RESULTS OF STATEWIDE USER SURVEYS

Abstract

Geologic mapping has long been a core activity of the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). In late 1996, the MGS conducted its first in-depth survey to identify users and uses of geologic maps. The results of this survey show that there is a broad and diverse base of geologic map users and uses and that geologic maps are generally very important to the work of the customers. Many expressed the need for more, not fewer, geologic maps.

A two-page, nine-item, multiple-choice questionnaire was prepared and distributed to more than 550 people. Response by 322 individuals far exceeded expectations. The 58-percent response rate has been described by a professional public opinion research company as "phenomenal and extraordinary, clearly indicating that respondents felt they had a stake in the results of the survey" (Mason-Dixon Market Research, Columbia, Md., oral communication, 1997).

Respondents fell into three main groups--government (39 percent), consultants (36 percent), and education (15 percent). By area of training and expertise, a slight majority cite geology (51 percent); other areas were environmental sciences (28 percent), hydrogeology (23 percent), engineering (20 percent), other sciences (15 percent), and nonscience (5 percent).

Sixty-eight percent of respondents use geologic maps several times a month or more often, and 83 percent characterize geologic maps as crucial to very important in their work. Among those who use geologic maps less frequently, most consider geologic maps to be very important when they do use them.

The type of use generally reflects the work area or expertise of the user. Two uses led all others--support of environmental assessment or impact statements (60 percent) and development of site-specific evaluations (54 percent). Other main uses were academic studies (37 percent), engineering and design activities (35 percent), remediation/feasibility studies (34 percent), and land-use planning (32 percent). Nearly a quarter of respondents cited more than 20 additional uses. Underscoring the versatility or broad application of geologic maps is the fact that respondents marked an average of nearly three uses per respondent.

Three recommendations were marked on a majority of questionnaires--production of surficial geologic maps in addition to bedrock geologic maps (58 percent), production of digital maps (55 percent), and production of maps in full-color instead of "bluelines" (52 percent). (MGS began issuing geologic maps as blueline prints in 1993 as a cost-cutting measure.) Depiction of more geologic cross sections (38 percent) and depiction of engineering or physical properties of materials (36 percent) rounded out the respondents' recommendations. These results seem to cut across all customer groups.

Geologic maps are not too technical for most users. Only 17 percent recommended showing general rock types instead of traditional geologic formations (though some wanted both), and 20 percent recommended writing the explanatory text in less technical language.

This questionnaire validates the conclusion that geologic maps are relevant and useful to a diverse customer base. Customers express their need for a continuation, or even an expansion, of geologic mapping in Maryland.

Methods

During November and December 1996, a two-page, multiple-choice questionnaire was distributed to more than 550 potential or probable users of geologic maps. Several mailing lists were utilized in an effort to reach a broad sampling of geologic map customers. No attention was paid to proportions of government, academic, or private sector customers. Nevertheless, it is posited that this survey adequately represents the population of geologic map customers.

As of January 20, 1997, 322 of 558 questionnaires had been returned, but three were not tabulated because the respondents were retired and no longer used geologic maps. More than one-fourth of the respondents had obtained questionnaires by "networking" of those who had received the mail-out. The first couple of questions identified and characterized the map customers--namely, the nature of respondents' business (government, consultant, education, and so on) and area of expertise (geology, hydrogeology, environmental sciences, engineering, archaeology, soils, and so on). The last few focused on uses of and need for geologic maps and on suggestions for changes or improvements.

Results

A detailed presentation of the survey's results appears in Maryland Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-03-01 (Reger, 1997). The following is a condensation of raw data.

• What is the nature of the business in which you use our geologic maps?
• Which best describes your field of education, training, or expertise?
• How often do you use geologic maps?
• How important are geologic maps to your work?
• How do you use geologic maps?
• Do you have any recommendations for changing or improving our geologic maps?

Reference Cited

Reger, James P., 1997, A customer survey of geologic maps and other products of the Maryland Geological Survey: Maryland Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-03-01, 36 p.

Geologic and Mineral Resources

What kinds of geologic and mineral-resources information do you usually request and (or) purchase?

