Abstract
Paper has been the format of choice for disseminating geographic information for millennia; however the arrival of the internet and mobile technologies has created new modes of map consumption. This paper investigates the future role of paper mapping in a society where access to online digital mapping is freely available. The research consists of an online survey to investigate how people use and view online/digital and paper maps, together with a task-based user study to investigate the suitability of each map format for a variety of given tasks. Similar to previous research, we categorize participants into two groups (experts and non-experts/novices) based on their level of geographic skill. Results demonstrate that geographic knowledge and the context of use clearly relate to preference of map format. As geographic skill increases, there is a greater preference for paper maps; non-experts prefer online/digital maps. Also, paper is the preferred medium for planning and executing navigation on foot across all groups. Overall, results suggest that paper maps are here to stay for the foreseeable future and remain the preferred choice for some in the digital age.
1. Introduction
The development of the internet, along with advances in wireless and digital technologies, has changed how we interact with each other and the world around us. All traditional modes of communication are now being transformed, and in some cases totally replaced. Map-making and the presentation of geographic information comprise an area concerned with communicating spatial information about the world around us. Historically we have used printed paper maps to fulfil our geographic needs, ranging from travelling to work to conducting and enjoying our leisure time. However, the increasing quality and availability of digital maps, together with technological advances, is now providing a realistic alternative to the traditional paper map format. The increased popularity of web-based services has resulted in a number of mainstream companies offering online mapping tools, for example, Google Maps. Nowadays, it is no longer only geographic specialists who are using geospatial information; the general public (or non-experts) are becoming increasingly aware of how such dynamic information can be used in combination with everyday technologies, for example Global Positioning System (GPS) and other hand-held devices. Indeed many users are requesting access to digital geographical data with the aim of processing it using their own Geographic Information Systems (GIS) [1]. Peterson [2] claims that digital map technology has revolutionized how we interact with maps, but can we realistically assume that digital multimedia will become the ‘new cartography’ [3]. If so, will this change in interaction bring paper map use to an end or simply provide an alternative mode of consumption?
This research focuses on our ongoing relationship with both paper and online/digital maps and investigates the future viability of paper as a map format in a digital society. The work reported in this paper is based on an MSc dissertation project undertaken by the first author at the University of Sheffield in 2010. The study establishes how and when people use paper and digital map products and which features of each format are considered as essential to the geographical information needs of people. Although prior work has investigated the use of digital and paper maps [4 –6], there has been less consideration on the role of paper mapping in the digital age. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses past work investigating digital and paper map formats. The methodology is described in Section 3 with results reported in Section 4. The paper concludes, in Section 5, with a summary and areas for further research.
2. Background
2.1. Paper maps
Paper has served as the primary communications medium, owing in part to the many qualities that make it a universal and dynamic medium, including its ease of use, transportation and storage [7]. Therefore, it became the obvious choice of medium to portray geographic information about the world effectively and efficiently. Historically, paper maps have been designed and made by professionals and in the UK most standard paper maps are designed and produced by Ordnance Survey (OS), the country’s national mapping agency. Research into the so-called ‘paperless office’ has revealed that, even though new technology has allowed most documents to be stored digitally, the tangibility of paper is still a major factor in its continuing presence in the workplace [8]. Nichols and Cunningham [9] highlight the suitability of paper for informally sharing documents and their annotations, while O’Hara and Sellen [10] identify the ease of paper navigation and the use of a flexible spatial layout as positive contributors to persistent paper usage. These viewpoints, while citing different reasons, all highlight why paper remains dominant over its equivalent digital media. If the current rise in paper document usage continues while suitable digital alternatives are available [11], then it is predicted that digital maps will not replace or even reduce paper map use. This study seeks to update this prediction.
2.2. Digital maps: GIS and the internet
Modern maps are no longer restricted to paper; they are now transmitted from place to place over computer networks [12]. An increasing proportion of mapping content is being presented and consumed by use of a digital interface of some description [13]. The backbone of any digital mapping system is the spatial database. These databases are normally developed as part of a larger GIS, with a typical GIS being designed to store, retrieve, manipulate, analyse and map geographical data. GIS users have traditionally been specialists in the field; however, the shift in computing power and proliferation of the internet has brought GIS tools and services into every home. Analogous to the evolution of the internet, GIS systems have undergone significant developments mostly owing to the rapid progress of information technologies. This progress has seen GIS systems move from early mainframe computers through to more compact desktop systems, and then to the present day distributed systems that embrace both mobile and internet platforms [14].
