Improving intuitiveness in geoscience hazard maps: a web-based experiment supporting governmental map development

Figures & data

Figure 1. The marine clay map (possibility of marine clay map including marine limit), NGU (2022).

Figure 2. The current radon susceptibility map (NGU, 2022).

Table 1. Statistical tests and graphs used.

Variables	Graphs	Tests	Rationale
Categorization	Bar, line	The Chi-square test (Normal distribution) or Fisher’s Exact Test	Nominal data, < 5 in each cell
Uncertainty, Confidence	Box, line	ANOVA, T-test	Interval and ratio data

Figure 3. Map alternatives for the marine clay theme.

Table 2. Test scheme for the marine clay map.

Test variable	Alternative	Maps	Alternative	Maps
Can participants order symbols for possibility of clay from low to high possibility?	Solid blue colors with high contrast	1,3,5,7	Hatched blue area fill with lower contrast	2,4,6,8
Do participants intuitively link the diagonal fill to the area above the marine limit?	Diagonal line fill	1,2,5,6	No fill	3,4,7,8
Does the different symbol for marine limit have any affect?	Hatched, thick, blue line	1,2,3,4	Thin, blue, solid line	5,6,7,8

Figure 4. Map alternatives maps for the radon susceptibility map.

Table 3. Test scheme for the radon susceptibility map.

	Alternative 1	Maps	Alternative 2	Maps
Are participants able to order area fills for degree of susceptibility from low to high?	Yellow, pink, and purple solid fill	1,2,5,6	Yellow, orange, red diagonal line fill	3,4,7,8
Which alternative make participants connect the fills for uncertain area better?	Grey solid area fill	1,3,5,7	Grey diagonal line area fill	2,4,6,8
How does different map section/location affect the results?	Rural	1,2,3,4	Urban	5,6,7,8

Figure 5. Graphs showing distribution of participants across a) age, b) gender, c) education level (completed), d) knowledge levels in geology and maps, GIS and cartography (self-reported), e) knowledge of NGU (activities) and f) previous knowledge of the maps in the experiment.

Figure 6. Bar graphs showing the percentage of answers for each category across map alternatives. The correct answers are A: Area above marine limit, B: High possibility for clay, C: Very high possibility, D: Mostly absent.

Figure 7. Line graphs showing the set of answers for all participants. The green line represents the percent of participants with the correct set of answers. Categories for possibility of clay (y-axis) are 1: No data, 1: Area above marine limit, 3: Mostly absent, 4: Low, 5: Medium, 6: High, 7: Very high possibility of clay.

Figure 8. The line graphs show participant uncertainty (blue line) and information uncertainty (orange line) for the eight marine clay map alternatives.

Table 4. Intuitiveness and confidence scores for the marine clay map alternatives.

Map	A	B	C	D	Score	Confidence
1	3.8	3.8	4.1	3.0	3.7	55.6
2	4.1	3.2	4.3	3.5	3.8	58.3
3	4.2	3.9	4.5	3.5	4.0	56.1
4	4.4	3.2	3.9	3.3	3.7	46.9
5	4.0	3.8	4.3	3.4	3.9	54.0
6	3.7	3.3	4.1	3.2	3.6	45.1
7	4.3	3.7	4.6	3.0	3.9	57.7
8	4.3	2.9	3.9	2.4	3.4	44.0
Mean	4.1	3.5	4.2	3.1

Figure 9. Bar graphs showing the percentage of answers for each category and sample area across maps. Map alternative 3 has the most correct answers; “low” for sample area A, “not mapped/uncertain” for B, “high” for C and “medium” for D.

Figure 10. Line graphs showing the percent of participants marking the sample areas with participant (blue line) and information uncertainty (orange line).

Figure 11. Line graphs showing all answers for the eight alternative radon map alternatives. The green line represents the percent of participants with the correct set of answers. The green line represents the group with all answers correct.

Table 5. Intuitiveness and confidence scores for the radon map alternatives.

Map	B	A	D	C	Score	Confidence
1	2.6	4.0	3.8	3.9	3.6	56.1
2	2.8	3.7	3.7	2.8	3.3	47.8
3	2.2	4.9	4.7	4.5	4.0	62.2
4	1.3	4.9	4.3	3.0	3.4	59.0
5	2.0	3.9	3.6	1.8	2.8	55.6
6	2.4	3.6	3.5	1.4	2.7	47.7
7	2.7	4.8	4.7	2.4	3.6	61.5
8	1.0	4.9	4.8	1.3	3.0	62.9
Mean	2.1	4.3	4.1	2.6

Figure 12. Comparison of results for map alternative 3) and map 8) for marine clay.

Figure 13. Comparing the answers from map alternative 3) and 6), where map alternative 3) has the overall best test results. For map alternative 6), participants struggle to order sample area for medium (D) and high susceptibility (A), and some also categorize the low susceptibility symbol as uncertain.

Figure 14. The two maps with the highest map intuitiveness scores.

NGU. (2022, October 12). Map viewers | Norges Geologiske Undersøkelse. https://www.ngu.no/en/topic/map-viewers.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.18710/FS2QXK.