

*Sha

lesm

oor

% o

f res

pons

es

Moor Peace Gardens (PG)

Railway Station (RW) University (Pilot study)

Location of survey:

Figure 8 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre (*location not included in Pilot study)

The Showroom cinema was a landmark well-known to participants at the Railway

Station, with only two people not knowing where it is. By contrast, 7 participants at the

Peace Gardens and 9 on the Moor did not known where the Showroom is. It may have

been perceived as part of the City Centre to those at the Railway Station by virtue of its

closeness to the Station while at the same time being part of city nightlife, especially in

view of the high number of participants at the Station having associations with the two

universities. The Showroom is an independent cinema which offers educational

workshops and often screens foreign films as well as films that are not generally being

screened by the large national cinema complexes. All participants in the pilot study

(Sheffield Univeristy) knew where the Showroom is, which may support the association

between familiarity with the landmark and membership of a university.

The Railway Station is approximately 1 km from the Moor whereas it is about

0.57 km from the Peace Gardens. The greater distance may influence individuals’

perceptions of its membership of the City Centre for someone who is on the Moor

whereas from the Peace Gardens, it may seem ‘just down the road’. Similarly, for

39

people surveyed at Sheffield University, the Railway Station is probably both frequently

visited and further away from their homes than many other landmarks in the city.

Generally, a smaller proportion of participants at all locations perceived Castle Market

to be in the City Centre compared with the River Don. This is most marked in data

collected from the Railway Station where more than twice as many participants

identified Castle Market as a City Centre landmark. The river is only about 75 metres

from the market but is separated from it by the A61, a busy trunk road forming part of

the Inner Ring Road. This may result in the two landmarks lying in differently

perceived sectors of the city. It is also true that while the market is a busy bustling

place, the best known stretches of the river lie further out of the City Centre where

riverside walks have been developed in recent years. The river may be associated with

leisure activities and free time in contrast to the market which may be associated with

activities of domestic necessity (shopping). Perhaps the narrower gap between the two

landmarks found from people on the Moor is related to the route home: many of the

participants on the Moor live in areas where a bus route will take them across Lady’s

Bridge, over the River Don, on their way in to or out of the City Centre. They may,

therefore, have greater familiarity with the proximity of the two landmarks. This may

also be an influence in the perception of the Royal Victoria Hotel as in or not in the City

Centre, where similar, but less marked, differences are seen.

It is difficult to understand why 84% of participants at the Railway Station perceived

West Street Post Office as part of the City Centre while only 42% of those on the Moor

did so. One factor could be the higher incidence of those associated with the

universities, eight compared with two on the Moor, although most of these individuals

were attending Sheffield Hallam University, the main part of which is not near West

Street. However, it is possible that they were in departments away from the central

campus of the University and nearer to West Street. It is likely that the proximity of the

Post Office to Sheffield University, and its position on the route to the City Centre,

result in a perception by many participants in the pilot study that it is in the City Centre.

40

Only one participant at the Railway Station thought that Waitrose is in the City Centre

compared with six on the Moor. Waitrose is about 400 metres from the Moor and,

although they are separated by another part of the A61 Ring Road, they may be

perceived in a similar way, as places for shopping.

Only three individuals, one at the Railway Station and two on the Moor, thought Kelham

Island is part of the City Centre compared with seven individuals in the Peace Gardens.

Familiarity with Kelham Island has been discussed in a previous section (5.3.3) and the

issues raised in that context may also be relevant to the apparent difference in the

perceptions of individuals in the three locations where the survey was conducted. It

seems likely that those surveyed in the Peace Gardens were more disposed to be aware

of and visit places such as the Industrial Museum situated at Kelham Island. However,

members of Sheffield University do not appear to be equally disposed to such visits.

An equal number of participants in the pilot study placed the Police Headquarters in the

City Centre as on the boundary. Most of them knew where it is but it may be in a part of

the city less frequently visited by people at Sheffield University thereby making it less

likely to be seen as part of the City Centre.

Other notable differences in perception are seen for the Moor, the Fire Service HQ, the

Bus Station, Sheffield Hallam University, Devonshire Green, Lady’s Bridge (discussed

in Section 5.3.3), and the Royal Victoria Hotel (discussed above).

Differences between home postcode areas The results showing responses indicating landmarks perceived in the City Centre

according to home postcode area are shown in Figure 9. It should be noted that,

although the area covered by postcodes in the north and north-east is larger than that

covered by postcodes in the south and south-west, it is not proportional to the number of

postcodes; the postcode area size in the north and north-east is smaller than in the south

and south-west. (For an outline of the areas covered, see Appendix C.) The number of

participants who live on the eastern side of the city is 52, with 27 living on the western

side. The large difference in sample size is not ideal and may make any observations

based on the results somewhat spurious.

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Shal

esm

oor

Wes

ton

Par

k

Ice

Rin

k

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

l

Kelh

am Is

land

Shef

field

Uni

ted

FC

Shef

field

Uni

vers

ity

Wic

ker

Par

k H

ill

Wai

trose

Vict

oria

Qua

ys

Wes

t Stre

et P

ost O

ffice

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Map

pin

Stre

et

Lead

mill

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Riv

er D

on

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Pond

s Fo

rge

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Lady

's B

ridge

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Show

room

Furn

ival

Squ

are

Law

Cou

rts

Bus

Sta

tion

Fitz

alan

Squ

are

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Moo

r

Cam

po L

ane

% o

f res

pons

es

S10, S11, S17

S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S9, S12, S13,

Location of survey:

Figure 9 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre, all participants resident in Sheffield

When comparing landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre with the two main

postcode areas identified, (Section 5.3.2), some differences can be seen, most notably for

the following landmarks: Landmark: North, North-east West, South-west South Yorkshire Police HQ 86% 41% River Don 72% 33% Devonshire Green 30% 62% Royal Victoria Hotel 44% 14% Furnival Square 96% 71% Law Courts 63% 38% Ponds Forge 66% 42% Victoria Quays 38% 16% West Street Post Office 38% 60% Fire Services HQ 70% 90% Sheffield United Football Club 20% 0%

Table 4 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre, by home area

Just as for the River Don and Lady’s Bridge, South Yorkshire Police HQ, the Royal

Victoria Hotel, the Law Courts, Ponds Forge and Victoria Quays are on or near possible

routes between the City Centre and home for people living on the eastern side of the

42

city. As discussed above in relation to the river, this may influence perceptions of the

membership of these landmarks to the City Centre.