There is little doubt that the internet represents a new medium for cartography with the seemingly limitless range of online map products available for consumption [2]. The internet has created a platform for an abundant array of mapping tools and products that have provided access to a wide range of geographic functionality from traffic information updates to locations of ancient sites of archaeological interest. It is clear that there are no limits to the information that can be made available, as long as it can be geographically or spatially positioned on a map. It seems that the growth area in internet mapping is the provision of ‘up to the minute’ information with an increasing number of internet map consumers expecting immediate and real-time access to data [15]. Significant barriers to the growth of internet-based geographic tools surround the user’s ability to manipulate and interpret geographic information along with software interface usability issues. It is reasonable to assume that non-specialist geographic information users have only a limited knowledge of geographic information (in comparison to geographic specialists) and, therefore, may find the specialist nature of geographic information applications demanding [16]. Therefore, an important attribute of online map tools is their adaptability, especially the ease with which they can be tailored to suit the dynamically changing user demands [17]. Of all the providers of free online mapping tools, it is Google that has made the most significant contribution with their Google Maps and Google Earth viewers, resulting in their dominant use compared with other products [18]. There are a number of other successful online map tools, including Multimap and MapQuest. Each site provides a map background and a number of layers that can be manipulated, allowing the user to display their desired view of a location. It is this ability to generate user-defined content that is both dynamic and interactive which has made online mapping an important method of generating maps and map products. It is apparent that digital interfaces are an important catalyst in the movement away from paper maps, but new developments in interface design still need to address a number of challenges in order to become effective [19]. Similarly, it is clear that the medium of paper does not support all ideal map requirements simultaneously either [20].
2.3. Paper vs digital maps
Lloyd and Bunch [21] state that a map represents real-world information as a set of abstract features. This view is a common definition of the construction requirements of both paper and digital maps. However, there is often a large disparity between the two map formats regarding their degree of feature abstraction owing to differences in their creation, purpose and mode of consumption. Paper maps typically provide high-resolution, large-scale information requiring zero power consumption, whereas power dependant digital maps are often displayed at a lower resolution, providing more dynamic, personalized and up-to-date content [21]. A defining attribute of a paper map is that it is portrayed at a fixed scale whereas digital maps can be viewed at multiple scale levels [22]. These differences in the two formats provide some reason for their parallel existence, but human cognitive factors, such as user confidence and technology acceptance, still prevent large-scale digital map consumption. There are a number of potential reasons for the continuing existence of paper maps, including the obvious tangibility of paper that offers those that purchase maps the ability to collect and refer to them with ease, thus providing a degree of value to their ownership. The flexibility and structure of paper mapping also supports collaborative working and facilitates effective information sharing, an attribute that is important for ‘applying local area knowledge in relation to map information, and for relating map and landscape’ [23]. To their detriment, digital and mobile mapping formats often make collaborative working difficult and the electronic nature of digital maps makes product tangibility almost non-existent. Unfortunately, paper maps continue to be relatively expensive and often provide more information than the user requires for the task [24], making simple digital map products an increasingly attractive, cheaper and more suitable alternative. Any success in geographic information delivery and consumption is intrinsically linked to the medium on which it is created and displayed. Peterson [2] describes a medium as the ‘carrier of information that is used to transmit knowledge and ideas between people’. Therefore, if geographic knowledge is to be transmitted and used more effectively, then more focus on developing and improving the medium is required. This requires further understanding of users’ uses and preferences for maps in paper and digital form, particularly by expert and non-expert geographic users. Since there has been limited past work on studying the uses and requirements of paper vs digital maps [4 –6], this study seeks to provide further insights into map usage and complement the existing studies.
