Types of maps used as a stimuli in cartographical empirical research

Katarzyna Słomska

doi:10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0014

Figures & Tables

Number of analysed papers per yearSource: own elaboration

Percent of map types used in analysed papersSource: own elaboration

Percentage of paper and screen mapsSource: own elaboration

Relation between medium and level of reactivenessSource: own elaboration based on Kraak & Brown 2001

Percentage of interactive and non-interactive mapsSource: own elaboration

Percentage of maps elaborated with qualitative and quantitative methods of cartographic presentationSource: own elaboration

Percentage of maps of fictional, familiar and unfamiliar data or areaSource: own elaboration

Types of maps used in analysed papers

Feature	Medium		Interactivity		Method of cartographic presentation			Familiarity with data or area
Type	paper	screen	non-interactive	interactive	qualitative	quantitative	fictional	familiar	unfamiliar
Number of papers	19	89	68	40	91	59	14	35	64
Percent of papers	18,4%	86,4%	66,0%	38,9%	88,3%	57,3%	13,6%	34,0%	62,1%

Types of maps

Author(s) year	paper	screen	non-interactive	interactive	qualitative	quantitative	fictional	familiar	unfamiliar
Aerts, Clarke & Keuper 2003		+	+	+	+	+			+
Aggett & McColl 2006		+	+		+	+		+
Ahonen-Rainio & Kraak 2005		+	+		+			+
Andrienko et al. 2002		+		+		+			+
Baker et al. 2016	+		+		+	+			+
Bearman & Lovett 2010		+		+	+				+
Behrens, van Elzakker & Schmidt 2015	+	+	+	+	+			+
Bestgen et al. 2017		+	+		+	+			+
Biland & çöltekin 2017		+	+			+			+
Bishop, Haggerty & Richardson 2015		+		+	+	+			+
Brügger, Fabrikant & Çöltekin 2016		+	+		+	+			+
Brychtova & Çöltekin 2016		+	+		+				+
Brychtová & Çöltekin 2017		+	+		+	+	+
Bunch & Lloyd 2000		+	+		+			+
Cheung, Li & Chen 2009		+		+	+			+
Czepkiewicz, Jankowski & Młodkowski 2017		+		+	+			+
Deeb et al. 2014		+	+		+		+
Deeb et al. 2015		+	+		+		+
Deeb, Ooms & Maeyer 2012		+	+		+		+
Demšar 2007		+		+	+	+		+
Dickmann 2012	+	+	+	+	+			+
Dickmann et al. 2017		+	+		+				+
Dillemuth 2005		+	+		+			+
Dillemuth 2009	+	+	+		+		+
Dong et al. 2016		+	+		+		+
Dong, Ran & Wang 2012		+		+		+			+
Edler et al. 2014		+	+		+		+
Fabrikant et al. 2008		+	+			+	+
Field 2010	+		+		+	+		+
Fish, Goldsberry & Battersby 2011		+	+			+			+
Fujita & Arikawa 2011		+		+	+	+		+
Gołębiowska 2015		+	+		+	+	+
Griffin & Bell 2009	+		+		+			+
Harrower 2007		+	+			+			+
Harrower, MacEachren & Griffin 2000		+		+	+	+			+
Hegarty et al. 2009		+	+		+	+			+
Hennerdal 2017	+		+		+			+
Herbert & Chen 2015		+	+	+	+			+
Hochmair 2009		+	+		+			+	+
Hope & Hunter 2007	+		+		+	+	+
Huang, Schmidt & Gartner 2012		+		+	+			+
Kiik, Nyström & Harrie 2017		+	+		+				+
Kinkeldey et al. 2014		+	+			+			+
Koletsis et al. 2017	+	+		+	+			+
Korpi, Hall & Ahonen-Rainio 2014		+	+		+				+