The greater tendency for those living in western areas of the city to see Devonshire

Green as being part of the city may be related to its closeness to Sheffield University and

West Street. It is an area for relaxation and eating lunch (in sunny weather) for those

based in the immediate area.

Differences between the sexes The perception of landmarks’ membership of the City Centre was quite similar between

male and female participants, as shown in Figure 10.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cat

hedr

alC

ity H

all

Farg

ate

Tow

n H

all

Cru

cibl

eW

inte

r Gar

den

Fitz

alan

Squ

are

Furn

ival

Squ

are

Moo

rC

astle

Mar

ket

Cam

po L

ane

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Shef

field

Hal

lam

Uni

vers

ityBu

s St

atio

nSh

owro

omS.

Yor

kshi

re P

olic

e H

QR

ailw

ay S

tatio

nW

est S

treet

Pos

t Offi

cePo

nds

Forg

eR

iver

Don

Lead

mill

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Map

pin

Stre

etLa

w C

ourts

Lady

's B

ridge

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Vict

oria

Qua

ysW

aitro

seKe

lham

Isla

ndW

icke

rIc

e R

ink

Shef

field

Uni

vers

ityPa

rk H

illSh

effie

ld U

nite

d FC

Wes

ton

Park

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

lSh

ales

moo

r

% o

f res

pons

es

MalesFemales

Figure 10 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre, all participants

Of all the participants, 40% (37) were male and 60% (56) were female. The greatest

difference shown in this survey was for the Showroom Cinema: 85% of the men

surveyed perceived the cinema as part of the City Centre compared with 54% of the

women.

43

Differences between age groups

The uneven distribution of participants between the six age groups makes comparison

group by group impractical. However, combining the two youngest groups splits the

number of participants more evenly with 44 under 35 years and 49 over 35 years of age.

The age of 35 years seems a reasonable age by which to divide the sample. However,

perceptions of membership of the City Centre did not differ greatly between these two

age ranges apart from Campo Lane, Fitzalan Square and Ponds Forge. Of the three

landmarks, only Campo Lane was placed in the City Centre by more over 35-year-olds

than younger participants.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cat

hedr

alC

ity H

all

Farg

ate

Tow

n H

all

Cru

cibl

eW

inte

r Gar

den

Cam

po L

ane

Moo

rFi

tzal

an S

quar

eFu

rniv

al S

quar

eC

astle

Mar

ket

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Shef

field

Hal

lam

Uni

vers

ityBu

s St

atio

nSh

owro

omS

. Yor

kshi

re P

olic

e H

QW

est S

treet

Pos

t Offi

ceR

ailw

ay S

tatio

nPo

nds

Forg

eR

iver

Don

Lead

mill

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Map

pin

Stre

etLa

w C

ourts

Lady

's B

ridge

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Vict

oria

Qua

ysW

aitro

seKe

lham

Isla

ndW

icke

rPa

rk H

illSh

effie

ld U

nive

rsity

Ice

Rin

kS

heffi

eld

Uni

ted

FCH

alla

msh

ire H

ospi

tal

Wes

ton

Park

Shal

esm

oor

% o

f res

pons

es

Under 35 yearsOver 35 years

Figure 11 Landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre, all participants

5.3.5 Landmarks not in the City Centre

There was more variation between the different locations in the number of responses

indicating that a landmark was not perceived as part of the City Centre than for

landmarks perceived as being in the City Centre. This is shown in Figure 12.

44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

l

Wes

ton

Par

k

Ice

Rin

k

*Sha

lesm

oor

Shef

field

Uni

vers

ity

Kelh

am Is

land

*She

ffiel

d U

nite

d FC

Park

Hill

Wic

ker

Wai

trose

Map

pin

Stre

et

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Vict

oria

Qua

ys

Riv

er D

on

Lead

mill

Wes

t Stre

et P

ost O

ffice

Lady

's B

ridge

Law

Cou

rts

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Pon

ds F

orge

Show

room

Bus

Stat

ion

Fitz

alan

Squ

are

*Fur

niva

l Squ

are

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Moo

r

Cas

tle M

arke

t

% o

f res

pons

es

Moor Peace GardensRailway StationUniversity (Pilot study)

Location of survey:

Figure 12 Landmarks perceived not to be in the City Centre (*location not included in Pilot study)

The Hallamshire Hospital, Weston Park and the Ice Rink are all outside the Inner Ring

Road and were generally not considered to be part of the City Centre. Shalesmoor was

perceived to be out of the City Centre by a majority of participants, although the

proportion of participants holding this view varies between locations: 60% at the

Railway Station, 76% on the Moor and 90% in the Peace Gardens. (This landmark did

not appear on the questionnaire for the pilot study.) However, this was a landmark

which was not well-known by name, even though there is a tram stop bearing the same

name.

Nearly 70% of participants at both the Railway Station and the Moor compared with

50% of those in the Peace Gardens, perceived Kelham Island as being out of the City

Centre.

The Wicker is the name of the road continuing from Lady’s Bridge and, as such, is

another of the city’s oldest landmarks (Vickers, 1992). While fewer than 40% of the

responses from the Moor placed the Wicker out of the City Centre, 71% in each of the

45

Peace Gardens and the Railway Station did so. This, again, may be related to the higher

proportion of participants on the Moor who have always lived in Sheffield, or have done

so for many years; it may also reflect home postcode areas (see below).

Perceptions of the River Don, West Street Post Office and the Showroom Cinema also

varied with the ‘No’ response, just as they did with ‘Yes’ (see Section 5.3.4).

Differences between home postcode areas

There are some differences in perception of some of the landmarks not being part of the

City Centre between participants living in different areas of the city. These have been

discussed in Section 5.3.4.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sha

lesm

oor

Wes

ton

Park

Ice

Rin

k

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

l

Kelh

am Is

land

She

ffiel

d U

nite

d FC

Shef

field

Uni

vers

ity

Wic

ker

Park

Hill

Wai

trose

Vic

toria

Qua

ys

Wes

t Stre

et P

ost O

ffice

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Map

pin

Stre

et

Lead

mill

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Riv

er D

on

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Pond

s Fo

rge

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Lady

's B

ridge

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Sho

wro

om

Furn

ival

Squ

are

Law

Cou

rts

Bus

Stat

ion

Fitz

alan

Squ

are

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Moo

r

Cam

po L

ane

% o

f res

pons

es

S10, S11, S17

S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S9, S12, S13,

Location of survey:

Figure 13 Landmarks perceived not to be in the City Centre,

all participants resident in Sheffield

It seems likely that the Wicker and Park Hill are perceived as out of the City Centre by

those living on the north and east side of the city for similar reasons to why they

perceive Lady’s Bridge and the River Don as in the City Centre. The Wicker is just

beyond those two landmarks and is on the route to the north-east part of the city: it is a

46

likely part of the route between home and the City Centre for those living in that area.