3. Methodology
The research followed an inductive mixed methods approach [25]. First a Web-based questionnaire (Section 3.1) was conducted to establish from participants their current map usage and views towards traditional paper maps and online/digital maps. The questionnaire also studied common situations in which people would prefer to use paper or digital maps. The outcomes (e.g. that participants commonly used Google Maps and accessed digital maps from desktop devices) were fed into a task-based user study (Section 3.2) where people had to carry out a series of typical tasks requiring interaction with maps and then asked to rate their satisfaction with each map format. Similar to previous studies of map usage, participants were categorized into two groups: non-experts/novices and experts. The non-experts are representative of individuals from a variety of professional backgrounds having no formal experience of paper and digital map creation and development, but who may have had some degree of exposure to geographic information during the course of their domestic lives. Experts are representative of those with substantial professional experience of paper and digital map use or map creation. This group included military students and staff from the Royal School of Military Survey (RSMS), the geospatial training branch of the British Army, civilian staff from Ordnance Survey (OS) and a number of other expert users of geographic information.
3.1. Online survey
This method of data collection technique was selected to generate a quantitative frame of reference for the study and provide a basis for focusing research in the subsequent stages. Web-based questionnaires offer a cost-effective way of gathering large volumes of quantitative data [26]. Our survey 1 consisted of a mixture of open- and closed-class questions and remained available online for five weeks beginning in June 2010. The questionnaire was primarily circulated to a volunteer mailing list for staff and students at the University of Sheffield. Further distribution amongst known groups (e.g. staff and students at OS and RSMS) ensured greater participation of geographical experts. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The first section gathered demographical information, such as age, level of computing skills, internet experience, profession and gender. The second part of the survey questioned people about their use of online/digital maps. Digital maps were defined in the survey as maps or map data accessed through software on a computer or digital interface (e.g. via ArcGIS or Anquet maps). Online maps were defined as those accessed through the web via computer (e.g. Google Maps and RAC Routefinder). The third part of the questionnaire asked participants about their previous and current printed paper map use habits. Paper maps were defined as any map that is paper based, including purchased maps (e.g. OS 1:50k Landranger products), as well as maps printed from online mapping tools (e.g. Google Maps) or GIS software (e.g. ArcGIS). The final part of the survey asked participants about their preferred map format in general and for specific situations.
3.2. Task-based user study
The second method of data collection was used to assess the ability of participants to manipulate both traditional paper map products and online maps by completing a set of map-related tasks. Participants were selected from those who had completed the online questionnaire based on their level of geographic expertise. Tasks involved finding, investigating, planning and identifying a series of locations/routes using both map formats. Results from the online survey suggested a link between map preference and context of use. Therefore, the task-based user study aimed to investigate whether participants were competent using both map formats and whether their perceptions of use matched their abilities. The map areas chosen for the study were selected to be deliberately unfamiliar to the user to ensure that local/previous knowledge did not affect the task execution and results. The user tasks chosen for use within the study were based on the results of the initial questionnaire, which found that the majority of participants used maps for travel and route planning. The study was based around the following scenario: ‘You are going on a walking holiday with your family to Wales by car and want to organize your travel arrangements and plan a number of activities you wish to do during your visit. You must use your assigned map format (either paper or digital) to complete the task.’ Participants followed the scenario twice using Google Maps or a set of paper maps (including Ordnance Survey 1:50k map sheets, road atlases and other maps at various scales). Each scenario included the following three tasks: (a) long-distance travel planning; (b) medium-distance travel planning; and (c) short-distance travel planning. To reduce learning effects, participants carried out each set of tasks on different geographical areas. The order of the scenarios and which map format participants used first was differed according to a ‘Latin square’ formation to ensure that map location learning bias was adequately counterbalanced [27]. Each of the experiments was conducted individually so that user interaction and observation could take place and also to prevent participants from biasing the actions of others. The time taken to complete each task was recorded by the observer. Each participant was informed that at the end of the task planning exercise they would be expected (in theory) to use their map product to actually carry out the route/journey. Participants were then shown a copy of the output and asked to comment on its task suitability. The final stage of the research involved participants completing a user satisfaction survey based on Questionnaires for User Interaction Satisfaction [28] and assessing factors of usability based on Easingwood [18] and Seffah et al. [29]. Twelve participants, half of whom were experts, completed the user evaluation.