Kubíček et al. 2017		+	+		+	+			+
Laakso & Tiina Sarjakoski 2010		+		+	+	+		+	+
Lai & Yeh 2004		+		+	+	+			+
Lautenschütz 2012		+		+	+	+			+
Leitner & Buttenfield 2000		+	+		+	+			+
Li & Ho 2004		+		+	+				+
Liao et al. 2017		+		+	+				+
Lloyd & Bunch 2005		+		+	+				+
Lloyd & Bunch 2008		+	+		+		+
Lloyd & Patton 2011		+	+		+		+	+
Lorenz et al. 2013	+		+		+				+
Luebbering & Carstensen 2009		+		+	+				+
Luebbering et al. 2008		+		+	+	+			+
Maggi et al. 2017		+	+		+	+			+
McKendry 2000		+	+		+	+			+
Mendonça & Delazari 2012		+		+	+			+
Mendonça & Delazari 2014		+	+		+	+			+
Michaelidou, Nakos & Filippakopoulou 2004	+		+		+	+			+
Midtbø & Nordvik 2007		+		+	+				+
Muehlenhaus 2012	+	+	+		+	+			+
Multimäki et al. 2016		+		+		+			+
Murakoshi & Higashi 2016	+		+		+	+		+
Nelson 2002		+	+		+	+	+	+
Nivala & Sarjakoski 2007		+		+	+	+		+	+
Nivala, Brewster & Sarjakoski 2008		+		+	+	+		+	+
Nossum 2012		+	+		+	+			+
Nossum 2014		+	+		+	+			+
Oksanen et al. 2014	+		+		+	+		+	+
Ooms et al. 2012		+	+		+				+
Ooms et al. 2016	+		+		+	+			+
Ooms, Dupont & Lapon 2017		+	+		+	+		+	+
Ooms, Maeyer & Fack 2014		+	+		+	+			+
Opach & Rød 2014		+		+	+	+			+
Opach et al. 2017		+		+		+			+
Opach, Gołębiowska & Fabrikant 2014		+		+	+	+			+
Ory et al. 2015		+	+		+	+		+	+
Paula Santil, Sluter & Meza Bravo 2011		+	+		+			+
Perdue & Lobben 2016	+		+		+				+
Phipps 2011		+	+	+	+	+		+
Popelka & Brychtova 2013		+	+		+	+			+
Poplin 2015		+		+	+			+
Poplin, Guan & Lewis 2016		+		+	+	+		+	+
Pugliesi, Decanini & Tachibana 2009		+		+	+				+
Putto et al. 2014		+	+		+	+			+
Raposo & Brewer 2014	+		+		+	+			+
Retchless 2014		+	+		+	+			+
Reyes Nuñez & Juhász 2015	+		+			+			+
Rigby & Winter 2016		+		+	+			+
Roth & MacEachren 2016		+		+	+	+		+
Roth 2009		+	+		+	+			+
Sadahiro 2000	+		+		+				+
Saint-Marc et al. 2017		+		+	+	+			+
Šavrič et al. 2015		+	+		+			+
Slocum et al. 2004		+		+		+			+
Stigmar & Harrie 2011		+	+		+				+
Sun & Li 2010		+	+		+			+	+
Swienty et al. 2008		+	+		+			+
Wiegand 2002		+		+	+		+
TOTAL	19	89	68	40	91	59	14	35	64
	18,4%	86,4%	66,0%	38,8%	88,3%	57,3%	13,6%	34,0%	62,1%

Number of analysed papers per journal (since 2000)

Title of a journal	Published since	Number of published papers since 2000 (nPp)	Number of analysed papers since 2000 (nAp)	nApnPp×100%$\begin{array}{} \rm{\frac{nAp}{nPp}\times100\text{%}} \end{array}$
The Cartographic Journal	1964	422	40	9.5%
Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization	1965	273	17	6.2%
Cartography and Geographic Information Science	1973	465	39	8.4%
International Journal of Cartography	2015	36	7	19.4 %
		1196	103	8.6%

Types of maps used as a stimuli in cartographical empirical research

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Types of maps used in analysed papers

Types of maps

Number of analysed papers per journal (since 2000)

Paradigm

My account