	Geologic Maps	Coal Data	Oil/Gas Data	Mineral Data	Aggregate Data	Hydrogeologic Data
Total	197	24	20	114	33	51
Industry	29	5	7	22	8	6
Education	31	2	1	13	2	1
Consultant	17	3	0	10	8	10
Consulting company	25		6	8	3	17
General public	58		3	46	3	3
Government	37		3	15	9	14

Do you request information (on an average):

	Weekly	Monthly	Yearly	As Needed
Total	1	40	28	164
Industry	0	3	4	28
Education	0	4	8	23
Consultant	1	6	0	13
Consulting company	0	13	2	18
General public	0	6	9	57
Government	0	8	5	25

Is the information provided in our reports and maps beneficial to your work? 96.5% = YES:   Yes No Percent of Respondents Total 193 7   Industry 30 0 15 Education 29 0 15 Consultant 17 0 8 Consulting company 25 0 12 General public 55 7 31 Government 37 0 18

Is all the geologic and mineral resources information that you generally need included in our publications? 86% = YES   Yes No Percent of Respondents Total 178 28   Industry 24 3 13 Education 28 5 16 Consultant 15 2 8 Consulting company 18 7 12 General public 58 8 32 Government 35 3 16

Electronic Data Coverages

Would you utilize DMR publications and geologic data bases by using a personal computer if the digital data were available? 60% = YES   Yes No Total 114 74 Industry 19 7 Education 22 5 Consultant 11 5 Consulting company 17 7 General public 20 40 Government 25 10

Do you use a geographic information system (GIS) or have automated mapping capabilities? 32% = YES   Yes No Total respondents (187) 60 127 Industry 14 16 Education 6 17 Consultant 3 13 Consulting company 8 14 General public 8 52 Government 21 15

Would you purchase maps and reports on CD-ROM? 54% = YES   Yes No Total respondents (173) 93 80 Industry 15 8 Education 17 8 Consultant 7 8 Consulting company 16 6 General public 18 38 Government 20 12

If a system of "maps on demand" was operational, could you accept a 2-day delay in mailing of the maps? 89% = YES   Yes No Total respondents (169) 150 19 Industry 26 0 Education 22 4 Consultant 10 3 Consulting company 19 1 General public 43 7 Government 30 4

How important is it that State Government educate the general public about geology, water, and mineral resources?

	Critical	Very Important	Important	Minor	Should Not Do
Total	92	81	31	6	1
Industry	14	10	6	0	0
Education	18	12	1	1	0
Consultant	6	7	2	1	0
Consulting company	12	10	3	0	1
General public	19	28	17	4	0
Government	23	14	2	0	0

Are there other topics upon which you think we should publish reports? 46% = YES

	Yes	No
Total respondents (82)	38	44
Industry	1	7
Education	7	2
Consultant	3	2
Consulting company	8	5
General public	11	20
Government	8	8

In what way?

Industry

• More aquifer characterization/ground-water studies
• Education
• Coastal studies
• Surficial geology maps
• More general geology
• Geophysics

Consultant/consulting company

• More county and quadrangle geologic maps
• Hydrologic data
• Environmental project/data
• Soils
• Data for construction (karst and so on)
• Holocene/Quaternary geology
• More karst data

General public

• Soil types
• Geology related to pollution problems
• Geology/mineral resources

Government

• Mineral deposits and gemstones
• Hydrologic information/ground water
• Engineering geology
• Environmental geology
• Geologic maps for State at 1:24,000 scale
• Soils/surficial geology
• Geologic hazards
• Regulatory geology/3-D geologic models
• County-based geologic maps
• Region-based geologic maps

What information services do you require that are currently not provided?

Industry

• Site-specific data
• Updated geologic maps of Western Virginia, inclusive of county maps
• More mineral resources data
• Digitized topographic base
• More 1:24,000 quadrangle geologic mapping

Education

• More surficial geology maps

Consultant/consulting company

• More geologic quadrangle maps (1:24,000 scale, county, and so on)
• Site-specific data
• Digital topographic maps
• Hydrogeological data
• Subsurface boring/well data
• GIS information

General public

• Geologic map of State and subregion information

Government

• GIS data
• Land-use data, water-use data, more 7.5-geologic quadrangles
• X-ray and petrographic analysis
• Ground water/water resources
• More county geologic maps
• 1993 State geologic map on CD-ROM
• Soil surveys
• More coastal plain data

What area(s) of DMR's information and product services should be improved upon?

Industry

• Digitized topographic information
• Data base for commodities in Virginia
• Regional studies--especially in areas where development has not occurred

Consultant/consulting company

• Access to data by CD-ROM
• Complete geologic mapping at 1:24,000
• More publications
• Hydrogeologic data (with geology)

General public

• More geological mapping at 7.5-minute scale
• Reprint--out of print publications
• Always use color in maps

Government

• Reprints of out-of-print reports
• More regional or county geologic reports
• Upgrade topographic maps every 2 years

---

Previous | CONTENTS | Next

---

This page is URL https://pubs.usgs.gov/circular/c1148/results.html
Last modified 15 April 1998
Maintained by John Watson and Kathie Watson