4. Results
4.1. Online survey
The online survey generated 931 attempted responses from which 766 (82.3%) were complete/valid responses. It was decided that the incomplete responses would be filtered out and excluded from the analysis owing to the high completed survey response rate and the potential unreliability of the incomplete responses. Overall, the questionnaire produced 47,492 individual data items that could be used for analysis. We present the results for the survey as follows: Section 4.1.1 describes the profiles of participants based on the first part of the survey; Section 4.1.2 summarizes people’s reported usage patterns of paper and online/digital maps; Section 4.1.3 shows participant preferences for map features; finally Section 4.1.4 discusses results regarding participant preferences for map format (paper or digital).
4.1.1. Participant profiles
Initially, the profile data were extracted to reveal information that could subsequently be used to categorize and group participants. The profile data revealed a relatively even spread of age ranges, with a predominant age range between 21 and 30 (38.0%). This age range is indicative of the high volume of university students in the sample. Similarly there was a fairly even split between genders with 454 (59.3%) being female and 312 (40.7%) male. Participant breakdown by profession reveals a high volume of students with the academic field accounting for 61.9% of the total. However, owing to targeted survey deployment, the remaining 38.1% are spread across the range of other categories (government, military, public services, professional, self-employed, unemployed and retired). The subsequent questions gathered information about participants’ IT skills and internet usage. Most participants perceived their IT skills to be ‘Intermediate’ (44.0%) or ‘Advanced’ (41.1%) with an overwhelming 94.3% using the internet ‘Many times a day’. Predictably, 97.1% of participants chose Google as their preferred search.
The final element of the profile gathered information about perceived levels of geographic knowledge. It revealed that the majority of participants (56.5%) classed themselves as novices/non-experts that regularly used online/digital and paper maps. An important aim of this research was to gather data from geographic experts and through targeting military and civilian professional geographers, 20.5% of respondents rated themselves as either intermediate or expert in using/creating maps and geographic information. At this stage the data was reclassified across participants’ perceived geographic knowledge to create two discrete classes: non-experts (79.5%) and experts (20.5%). To achieve this, the variable values of ‘None’, ‘Basic’ (sometimes use online/paper maps) and ‘Novice’ (regularly use online/paper maps) were combined to define ‘Non-experts’ and the variable values of ‘Intermediate’ (sometimes crate maps and geographic information) and ‘Expert’ (regularly use GIS and frequently manipulate geographic data) were combined to define geographic ‘Experts’. This split was believed to be appropriate based on the prescriptive question wording and analysis of the profession of the respondent extracted from the qualitative job data provided.
4.1.2. Use of paper and online/digital maps
We first discuss participants’ use of paper and online/digital maps drawn from the second and third sections of the survey. Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses regarding the frequency with which experts and non-experts use online/digital and paper maps. Across both groups, 63.8% of participants use online/digital maps at least once a week compared with 27.7% using paper maps at least once a week. Experts use maps on a more regular basis than non-experts. For example, 71 (45.2%) experts use online/digital maps at least once a day compared with 115 (18.9%) non-experts; 23 (14.7%) experts use paper maps at least once a day compared with 25 (4.1%) non-experts. Figure 1 also shows that 41 non-experts stated that they had never used paper maps (compared with one expert). Online/digital maps were used on a more regular basis than paper with a median rating of ‘Once a week’ across all responses for online/digital map usage and ‘Once a month’ for paper map usage.
Frequency with which online/digital (left) and paper (right) maps are used (N = 766).
The relationship between the frequency of online/digital and paper map use in relation to geographic skill (lower value representing greater skill) was tested using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Results showed a significant correlation between geographic skill and online/digital map use (ρ = −0.427, p < 0.01) and paper map use (ρ = −0.466, p < 0.01): the greater the geographic skill, the more frequently maps are used. A significant correlation also exists between age and paper map use (ρ = −0.238, p < 0.01), indicating that with increased age comes more frequent use of paper maps (the correlation with online/digital maps is not significant). A significant correlation is also found between internet skill/experience and map usage: the greater the level of skill, the more online/digital maps are used (ρ = −0.258, p < 0.01). The correlation between internet skill and paper map usage is not significant. Finally, as expected, more frequent use of the internet leads to more frequent use of online/digital maps (ρ = 0.123, p < 0.01). The correlation between internet use and paper map use is not significant.