Similarly, Park Hill is alongside the tram route on the eastern side of the city.

Differences between the sexes

As might be expected from the results showing the distribution of landmarks perceived

to be in the City Centre, those perceived not to be in the City Centre are similar between

men and women.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

l

Wes

ton

Par

k

Sha

lesm

oor

Ice

Rin

k

She

ffiel

d U

nive

rsity

Kel

ham

Isla

nd

She

ffiel

d U

nite

d FC

Par

k H

ill

Wic

ker

Wai

trose

Map

pin

Stre

et

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Vic

toria

Qua

ys

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Riv

er D

on

Lead

mill

Wes

t Stre

et P

ost O

ffice

Law

Cou

rts

Lady

's B

ridge

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Pon

ds F

orge

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

She

ffiel

d H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Sho

wro

om

Bus

Sta

tion

Furn

ival

Squ

are

Fire

Ser

vice

HQ

Fitz

alan

Sqa

re

Moo

r

Cas

tle M

arke

t

Cam

po L

ane

Win

ter G

arde

n

% o

f res

pons

es

MenWomen

Figure 14 Landmarks perceived not to be in the City Centre, all participants

It may be culturally significant that the men in the survey are more likely to perceive

Sheffield United Football Club as being out of the City Centre. While very similar

proportions of men and women surveyed were found to perceive it as being part of the

City Centre, more women than men place it on the boundary.

5.3.6 Landmarks on the boundary of the City Centre

The people surveyed at the Peace Gardens all perceived both their current location and

the corresponding landmark on the list (in this case the Town Hall) to be in the City

47

Centre. At each of the Moor and the Railway Station, five participants were somewhat

equivocal about City Centre membership of their current location and its corresponding

landmark on the list, as shown below:

Moor as location B B B Y BMoor as landmark Y Y Y B N

Railway Station as location B B Y B NRailway Station as landmark Y Y B N B

Y:N:

In the City Centre Not in the City Centre

B: On the Boundary of the City Centre

In other words, five people in each of the two locations appeared to have different

perceptions about where they were, depending on whether they were asked directly

‘would you say you are in the City Centre at the moment?’ or whether their location

appeared as one landmark on a list of many landmarks. However, it is clear that these

individuals were wavering between the status of boundary and in/not in the City Centre,

rather than between being in or not in the City Centre. Although this might suggest that

both the Moor and the Railway Station are candidate ‘boundary’ landmarks, this does

not seem to be true for the people surveyed in this study. Only four participants (5% of

all participants), regardless of location, perceived the Moor as being on the boundary of

the City Centre. The larger proportion of 29% of all participants placed the Railway

Station on the boundary. Although this is less than a third of the sample, it should be

noted that participants generally did not frequently place landmarks on the boundary

appearing to perceive them more positively as either being in or not in the City Centre.

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Vict

oria

Qua

ysLa

dy's

Brid

geLa

w C

ourts

Dev

onsh

ire G

reen

Wai

trose

Pond

s Fo

rge

Rai

lway

Sta

tion

Roy

al V

icto

ria H

otel

Fire

/Pol

ice

Mus

eum

Wic

ker

Park

Hill

Lead

mill

*Sha

lesm

oor

S. Y

orks

hire

Pol

ice

HQ

Sho

wro

om*S

heffi

eld

Uni

ted

FC

Riv

er D

onW

est S

treet

Pos

t Offi

ceFi

re S

ervi

ce H

Q

Bus

Stat

ion

She

ffiel

d U

nive

rsity

Wes

ton

Park

Map

pin

Stre

et

Kelh

am Is

land

Hal

lam

shire

Hos

pita

lSh

effie

ld H

alla

m U

nive

rsity

Cam

po L

ane

Cas

tle M

arke

tIc

e R

ink

Moo

rFi

tzal

an S

quar

e

Farg

ate

Win

ter G

arde

nC

athe

dral

Tow

n H

all

Cru

cibl

eC

ity H

all

% o

f res

pons

es

MoorPeace GardensRailway StationUniversity (Pilot study)

Location of survey:

Figure 15 Landmarks perceived to be on the boundary of the City Centre

(* location not included in Pilot study)

49

5.3.7 Landmarks vs. location The tables below show the differences in response from the three locations concerning

those three locations as landmarks.

Landmark: the Railway Station

Location: Railway Peace Gardens the Moor Station

Yes 40% 76% 80% No 25% 10% 10% Boundary 35% 14% 10%

Landmark: the Moor

Location: Railway Station

Peace Gardens the Moor

Yes 80% 95% 95% No 10% 5% 0% Boundary 10% 0% 5% DKW 10 5%

Landmark: the Town Hall

Location: Railway Station

Peace the Moor Gardens Yes 100% 95% 100% No 0% 0% 0% Boundary 0% 5% 0% DKW 5

Table 5 Perceptions of landmarks vs locations

The perception of where the Railway Station is seems to differ for those participants

questioned on the Moor from those at the Station and the Peace Gardens, with a more

even spread of views from the Moor that it is in, out and on the boundary of the City

Centre. All participants knew where the Railway Station is. The distance between the

Railway Station and the Moor and the Peace Gardens has been noted elsewhere as a

possible influence in the apparently differing perceptions between the Moor and the

Peace Gardens (see Section 5.3.4).

50

The Moor seems to have been placed within the City Centre fairly consistently,

regardless of where the participant was at the time.

