Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The comparison of the four maps (
Fig. 9
), the Topographic map, the Forest
map, the Relief map and the Outdoor map, led to many opinions. As
expected, the most familiar maps were the already much-used Outdoor
map (54%) and the simplified, but still traditional looking Topographic
map (41%). The Topographic map was clearly the easiest to read (46%),
with the second easiest being the Outdoor map (21%). The most surprising
map chosen by the majority of users was the Forest map (63%), but 60%
of the users also chose it as the least useful map, 61% as the map that has
the least amount of information and 59% as the most irrelevant map. The
Forest map was also the map the participants would need the most help
with (33%), with the Outdoor map being second (29%). In addition, the
Forest map was the most beautiful map (45%), with the Relief map coming
second (40%). The ugliest map was the Outdoor map chosen by 50% of
the participants. The most intuitive map was the Topographic map (37%)
and it was also chosen as the map that the participants would prefer to use
(39%). The most trustworthy map was the Outdoor map (53%).
Participants considered one to two Euros to be a suitable fee for the A3
printed map. Participants would be willing to pay up to 2.30 Euros for the
Outdoor map, which was the most expensive map.
The answers were rather equal between the maps, but participants favoured
the most traditional type of maps, the Topographic map and the Outdoor
map. From all the answers, 67% of participants would rather use a map at
the scale of 1:12 000 instead of 1:20 000 in the limited area of the
Haukkalampi region.