Participants were asked about the type of maps commonly used for each format (Figure 2). They could indicate their preference for multiple map types and all participants answered the question. In some cases we only provided options for one type, for example aerial imagery maps refer to those found in online map tools, such as Google Maps, and are not applicable to paper maps, except in the form of satellite imagery. A total of 622 (81.2%) of the 766 participants indicated they commonly used online/digital maps in the form of route maps and atlases, followed by 497 (64.9%) using guide books and city maps, and 342 (44.6%) aerial imagery. The types of paper map commonly used were route maps and atlases followed by street maps and guide books or travel maps (see Figure 2). Forty-one respondents stated that they did not use paper maps (39 of these non-experts).
Types of online/digital and paper commonly used by respondents (N = 766).
Participants were asked to indicate which (out of nine) online map tools they commonly used (all answered this question and could make multiple selections). A total of 729 (95.2%) of the 766 participants selected Google Maps, 423 (55.2%) selected AA Routeplanner and MultiMap, 333 (43.5%) StreetMap, 196 (25.6%) RAC Routeplanner, 143 (18.7%) MapQuest, 87 (11.4%) OS Getamap service, 71 (9.3%) Yahoo! Maps and 59 (7.7%) Michelin Maps. Participants also suggested other online tools they had used in addition to those listed in the survey. The most frequently mentioned were Google Earth and Bing Maps. When asked about which of the online services participants preferred (all participants answered this question and had to select one choice), there was again an overwhelming preference for Google Maps (70.9%), with AA Routeplanner (10.2%) and Multimap (8.0%) the second and third most preferred tools. The preference for Google Maps corresponds to the findings of Easingwood [18]. Comments regarding why people selected their preferred choice (predominantly referring to Google Maps) included ease of use, Google Maps being co-located with Google web search and therefore quick to navigate to, and the perceived reliability of the maps served up by the map tool.
When asked about how they would normally access online/digital maps (all participants answered this question and could make multiple selections), 553 (72.2%) participants accessed maps from a desktop PC, followed by 552 (72.1%) by laptop, 228 (29.8%) by mobile phone, 199 (26%) through in-car SatNav, and 49 (6.4%) by handheld GPS receiver. Finally, when asked about whether or not respondents printed out their online/digital maps (all participants answered this question), 64.2% stated ‘Sometimes’, 16.3% ‘Usually’, 14.6% ‘Never’ and 4.8% ‘Always’. Common reasons for printing maps included ‘So I can take it with me to find my destination/route’, ‘If my mobile doesn’t get service, you sort of have to use paper maps’ and ‘to take it with me hiking’.
When asked about the use of paper maps, participants stated they commonly used paper route maps and atlases (70.1%) and street maps (60.6%). Figure 3 shows the sources that paper maps were acquired from (all participants answered this question and could make multiple selections). In total, 597 (77.9%) out of the 766 participants bought paper maps from shops, 39.6% downloaded them for free from websites, 24.8% borrowed maps from a friend or colleague, 17.2% ordered from an online site and 8.9% borrowed maps from a library (38 or 5.1% never used paper maps). Trends were similar across experts and non-experts with the only difference being more people ordering maps from online sites (28.5% compared with 14.3%). Fifty-four responses also selected ‘Other’ and provided alternative sources from those given in the survey. These included ‘I “borrow” them from work!’, ‘Pick-up for free’, ‘Get free through auto association’, ‘Buy from garage’ and ‘Use office copy’.
Sources used to acquire paper maps (N = 766).
4.1.3. Preferences for map features
In the second and third sections of the survey, participants were also asked about their preferences for various features of online/digital and paper maps. The features were presented for rating (1 = very important; 5 = not important) with the option to provide any additional missing features. A summary of the results is shown in Tables 1 and 2. The number of unknown responses is shown, which may highlight features participants found unclear or unfamiliar to them. A non-parametric test (Mann–Whitney U) is used to highlight significant differences between the ratings provided by experts and non-experts (shown in bold). Rather than showing the average ratings for features by experts and non-experts, we show the number of participants rating features as 1 and 5 (the two extremes of the Likert scale).