There was near unanimity that the Town Hall is in the City Centre, regardless of where

the participants were. The single exception (other than an individual who did not know

where the Town Hall is) was a woman who lives in Chesterfield whose response was

quite definite and very unlikely to have been a disguised ‘don’t know’. She visits

Sheffield City Centre for shopping, socializing and as a travel departure/destination

point. It is interesting that Chesterfield Town Hall could be said to be on the boundary

of, or just outside, Chesterfield town centre. The same participant perceived the Bus

Station as being in the City Centre but not the Railway Station, which was where she

answered the questionnaire. It was noted that this particular participant gave responses

which were rather puzzling; however, on closer examination, they seem to indicate that

she perceives the City Centre as two areas, one based around Castle Market and the

other around the Moor. In addition to the Town Hall, the participant’s responses showed

that she perceived the City Hall, the Cathedral, the Fire Service HQ and Fargate as on

the boundary, splitting central Sheffield roughly along its geographical middle. Again, it

is of interest in this context, to record that several participants remarked conversationally

and informally that the City Centre was rather ‘spread out’ or ‘not really in one place’.

Nevertheless, from the pooled responses from all participants, those placing landmarks

on the boundary indicate a single area centred around the Town Hall, City Hall,

Cathedral, Fargate and the Moor. The distance of the boundary from these central points

varies from landmarks fairly close by, such as Campo Lane and the Fire Service HQ to

as far away as Sheffield United Football Club, Sheffield University and Kelham Island.

Although the Moor was also thought of as a boundary landmark by some, it is most

likely that they think of the Moorfoot as being the boundary point; it was for this reason

that the original questionnaire included Moorfoot in the list of landmarks (it was

subsequently removed because very few participants in the pilot survey knew it by

name).

51

5.3.8 Core of the City Centre

Approximately 50% of all participants surveyed perceived the core of the City Centre to

be the Town Hall (see Figure 16, below) and about 25% of participants thought of

Fargate as the core of the City Centre.

Fargate is a pedestrianized shopping street that runs for less than 250 metres starting

from the Town Hall. The two landmarks could be said to be adjacent, but having

different purposes. The shopping area of Fargate has street performers, especially

during the summer months, and is home to specialist market days, such as the

Continental Market and the Christmas Market; it is also the focus point for those

carrying out market research surveys and groups gathering petitions for issues of local

and national interest. The Town Hall is an imposing Victorian building but does not

now house departments of the City Council that are visited in an everyday sense, which

have been relocated to a new building, with the exception of the Register Office which

has recently been moved to the Town Hall following the demolition of its previous site.

In other words, the Town Hall and Fargate are within the same small area of the city but

may be thought of respectively as formal and informal versions of that area.

46

24

4

9

2

41 1 2

Town HallFargateCastle MarketCity HallWinter GardensCathedralFitzalan SquareMoorWest Street

Location of survey:

Figure 16 Perceptions of the core of the City Centre, all participants

52

The perception of where the core of the City Centre is did not appear to be greatly

affected by the participants’ location, as shown in Figure 17.

4 3

13

4

11

5

4

5

10

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Town Hall Fargate Castle Market City Hall Winter Gardens Cathedral Fitzalan Square Moor West Street

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

Moor Peace Gardens

Railway Station University (Pilot study)

Location of survey:

Figure 17 Perception of the core of the City Centre

As an aside, it was interesting to hear the comment (from more than one participant) that

the core should be, because it used to be, the ‘Hole-in-the-Road’. The Hole-in-the-Road

was a rather unpleasant underpass open to the sky, beneath a very large roundabout in

Castle Square, and was filled in ten years ago during the construction of tramlines for

the new tram transport network; it was not a symbol of administrative activity or

officialdom. Nevertheless, in the writer’s perception of Sheffield, it was indeed the core

of the city, and is clearly still thought of as such by others.

5.3.9 Outlines of the City Centre

Outlines to enclose landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of participants have

been drawn on a map of the City Centre. These are shown in Appendix D. It can be

seen that these outlines differ from each other between the locations where the survey

53

was carried out. The observations below are all of the areas enclosed by landmarks

perceived to be in the City Centre by this proportion (more than 66.6%) of participants.

Outlines drawn from responses on the Moor and from Sheffield University (pilot study)

are quite similar and cover a smaller area than from the other two locations. The shapes

are slightly different with the Fire Service Headquarters, Police Headquarters and the

River Don all enclosed by the outline from responses on the Moor, whereas these

landmarks are not enclosed by the responses from Sheffield University. However, the

outline from the University does enclose Sheffield Hallam University which the Moor

outline does not. This results in a less smooth outline for the Moor since from the Bus

Station (enclosed by both), the outline must be turned in towards the City Centre to

avoid enclosing Sheffield Hallam University.

The outline drawn from responses at the Railway Station covers the largest area of all

location outlines. The number of landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre was 21;

at the Peace Gardens, 18 landmarks were perceived to be in the City Centre and that

outline is the second largest. Participants at both these locations thought the Railway

Station is in the City Centre. However, it may be that those at the Station considered

they were on the eastern edge of the City Centre resulting in some distortion in judging

how far to the west the City Centre extends. It could also be true that, for many, the

western side of the city is very familiar to them if they are associated with one of the

many university departments there, as discussed in Section 5.3.4. However, the

similarity between outlines from responses on the Moor and at Sheffield University

would suggest otherwise.

5.4 The Midlands

From the total of 93 individuals who participated in the survey, including the pilot study,

18 were unwilling or unable to answer the section about the Midlands. Of those, 12 had

always lived in Sheffield and two more had lived in Sheffield for many years (25 years

and 42 years). The remaining four participants who did not answer the Midlands section

of the questionnaire were from overseas (Slovakia, Spain, South Africa, Russia).

54

Three of the participants who did answer the Midlands section were also from overseas.

One person from Georgia was unfamiliar with many of the towns but for those that he

did recognize, he appeared to be quite definite about his answers and to have a concept

of the region known as the Midlands. Another participant was from Germany but had

lived in the Midlands (Nottingham) for five years before moving to Sheffield. A

participant from the USA was familiar with the concept of the Midlands and knew

where most of the towns are.

It was noticeable that many or most participants were reluctant to answer with ‘Don’t

know where it is’, more so than for the questions about Sheffield City Centre. As noted

previously (Section 4.2), it became clear early on in the pilot survey that it was very

important to emphasize that these questions were not a test of geographical knowledge.

The section was approached in a light-hearted way with frequent reassurance that

previous participants had answered ‘DKW’ to many of the towns on the list, and that

there were no correct or incorrect answers. However much this is stressed, it seems that

questions such as the one on the questionnaire are perceived as a test and result in a great

deal of self-consciousness.

The extreme reluctance of participants to respond with DKW, combined with their

apparent tendency to answer ‘No’ instead, makes an assessment of towns definitely not

perceived to be in the Midlands impossible. It is for this reason that only results for

towns perceived to be in the Midlands are recorded. There were very few responses of

‘on the boundary’ in this section.

