Free text responses

Free text questions were included in the survey to gain a deeper understanding of the participants opinions on the virtual globe tour format and the content that stood out for them regarding the River Isbourne catchment. Full details of the free text responses can be found in Appendices N (facilitated group survey) and O (online non-facilitated survey). Table 15 shows a selection of comments from the free text questions in the survey regarding the most and least useful features of the virtual globe tour.

Table 15. Illustrative comments on the format and presentation of the virtual globe

tour.

Usefulness of the format and presentation

Very easy to see the relationship of features to one another, with extra information and chance to explore if you are interested

I really liked the tour - a fun way of learning and a good way to get to know the area.

It is a clear and easy way to present a lot of information in a visually pleasing format that a layperson can access easily and hopefully understand. Unlike a video fly through the user can stop, go back and explore the project area at their leisure.

Good to have further information in the information bubbles. It made the whole experience more interactive

Incredibly easy to follow instructions. It was easy to navigate through the tour. The tour was rich in information and there were different levels which could be accessed according to need.

Issues with format and presentation

The cross-section of steep slopes was a bit unclear. Look forward to a 3D format in the future

Some of the lines were very hazy in the close-up details

Content: I thought there would be something about how NFM is being implemented in the area. NFM only came in at the very end. I was left wondering why I needed to know all of the tour information in such detail. Technical: Overlays were very confusing, e.g. yellow diamonds, colours overlaying imagery during initial orientation tour. Can't see the district boundaries due to the parishes. Flickering/jumping effect of boundaries and text, and low resolution of overlays in perspective view.

Comments about the format and presentation can be divided into those covering the technical features and operation of Google Earth and those about the content. Three comments referred to the tour being easy to use, and one noted it easy to download. Other comments about the technical aspects related largely to the level of interactivity and the visual clarity. Participants commented positively on the pop-up placemarks (n=2) and having the ability to pause to consider the

information (n=4) with links allowing them to view or access additional information according to their level of interest (n=4) and one specifically noted the ability to further explore the data interactively after viewing. However, there was also one comment about it not having enough interactive features and one thought there were too many links that were not relevant to them.

Some participants noted issues regarding visual clarity (n=6), with comments on the loss of quality of the graphics in close up views on Google Earth with

“flickering/jumping effect of boundaries and text” and “the river line appeared to

flash like lightening” and poor quality of images in perspective views. Computer

hardware limitations may have caused problems with download for the online participants, with one finding it did not operate on initial download resulting in “black rectangles on the map” and others noting slow rendering and jerky movement.

For one user all the data layers were activated on screen when the tour was started as the “overlays were very confusing, e.g. yellow diamonds, colours

overlaying imagery during initial orientation tour.” This issue occurs when the user

switches back to the information pages after the ‘OPEN TOUR’ button has been clicked as all the layers in the animation sequences become activated.

The content was well received for providing context and comprehensive coverage (n=3), showing a “highly descriptive view of the area” and “the relationship of

features” (n=3). Some of the content was less well received, including the slope

cross sections (n=3) and lack of 3D topography on the Google Earth map with one suggestion that vertical exaggeration may help the perspective views, although this had been disregarded during design to avoid being misleading (Sheppard and Cizek, 2009).

One participant commented that they “did not know that Google Earth Pro could

be used in this fashion”. Another, identifying themselves “an expert level user of Google Earth”, noted that they found the tour accessible but that others may “need

a more web-native version”. There were no comments identifying that a video

presentation format would be preferred, unlike verbal feedback received in the facilitated group session.

Table 16 shows a selection of comments received in the survey on the features and issues that stood out most and other information that were identified as potentially useful for improving the understanding of factors influencing the catchment.

Table 16. Illustrative comments on the content of the virtual globe tour. Issues and features that stand out about the area

The complexity of managing water in the catchment.

Interesting to see the network being identified, and the issues that faced different areas - the flood risk was very clear.

When looking at catchments I think the topographic view is important for people to see and understand the lay of the land. The flood layer over the aerial is also good as it shows the area covering houses creating a greater impact on the flood risk to real houses.

The range of issues which need to be taken into account before any flood management can be undertaken e.g. designated landscapes.

Other information that would be useful

Additional images of the river and tributaries in context - and their location to properties etc.

More specific examples of the NFM measures that could be implemented in this catchment and how they would impact on the environmental

designations and farming practices

Some photographs from the flood of 2007 would help to illustrate the problems better. Number of floods and severity - (costs, homes affected etc) in recent history.

The flood area and flood risk were the most noted issues for the catchment (n=8) with references to seeing the properties that were flooded and also the influence of the catchment topography (n=6): -

“I wasn't aware of the direction and shape of the catchment before. I also have a flood story audio recording from someone whose family are from

Winchcombe and I didn't really understand their plight before this. The geospatial overview really puts it into context.”

Other issues and features that stood out in the comments were the impact of changes in land use and management (n=6) and the complexity of issues (n=3): -

“the range of issues which need to be taken into account before any flood management can be undertaken e.g. designated landscapes”

There were also comments recognising the importance of the ecological features of the catchment (n=4), the issues of water quality(n=2), and the historic

environment n=2).

The main suggestions regarding information to improve participants understanding of the area were the inclusion of more photographic images of the river and of the 2007 flooding (n=5) (with one suggesting drone footage). Others suggested information on historical water management (n=3) how land management and agriculture have affected flood risk (n=3), the costs of flooding events, the incorporation of rainfall data, and the replay of a flood event. There was also interest in more information on the application of NFM (n=2) with a comment: -

“More specific examples of the NFM measures that could be implemented in this catchment and how they would impact on the environmental

designations and farming practices”.

A word cloud (Figure 40) illustrates the most common words from all the responses to both facilitated and online surveys combined. The largest and therefore most frequently used words were “area”, “information”, “flood”, “tour”,

“management”,” land” and “see”. While this does not provide additional analysis, it

does confirm the focus of the responses received around the amount of information that was made visible to participants and the attention drawn to flooding in the catchment area. With the limited sample size and level of content of the responses further detailed qualitative analysis was not undertaken.

113