Online/digital map features ranked in descending order of overall number of ratings for very important features. Features in bold indicate significant differences between expert and non-experts (p < 0.05)
Paper map features ranked in descending order of overall number of ratings for very important features. Features in bold indicate significant differences between expert and non-experts (p < 0.05)
Focusing first on online/digital maps (Table 1), the three most important features across geographic skill levels are ease of screen navigation, map feature readability and the availability of different map scales (as provided by a zoom function). Overall the least popular features (receiving most 5 scores) are bookmarking functions, ability to add own data and relief information. The four features with the highest number of unknown responses are currency of map information, low price, software usability and relief information. Using a Mann–Whitney U test shows significant differences for the ratings between experts and non-experts for nine out of the 20 features (shown in bold in Table 1). As one might expect, the requirements for different features varies depending upon the level of geographic skill with experts preferring ‘advanced’ features, such as relief information and grid referencing. When asked what other features participants would find useful for online/digital maps in addition to those listed, non-expert responses included ‘Quickest routes, best routes for different transport methods, website links to place’, ‘Relevant updates to route (e.g. road works, speed cameras)’, ‘Distance Tool (one tool that I always use when using google maps)’ and ‘Written directions as well as maps’. Experts’ responses included ‘Measurement and markup tools’, ‘Ordnance Survey symbology and grid’ and ‘Interface features: Data features: basic landcover (vegetation such as woodland, grassland, arable, and deposits such as sand mud and shingle), rivers and inland water bodies, all to give locations a “character” and “context”’. Participants were also asked to comment on what they believed would improve current online/digital maps. Over 16% commented on better print capabilities with comments including, ‘Printing is definitely the weak point of most map provision services’ and ‘Why can’t I print a true representation of what I see on the screen?’
For paper maps (Table 2), the three most important features (rated as 1) across geographic skill level are readability of map features, positional accuracy of features and usability. Overall, the three least important features are locations of manmade point of interests (e.g. theme parks), location of natural points of interest and the availability of relief information (e.g. contour lines). The four features with the highest unknown responses are currency of map information (77), availability of grid references (38), relief information (36) and print quality (32). Significant differences between the ratings of experts and non-experts were observed for five out of the 13 features: currency of map information, grid referencing, low price, availability of route information and relief information. Similar to the findings for online/digital maps, the non-experts are more likely to use digital maps for accessing general route and location information, as seen by their preference for route information features, whereas experts are more likely to favour advanced features. When asked what additional features would be useful on a paper map, most responses were regarding points of interest (e.g. petrol stations, medical centres and places to eat), physical aspects of maps (e.g. size, ease of folding and waterproofing) and presentation (e.g. indication of magnetic north and clear scale information).
In the results we observed a preference for features related to context of use. For example, paper maps are commonly used for route finding and navigation on foot. Therefore, features such as location of historical landmarks and walking trails are important. One participant commented on this by stating, ‘I think answers to these questions vary according to whether you are simply locating something, planning a walking holiday (contours! – not important if you are going by car!) or finding a route to somewhere.’
4.1.4. Preferences for map format
In the final part of the survey participants were asked which map format they preferred. Overall, 392 (53.5%) of all participants said they preferred online/digital maps compared with 341 paper (33 people skipped the question). However, inspecting the results by geographic skill revealed that experts preferred paper maps (52.5%) over online/digital (39.5%), whereas non-experts preferred online/digital maps (54.2%) compared with paper maps (42.4%). When asked to explain their preferences, participant responses in support of online/digital maps included, ‘With online maps you can scroll, you can zoom in and out, you can easily locate exactly where you are because of GPS’ and ‘it’s less to carry around, the map cannot tear or get wet, it is free on my phone and on my laptop’. In support of paper maps, comments included, ‘Prefer hard copy materials’, ‘Online maps are limited to screen size whereas paper in large size maps show the relationship between places and distances better’ and ‘Nicer to have all the info in your hand in one go and look for something directly on paper than to navigate an electronic map scrolling in and out to get the right level of detail but a wide enough view.’