It is interesting that many participants, in their ‘thinking aloud’ in this section, were

identifying the name of the county that the town is in before deciding if it was part of the

Midlands.

From the 75 questionnaires for which this section was completed, nine of the 32 towns

on the list were considered to be in the Midlands by more than two thirds of participants

(excluding those who did not know where the town is).

55

99

8177 76

7368

56

4439 38

35 3531

28

2119 18

138 8 7 7 7

3 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Birm

ingh

am

Leic

este

r

Wol

verh

ampt

on

Der

by

Burto

n

Cov

entry

Stok

e-on

Tre

nt

Not

tingh

am

Staf

ford

War

wic

k

Stra

tford

Telfo

rd

Nor

tham

pton

Wor

ksop

Wor

cest

er

Che

ster

field

Linc

oln

Buxt

on

Gra

ntha

m

Shre

wsb

ury

Shef

field

Pete

rbor

ough

Che

ster

Oxf

ord

Swin

don

Rea

ding

Glo

uces

ter

Che

ltenh

am

Bris

tol

Her

efor

d

Cam

brid

ge

Luto

n

% o

f res

pons

es

Figure 18 Towns perceived to be in the Midlands; all participants

Taking the towns considered to be in the Midlands by one third or more of the

participants, it is possible to sketch a smooth outline of the Midlands stretching from

Worksop in the north-east to Worcester in the south-west and from Stoke-on-Trent in the

north-west to Northampton in the south-east (see Appendix E1). An outline to enclose

towns considered to be in the Midlands by two thirds or more of participants results in a

smaller but still smooth outline, with Stoke-on-Trent, Wolverhampton, Coventry,

Leicester and Nottingham towards the outer edges of the enclosed area. In other words,

there seems to be a core of towns which for the participants of this survey qualify as the

Midlands, without the need for an awkward or jagged outline. Both outlines fit in with

definitions of the Midlands found in sources such as the encyclopaedias mentioned in

Section 3.2, although they tend to cover a somewhat smaller area.

The perception of towns associated with the Midlands varies slightly with the

participants stated origins. It should be noted, though, that this, too, is subject to

individual perceptions of region. Several people taking part in the survey as a whole

seemed reluctant or unable to say which region of Britain they ‘come from’. Amongst

the 25 people who have always lived in Sheffield, 14 said they come from the North, six

56

from the Midlands and five were unable to select a region, saying instead that they

simply come from South Yorkshire.

Thirteen of the 25 participants who have always lived in Sheffield answered the question

about the Midlands. Of those, 10 said they were from the North, one from the Midlands

and two were unwilling to say which region they come from. The subjectivity of region

makes it difficult to compare perceptions of the Midlands between groups of participants

with different regional origins. It is equally likely that participants who do not ‘come

from Sheffield/South Yorkshire’ perceive their region of origin with as much variation

as Sheffielders. For example, one participant from the South and another from the

Midlands might both come from, say, Oxford. In order to see any trends that might exist

in the perception of the Midlands in relation to regional origins, it would be necessary to

standardize the regions of origins, rather than recording the perceived region of origin.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that while Northerners included every town on the

list of 10, below, as being part of the Midlands, even though only two participants

answered ‘Yes’ for each of Cambridge and Luton, no participant from the Midlands

answered ‘Yes’ to any of them:

Bristol Luton Cambridge Oxford Cheltenham Peterborough Gloucester Reading Hereford Swindon

An outline enclosing the remaining towns produces the reduced area without any

awkward zigzagging. However, the caveat noted above, together with the very small

sample of Midlanders (12 participants) make any relationship or trend seen from the

results of this survey purely speculative.

The results of the survey on the Midlands, split according to region of origin of

participants, are presented in the Appendix E2.

57

6. Discussion The survey described here was an exploratory study of where people consider the vague

area of Sheffield City Centre to be. The results indicate that there appears to be some

general agreement amongst the participants in the survey about the location and extent

of the City Centre. This finding is similar to that of Montello et al. (2003) in their study

of downtown Santa Barbara. Sheffield City Centre also appears to vary to some extent

depending on the location where the survey was carried out, when taking a two-thirds

majority of landmarks perceived to be in the City Centre. While the area of the City

Centre was found generally to be smaller than that of any of the definitions used by

organizations and official bodies in Sheffield for any purpose (see Section 4.1.1), it does

lie within the boundaries set by most of the sources cited.

Similarly, the outline enclosing the Midlands as perceived by the participants of this

study also shows a smaller area than that of any of the definitions found although, again,

it was within the areas covered by the definitions even when based on only one third of

the responses perceiving the town to be in the Midlands. This suggests that, in this

respect at least, the scale of the geographical space did not influence the perceptions of

people surveyed.

As might be expected from the variation seen in the northern section of the boundary,

the more northerly landmarks seem to constitute an area with a diversity of views. It

would appear that the location of the participant’s home may be influential in

determining where that part of the boundary is perceived.

The eastern side of the city is also subject to a variety of perceptions of how far the city

extends, although the landmarks concerned tend to be closer to the area generally

considered to be the City Centre. The area around the Railway Station contains

landmarks, such as the Showroom Cinema and the Leadmill, about which there are

considerable differences of views of their membership of the City Centre.

It is noteworthy that approximately 50% of the participants in this survey considered that

the Town Hall is the core of Sheffield City Centre; further, that together the Town Hall

58

and Fargate accounted for approximately 75% of the participants’ perceptions of where

the core is. That such a large majority of the, admittedly small, sample of 93 individuals

should perceive the core of the City Centre to be around the Town Hall and Fargate is

interesting in the context of the apparent view of a City Centre that may be described as

rather ill-defined and ‘spread out’, having been subject to many changes in recent years.

In the life of a city, the persistence of a stable core may be influential in the identity of

the city. It is beyond the scope of this study to ascertain just how persistent this view of

the core is. The observation that the ‘Hole-in-the Road’ is still considered by some to

represent the core of the city may be an indication that the core has shifted slightly with

the changes that have taken place in Sheffield over the past couple of decades.

Nevertheless, the fact that the core is perceived to centre around the Town Hall, which

symbolizes the administrative ‘hub of the wheel’ of Sheffield, is perhaps relevant to the

current cultural view of the city.

