Table 6 Examples of specific map design considerations provided by respondents

• A few simple hazard zones work better than many different complex zones

• Keep it concise (all on one page)

• Explanation of probabilities and zones should be clear

• Integrated maps were easier to understand

• Consider that the map audience may not be familiar with technical language

• Short summary of geology on map page better than complex extensive additional report

• People did not really understand the gradational nature of the zone boundaries

• Consider using gradual transitions rather than sharp boundaries between zones (and do this visually, rather than trying to explain using text)

• The previous versions of the map were difficult to understand and put into practice due to the highly specialized language, and many maps at different scales

• Consider how your map would be reproduced if photocopied – ours did not copy well

• Showing two volcanoes on a single map was great

• Including features of infrastructures on the map proved to be a good idea

• Augmenting maps with additional simple warning signs is useful for key messaging

• Consider including offshore hazard when creating hazard maps for islands

• Systematic overlay of hazard zones led to confusing zoning in some integrated maps

• Further detail such as locations of roads and other services could be added

• People like 3D style, easier to identify topography this way (compared to contour lines)

• Terrain bending is a useful method in 3D mapping; ideally there should be multiple perspectives of 3D panoramic perspective maps to show all endangered areas

• Consider interactive maps

• Consider including life safety information, explicit explanation of the time frame, details including links to further information, version number, version date, intended audience

• Research to understand map reading behaviour might lead to design improvements to enhance communication of key messages