From the responses provided by participants about their overall preference for paper or online/digital maps, several mentioned that preference was dependent upon the task in hand, ‘Both have advantages and disadvantages; in general if I just want to find a location in Sheffield for example, I prefer to have a look in my A–Z and that’s it, it is easy and quick’ and ‘Actually I don’t really have a preference – they are both very useful in different situations’. This is confirmed by the results in Table 3, where participants were asked to state their map preference for five different tasks: finding information about a location, navigation on foot, long-distance route planning (over 50 miles), short-distance route planning (less than 50 miles) and navigation by car. Overall there is a preference for online/digital maps for most tasks, except for navigation on foot, where experts and non-experts prefer using paper maps. The task where experts and non-experts differ is for navigation by car, where experts would prefer paper (51.3%) compared with non-experts preferring digital (59.7%).
Map preference for different tasks for experts and non-experts (N = 764)
4.2. Task-based user study
Results from the survey were used to inform the design of a task-based user study to investigate further the use of paper and online/digital maps by people with different levels of geographic skill and for various tasks. Twelve participants (six experts and six non-experts; nine males and three females) aged between 21 and 40 were involved in the study, selected from individuals answering the online questionnaire. All participants were familiar with online/digital and paper maps and were required to complete three tasks using Google Maps and paper maps from OS. From the study we report three aspects of the results: preference for map format in different situations (Section 4.21); the success of participants in completing given tasks (Section 4.2.2); and their satisfaction with the different map formats (Section 4.2.3).
4.2.1. Preferences for map format
Initially, participants were asked about the map format they would select (from a pre-defined list) in various route planning and execution tasks. We included the use of mobile GIS devices as this was not an aspect investigated in the Web-based survey. However, with recent improvements in GPS technology, combined with developments in mobile phone and wireless technologies, mobile GIS and access to maps on the move has become a real growth industry [14, 30]. Figure 4 shows the preferences for map format. Similarly to the results from the survey, there is a clear preference for paper maps when planning and executing navigation on foot, whereas digital maps are commonly used for planning routes. There is a clear preference for mobile GPS devices when executing (rather than planning) short- and long-distance routes.
Map preferences for different situations.
4.2.2. Task completion
Participants in the user study completed three tasks using Google Maps and appropriate paper maps: (1) long-distance travel planning; (2) medium-distance travel planning; and (3) short-distance travel planning. Table 4 summarizes the mean time taken to complete the tasks by map format and geographic skill. The overall time taken to complete the tasks is the sum of the expert and non-expert times for each format. Combined across all tasks, the time taken to complete tasks is faster using online/digital maps compared with paper maps (482 vs 800 s). This varies by task where conducting short-distance travel planning (Task 3), for example preparing a walking route, is carried out quicker using paper maps. Task 1 proved the most difficult to complete with paper maps, taking over six times longer compared with using online/digital maps. Overall we observe that experts are slightly faster at completing tasks with digital maps (236 vs 246 s), but the differences are small. The effect of geographic skill is far more pronounced for paper maps, where the time taken to complete tasks by the experts is shorter than that of non-experts (328 vs 472 s). The level of the user’s geographic skill has less effect on their use of an online/digital map.
Mean time taken (in seconds) for each task
4.2.3. User satisfaction
Following the tasks, users were asked 10 questions regarding their satisfaction with using the paper and online/digital maps using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree). Table 5 shows the average (arithmetic mean) results for each question broken down by map format and geographic skill. Between paper and online/digital maps, there are significant differences for Q8–10 (differences are statistically significant using Mann–Whitney U-test, p < 0.05, N = 24). Users state that the quality of paper maps is higher than that of online/digital maps; that they are happier to purchase a paper map than online/digital map (perhaps with the expectation that online services should be free); and that the size of the paper map is not too small compared with the online/digital equivalent. Paper maps display a high score (4.4) and digital maps show an average score (2.7) highlighting a general consensus that digital maps are too small. Upon further investigation, the reason for this is the size of the Google Maps print output being inadequate and badly formatted. The difference over map quality (Q8), with paper maps being rated significantly higher (1.3) in quality than digital (3.1), is noticeable.