The extension of Sheffield City Centre’s boundary northwards by OFFER was for the

practical purpose of including an already-established group working in a similar field

(economic regeneration), and is an example of how boundaries differ according to

purpose. The definition of the City Centre by a public participation GIS may not

coincide with that of a group focusing on economic issues. Web site definition(s) of

Sheffield City Centre would, ideally, take into account the different boundaries drawn

up to serve different purposes.

It is interesting that the emergency services each use their own system for categorizing

areas, if they categorize them at all, but have an agreed definition of the City Centre for

co-ordination in the event of a city-wide emergency. That definition differs from the

one the Police use, and from the definition most widely recognized by the City Council,

that of the Unitary Development Plan. However, geographical information such as

digital maps and road network information is supplied by the Ordnance Survey to the

emergency services at the national level (Ordnance Survey, 2005).

In the context of the increasing use of GIS, the Ordnance Survey acknowledges the

difficulties associated with places that are represented on maps but have no specific

59

boundary. The Ordnance Survey is the official body responsible for mapping the UK,

and part of their research programme is concerned with how to include in their data

places lacking crisp boundaries (Ordnance Survey, 2005).

Search engines using an interface based on natural language do not necessarily allow the

use of vague place names. For example, Google Local does not recognize a place

known as ‘Sheffield City Centre’. For GISs to allow the use of such terms, more

knowledge of the perceptions of vague places is needed. That knowledge can be gained

from human subjects, as in the study by Montello et al. (2003) and that recorded here, or

it can be Web-based, as in the study by Arampatzis et al (2004). A comparison of

human perceptions of vague places and the working definitions on the Web suggests that

the two are compatible.

The method used in this study, while offering some insight into perceptions of the City

Centre by members of the public, does have some drawbacks. One practical

consideration is the time taken to gather data in this way, by a street questionnaire. The

time period of the study was such that only a small number of locations could be

surveyed, and placed a limitation on the number of peopled surveyed, with the small

sample size restricting the use of statistical tests.

Despite the prevalence of computer ownership and Internet connection, the proportion of

participants with experience of on-line geographical searches is unknown. It might be of

interest to investigate the effect of such activity on spatial perceptions, which may be

influenced by this sort of experience. This is not to say that the perceptions of those

without Internet access are irrelevant to defining a geographical space even, or

especially, in the context of the manner in which areas are defined by GIS. For GIS to

represent geography in a way that has meaning for expert and non-expert alike, then

perceptions of geographical space cannot be limited to particular sections of society.

It should be noted that, regardless of the method used to assess perceptions of vague

regions, such regions have a tendency to change over time. In the case of the Midlands,

despite having an areal definition which clings to that of a mediaeval kingdom,

definitions are different from those for Mercia in terms of the counties the region

60

contains and the area covered. However, the time scale of changes appears to be slower

than for Sheffield City Centre. It is possible, simply, that the changes that have occurred

in Sheffield are more recent, and that its City Centre was fairly stable until two or three

decades ago; this study has not looked at the historical location of the City Centre.

The variety of boundaries of the City Centre currently used, and the apparent ease with

which they are accommodated, might be interpreted as supporting the view of Sheppard

et al. (1999) that modern communities are becoming centred more on communication

technologies than on geographical location. However, it seems more likely that such

communities will grow alongside those based on geography, rather than supersede them.

The desirability of areas in terms of house prices and access to public services, for

example, as well as the more serious issue of the plans in place for evacuation of the

city, demonstrate the human trait of dividing geographical space into parcels of labelled

land. The diversity of reasons for such divisions, together with the growth in the use of

GIS by non-experts, requires the development of systems that can cope with the

demands of people using ‘naive’ geographical terms when seeking information.

61

Bibliography Arampatzis, A, van Kreveld, M., Reinbacher, I., Jones, C.B., Vaid, S., Clough, P., Joho, H., Sanderson, M., Benkert, M. and Wolff, A. (2004). ‘Web-based delineation of imprecise regions’. Proceedings of Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2004. http://www.geo.unizh.ch/~rsp/gir/ [Accessed BBC (2005). [Weather forecast page] www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/midlands/ [Accessed 18th August 2005]. Bennett, B. (2002). Geo-ontology Concepts and Issues. Ordnance Survey http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/education/higher/geoontologyworkshopreport2002.pdf [Accessed 22nd April 2005]. de Bono, E. (1987). In: Gregory, R.L. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to the Mind Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burrough, P.A. (1996). ‘Natural objects with indeterminate boundaries’. In: Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U. (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, pp.99-108. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Burrough, P., Craglia, M., Masser, I. and Salgé, F. (1997). ‘Geographic information: the European dimension’. Position Statement from the European Science Foundation’s GISDATA Scientific Programme. http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/D-H/gis/policy.html [Accessed 29th July 2005]. Campari, I. (1996). ‘Uncertain boundaries in urban space’. In: Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U. (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, pp.57-70. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Cohn, A.G. and Gotts, N.M. (1996). ‘The egg-yolk’ representation of regions with indeterminate boundaries’. In: Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U. (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, pp.171-187. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Couclelis, H. (2003). ‘The certainty of uncertainty: GIS and the limits of geographic knowledge’. Transactions in GIS, 7 (2), 165-175. Couclelis, H. (1999). ‘Spatial information technologies and societal problems’. In: Craglia, M. and Onsrud, H. (eds.), Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives, pp. 15-24. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. DirectGov (2005). (Regions page]. http://www.direct.gov.uk/Dl1/Directories/LocalCouncils/fs/en [Accessed 29th July 2005].

62

Ebdon, D. (1985). Statistics in Geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Egenhofer, M.J. and Mark, D.M. (1995). ‘Naive geography’. In: Frank, A.U. and Kuhn, W. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 988, pp. 1-15. Berlin: Springer Encyclopaedia Britannica (2005). [Midlands page.] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052580?query=midlands&ct= [Accessed 29th July 2005]. Ferrari, G. (1996). ‘Boundaries, concepts, language’. In: Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U. (eds.), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries, pp.99-108. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Hill, L.L. (2000). ‘Core elements of digital gazetteers: Placenames, categories, and footprints’. In: Borbinha, J. and Baker, T. (eds.), Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, pp. 280-290 Berlin: Springer. Hill, L.L., Frew, J. and Zheng, Q. (1999). ‘Geographic names. The implementation of a gazetteer in a georeferenced digital library’. D-Lib Magazine [Online], 5 (1), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/hill/01hill.html [Accessed 26th April 2005]. Hutchinson (1999). The Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. Helicon Publishing. Jones, C.B., Abdelmoty, A.I. and Fu, G. (2003). ‘Maintaining ontologies for geographical information retrieval on the Web’. In: Meersman, R. (ed.), On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 2888, pp. 934-951. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Jones, C.B., Purves, R., Ruas, A., Sanderson, M., Sester, M., Kreveld, M. van, and Weibel, R. (2002). ‘Spatial information retrieval and geographical ontologies. An overview of the SPIRIT project’. In:ACM SIGIR 2002, 387-388. Kitchen, R. and Blades, M. (2002). The Cognition of Geographic Space. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Kuhn, W. 2001. ‘Ontologies in support of activities in geographical space.’ International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15 (7), 613-631. Lam, C.S., Wilson, J.P. and Holmes-Wang, D.A. (2002). ‘Building a neighborhood-specific gazetteer for a digital archive’. Pap0300. ESRI User Conference. Conference, 2000. http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc02/pap0300/p.htm [Accessed 10th March 2005].