Mean scores for responses to post-task questions relating to user satisfaction. Features in bold indicate significant differences between paper and digital formats (p < 0.05)
When asked about overall map preference there was an equal division between paper and online/digital (with 5/6 experts preferring paper and 5/6 non-experts preferring online/digital maps). Participants were asked to provide reasons about their likes and dislikes with each map format. Positive aspects of paper maps included high levels of detail, detailed walking routes and contour information. Negative aspects included the long time taken to locate places and the difficulty in learning how to read paper maps. Positive attributes of online/digital maps included quick route finding (through search functions) and varying map scales (through zooming). Negative aspects included lack of walking route information, required power source and poor print functionality. Finally, participants were asked to state which map format they preferred based on seven usability factors: usability, learnability, efficiency, reliability, appearance, presentation and accuracy. Results showed that participants rated paper maps poorer than online/digital maps for usability (10/12 prefer digital), learnability (10/12 prefer digital) and efficiency (all participants rate digital maps as more efficient for carrying out tasks, which is supported by the time taken to complete tasks – all users were slower with paper than digital). However, paper maps were favoured in the other four usability factors: reliability (10/12 rate paper maps as more reliable), appearance (10/12 participants prefer the appearance of paper maps), presentation (7/12 participants prefer the presentation of paper maps) and accuracy (8/12 participants deem paper maps as more accurate than their digital counterparts.
5. Summary and future work
Advances in technology have now brought the ability to create maps into every home, and digital map products are now challenging the traditional and established modes of map delivery, such as paper. It is evident from this research that paper maps have a number of qualities that make them relevant in the digital age. Even with the spread of internet access and the rise in mobile GIS devices, paper maps are still in use and held in high regard. Results demonstrate that geographic knowledge and the context of use clearly relate to preference of map format with experts preferring paper maps. The context of use also affects map preference, with paper the preferred medium for planning and executing navigation on foot across all groups. People with higher levels of geographic skill typically use maps more frequently and prefer paper maps; non-experts prefer online/digital maps. However, when assessed contextually it is found that geographic skill groups agree on using online/digital maps for finding information about locations and for short-/long-distance route planning. They also agree with using paper for navigating on foot. This confirms that paper maps still have an important role to play as all participants across the research consistently chose paper for navigation on foot. Differences over map format are shown for navigating by car, where experts prefer paper and vice-versa. When compared with post task results, disagreement appears between experts, who preferred paper for short-distance route planning, and non-experts, who preferred digital/online maps.
Previous research by Pederson et al. [6] and Verdi et al. [5] found that student map skill did not differ greatly between formats and that students preferred paper maps. However, Pederson’s research involved using maps for the purpose of teaching generic geographical knowledge, whereas this research was highly contextual and based on likely user tasks. This has proven important in the overall suitability for each map format. Research by Harrower et al. [4] into how experts and non-experts viewed internet maps found that, despite differences in experience, the skill groups viewed them similarly. This research supports Harrower’s findings in that both experts and non-experts completed tasks with online/digital maps in similar times and both recorded similar responses across all aspects of user satisfaction, a correlation that is not present in the paper map results. Corresponding to the findings of previous research [18], Google Maps is the online map tool of choice by 70.9% of participants with 95.2% stating that they regularly use the tool. The most common type of map used across both formats is the route map/atlas (81.2% online/digital; 70.1% paper). There is high agreement between people with different levels of geographic skill about what map features are deemed the most and least important across both map formats. However, there is a clear difference over the importance of a number of features, especially over access to grid referencing and relief information: experts perceive them with greater importance than non-experts, a difference that is likely to be related to geographic experience and modes of use. It is clear from both groups that access to route information is essential while being able to locate places of interest is not a priority. User satisfaction with both formats is similar, with some disagreement around digital/online maps being too small and paper maps being regarded as higher quality. The time it took to complete the user tasks clearly favoured online/digital maps, but users still had issues with Google Maps over the poor quality of walking map output.
Although there has been a marked decrease in paper map usage, there is still a significant number of niche markets, expert users and specific usage contexts that exist and will keep the format alive. The apparent rise in general paper usage observed by Guimbretière [11] may also signify a similar trend in future paper map use. The qualities of paper maps identified by Johnson et al. [7], such as ease of use, transportation and storage, may be deciding factors that maintain the popularity of paper maps. The results of this study have highlighted a number of areas for potential further research. There could be significant benefit in running the task-based user study across a wider range of paper products and online/digital tools to remove any constraints or bias from the use of only Google Maps and the limited OS and paper atlas products in this research. We also did not assess the impact of handheld portable GIS and there could be significant benefits in investigating the usage of paper maps vs mobile maps.