63

Mark, D.M., Freska, C., Hirtle, S.C., Lloyd, R. and Tversky, B. (1999). ‘Cognitive models of geographical space’. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13 (8), 747-774. Met Office (2005). [Weather forecast page] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/uk/midlands.html [Accessed 18th August 2005]. Montello, D.R. (1997). ‘The perception and cognition of environmental distance: Direct source of information’. In: Hirtle, S.C. and Frank, A.U. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical basis for GIS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1329, pp. 297-311. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Montello, D.R., Goodchild, M.F., Gottsegen, J. and Fohl, P. (2003). ‘Where’s downtown?: Behavioural methods for determining referents of vague spatial queries’. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 3 (2 & 3), 185-204. Moore, G.T. and Golledge, R.G. (1976). ‘Environmental knowing: Concepts and theories’. In: Moore, G.T. and Golledge, R.G. (eds), Environmental Knowing, pp.3-24. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. (2005). [GEONet Names Server Access page.] http://earth-info.nga/mil/gns/html/ [Accessed 26th April 2005]. Ordnance Survey. (2005). Research and Innovation page. http://www.ordnancesurvye.co.uk/oswebsite/partnerships/research/research/data_fuzzy.h

thtml [Accessed 11 May 2005]. Oxford English Dictionary. (2005). [Midland entry]

thhttp://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00309208? [Accessed 29 July 2005]. Priority Alert (2005). ‘Sheffield City Centre Alert Scheme’ http://www.priorityalert.co.uk/Resources/SheffieldMap.pdf [Accessed 13th May 2005]. Purves, R. and Jones, (2004). ‘Workshop on geographical information retrieval’. In: Workshop Proceedings, SIGIR 2004. http://www.geo.unizh.ch/~rsp/gir/ [Accessed 25th February 2005]. Romasubramaian, L. (1999). ‘Nurturing community empowerment: Participatory decision-making and community-based problem solving using GIS’. In: Craglia, M. and Onsrud, H. (eds.), Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives, pp.87-102. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Russell, B. (1961). A History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd.

64

Schuurman, N. (2003). ‘The ghost in the machine: spatial data, information and knowledge in GIS’. The Canadian Geographer 47 (1), 1-4. Sheffield City Council (2004). Unitary Development Plan: Supplementary Planning Guidance. http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=16366 [Accessed 12th May 2005]. Sheppard, E., Couclelis, H., Graham, S., Harrington, J.W., and Onsrud, H. (1999). ‘Geographies of the information society’. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13 (8), 797-823. Sky News (2005). [Weather forecast page] http://sky.wsieurope.com/weather/uk/midds.shtm [Accessed 18th August 2005]. Stevens, A. and Coupe, P. (1978). ‘Distortions in judged spatial relations’. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422-437. The Times Online (2005). [Weather forecast page]

thhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,6901,00.html [Accessed 18 August 2005]. Tolman, E.C. (1948). ‘Cognitive maps in rats and men’. In: Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. (eds.), Image and Environment. Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Tversky, B. (1981). Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407-433. Tversky, B. (1993). ‘Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Frank, A.U. and Campari, I. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, pp. 14-24. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Tversky, B. (2000). ‘Levels and structure of spatial knowledge’. In: Kitchen, R. and Freundschuh, S. (eds.), Cognitive Mapping: Past, present and future, pp.24-43. London: Routledge. Vickers, J.E. (1978). A Popular History of Sheffield. Sheffield: Applebaum Bookshop Ltd. Wikipedia (2005). [Midlands page.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlands [Accessed 29th July 2005]. Worboys, M. (1998). ‘Imprecision in finite resolution spatial data’ GeoInformatica 2 (3), 257-279.

65

Appendix A: City Centre Boundaries Appendix A1 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by the Sheffield City Centre Alert Scheme

66

Appendix A2 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by the OFFER

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

67

Appendix A3 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by the Unitary Development Plan

68

Appendix A4 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by the Council Tax Department

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

69

Appendix A5 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by City Centre Management

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

70

Appendix A6 Map of Sheffield City Centre as defined by South Yorkshire Police

71

Appendix B: Questionnaire Appendix B 1 Questionnaire Section 1: Background details Question 1

What region would you say you ‘come from’?

Southwest South Midlands East Anglia North Northwest Northeast

Do you live in Sheffield? Yes No

If yes, how long have you lived in Sheffield? where in Sheffield do you live and what is the first part of your postcode?

If no, where do you live (town or nearest town)? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 2

Are you or have you been based in Sheffield for your job or for education/training? Yes No

If yes, how long in total have you been based in Sheffield for work and education/training? where in Sheffield is your present or most recent workplace or education/training place?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 3

Are you: Male Female ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 4

What is your age?

Please circle: under 26 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 over 65 Sections 2 and 3 consist of questions about Sheffield city centre and the Midlands:

Section 2: Sheffield city centre

Question 5 Would you say you are in the city centre at the moment?

Please circle: Yes No on the Boundary Don’t know ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 6

For what purposes do you visit the city centre?

Please tick (as many categories as are true for you): Shopping Health (dentist, health centre, etc.) Travel (departure/destination point) Religious purposes Theatre/concerts/cinema Personal business (mortgage,

accountant/bank manager, solicitor, etc.)

Sporting activities Work-related business Social activities (restaurants, pubs, clubs etc.)

Library

Other (please give a general indication of the purpose):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please turn over

72

73

(Appendix B1, Questionnaire, continued) Question 7

Which of the following places are in Sheffield city centre? Y = Yes N = No B = on the Boundary D = Don’t know where it is Bus Station the Moor Campo Lane Park Hill Castle Market Ponds Forge Cathedral (Anglican) Railway Station City Hall River Don (any part) Crucible & Lyceum Theatres Royal Victoria Hotel (Holiday Inn) Devonshire Green Shalesmoor Fargate Sheffield United Football Club Fire/Police Museum Sheffield University (main part) Fire Service Headquarters Sheffield Hallam University (main part) Fitzalan Square Showroom cinema Furnival Square South Yorkshire Police Headquarters Hallamshire Hospital Town Hall Ice Rink - Queens Road Victoria Quays Kelham Island Waitrose (former Safeway) Lady’s Bridge West Street Post Office Law Courts Weston Park the Leadmill Wicker Mappin Street Winter Garden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question 8

Choosing one place from the list above, what is the part of Sheffield city centre that is the ‘core or focal point’ of the city centre; in other words, what part is most representative of the city centre, and most clearly in the city centre?

Section 3: the Midlands

Question 9 Which of the following places are in the Midlands? Y = Yes N = No B = on the Boundary D = Don’t know where it is

Birmingham Grantham Shrewsbury Bristol Hereford Stafford Burton-upon-Trent Leicester Stoke-on-Trent Buxton Lincoln Stratford Cambridge Luton Swindon Cheltenham Northampton Telford Chester Nottingham Warwick Chesterfield Oxford Wolverhampton Coventry Peterborough Worcester Derby Reading Worksop Gloucester Sheffield

Appendix B 2 Information sheet given to participants.

You are being invited to take part in a research project entitled: ‘Perceptions of imprecise geographical areas’. This study will provide data for the dissertation, due to be completed by September 2005, of a Master’s degree in Information Management at the University of Sheffield. More information about the study is given below.

Your participation in the study involves answering some questions about where the places described as ‘Sheffield city centre’ and ‘the Midlands’ are.

No identifying personal details are asked for - your answers will be anonymous.

Most of the questions have boxes to tick from a choice of possible answers and the questionnaire will not take a long time to answer – 5-10 minutes only.

This is not a test of geographical knowledge - your answers are your opinions, NOT right or wrong answers.

Background to the research project. Searching on the Internet is an important way of finding information. Many Web searches are related to geographical regions and areas. Many of these areas are known by imprecise place names, such as the Midlands or the city centre. Since these commonly-used names do not have official boundaries, the results of searches may differ according to the definition of the system or search engine being used. The system’s definition may differ from that of the person looking for the information. People looking for information may have different ideas of where the place is depending on how well they know it or where they are at the time.

The use of the term ‘city centre’ is also important on a local scale when, for example, the emergency services are needed. It is also used to describe the location of amenities, shops and offices; and in estate agents’ details of properties for sale and to let.

This study aims to look at the way residents of Sheffield and visitors to the city would say where the city centre is and how far it extends. To get an idea of whether this depends on where someone is at the time, people are being asked the same questions at various places around central Sheffield.

Contact for further information Dr Paul Clough, project supervisor, Department of Information Studies, Regent Court, University of Sheffield. Telephone (0114) 222 2664; e-mail <p.d.clough@sheffield.ac.uk>

Thank you for your participation in this project

74

Appendix B 3 Map showing Sheffield landmarks on the questionnaire

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

75

Appendix C: Post code areas Map showing post code areas

76

Appendix D: Outline maps of Sheffield City Centre Appendix D1 Map based on responses from the Moor

1 Bus Station

2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

Dashed line represents landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the City Centre. Dotted line represents landmarks perceived by at least half of the participants to be in the City Centre.

77

Appendix D2 Map based on responses from the Peace Gardens

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

Dashed line represents landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the City Centre. Dotted line represents landmarks perceived by at least half of the participants to be in the City Centre.

78

Appendix D3 Map based on responses from the Railway Station

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

Dashed line represents landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the City Centre. Dotted line represents landmarks perceived by at least half of the participants to be in the City Centre.

79

Appendix D4 Map based on responses from Sheffield University (Pilot survey)

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

Dashed line represents landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the City Centre. Dotted line represents landmarks perceived by at least half of the participants to be in the City Centre.

80

Appendix D5 Map based on responses from all participants

1 Bus Station 2 Campo Lane 3 Castle Market 4 Cathedral 5 City Hall 6 Crucible Theatre 7 Devonshire Green 8 Fargate 9 Fire/Police Museum 10 Fire service HQ 11 Fitzalan Square 12 Furnival Square 14 Ice Rink 15 Kelham Island 16 Lady’s Bridge 17 Law Courts 18 Leadmill 19 Mappin Street 20 the Moor 21 Park Hill 22 Ponds Forge 23 Railway Station 24 River Don 25 Royal Victoria Hotel 26 Shalesmoor 27 Sheffield United FC 29 Sheffield Hallam University 30 Showroom 31 S Yorks Police HQ 32 Town Hall 33 Victoria Quays 34 Waitrose 35 West Street Post Office 37 the Wicker 38 Winter Garden Off the map: 13 Hallamshire Hospital 28 Sheffield University 36 Weston Park

Dashed line represents landmarks perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the City Centre. Dotted line represents landmarks perceived by at least half of the participants to be in the City Centre.

81

Appendix E: Perceptions of the Midlands Appendix E1 Outline map of the Midlands, all participants.

Inner dashed line represents towns perceived by two thirds and more of the participants to be in the Midlands. Outer dashed line represents towns perceived by one third and more of the participants to be in the Midlands.

82

Appendix E2 Towns perceived to be in the Midlands, participants from the North and participants from the Midlands

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100B

irmin

gham

Der

by

Burto

n

Leic

este

r

Wol

verh

ampt

on

Not

tingh

am

Cov

entry

Stok

e-on

Tre

nt

Staf

ford

War

wic

k

Wor

ksop

Stra

tford

Che

ster

field

Buxt

on

Telfo

rd

She

ffiel

d

Nor

tham

pton

Linc

oln

Wor

cest

er

Shre

wsb

ury

Gra

ntha

m

Che

ster

Pete

rbor

ough

Swin

don

Rea

ding

Bris

tol

Oxf

ord

Her

efor

d

Glo

uces

ter

Che

ltenh

am

Cam

brid

ge

Luto

n

% o

f res

pons

es

From the North From the Midlands

83