EDINA undertook a survey of Geology Digimap users from November 2012 to February 2013. The survey was accessed from the Geology Digimap homepage and the link was emailed to users.
123 responses were received, a summary of which is presented here:
Respondents selected their discipline from the list shown below; they could select more than one discipline and could specify “Other”. The disciplines specified in under other were put into one of the other disciplines where appropriate.
The majority of users of Geology Digimap were in the Geography and Environment(36%) and Physical Sciences (24%) categories, which include Geology and other Earth Sciences. Other user disciplines include Architecture and Planning (13%); Engineering (8%), which includes Civil Engineering; Humanities, including Archaeology was the largest of the minority groups (7%).

| Discipline | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture, food, and forestry | 5 | 3% |
| Architecture and planning | 25 | 13% |
| Biological sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Business and management studies | 0 | 0% |
| Communication and media studies | 0 | 0% |
| Creative and performing arts | 1 | 1% |
| Education and research methods | 5 | 3% |
| Engineering | 15 | 8% |
| Geography and environment | 69 | 36% |
| Humanities | 14 | 7% |
| Law | 0 | 0% |
| Mathematics and computer science | 2 | 1% |
| Medicine including dentistry | 0 | 0% |
| Modern languages and area studies | 0 | 0% |
| Nursing, midwifery and allied health | 0 | 0% |
| Physical sciences | 46 | 24% |
| Psychology | 0 | 0% |
| Social sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Veterinary medicine | 0 | 0% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
The large majority of survey respondents were Students. This reflects the proportion of students who register to use this service.

Respondents were asked for what purposes they were using Geology Digimap, they could tick all options that applied to them in this question.
Geology Digimap was mostly used for coursework (26%) and has become embedded in the teaching of Geology as a subject and within other subject areas “Geology Digimap's materials have transformed the way we teach Earth Sciences at the Open University in the last few years, and those changes have started to percolate into other subject areas too. I have created a variety of print and multimedia teaching resources for OU modules during that time, and am currently involved in a project to create a first-person, 3D virtual field trip using Digimap data.” Lecturer, Higher Education Institution.
Geology Digimap is an important resource for research (20%). Researchers pointed out the time and cost savings of the service in terms of getting hold of data, and also the benefits to the work they are carrying out: “It is useful to be able to quickly assess the geology of a region.” Researcher, Higher Education Institution.
Geology undergraduate theses (14%) often include a mapping. “I don't have up to date maps of street and structure to hand. Digimap has helped my Independent Mapping Project immensely. Critical for my final year dissertation.” Student, Higher Education Institution.
The teaching and support combined made up 17% of the use.

When users were asked if they would recommend Geology Digimap, 94% agreed; no one disagreed.

63% of respondents found Geology Digimap easy or very easy to use; only 6% found it difficult or very difficult.

The survey asked if the users work would take longer without Geology Digimap, 90% of respondents Agreed; only 1% disagreed.

In response to the question “What Alternative would you use if Geology Digimap was not available?”; 48% did not know,11% said none 41% gave an alternative.
The 41% of users who said they would use an alternative was made up of 23% who said they would have to use paper maps (though some expressed doubts to the currency, completeness and ease of access to their institution’s holdings); 10% who said they would use open data or free online services (though none of the alternatives mentioned provide the same level of coverage or detail); 14% who said they would use free online mapping services such as Google or Bing, (again without the same level of coverage, detail or any geological information at all); and 7% who said they would have to negotiate data from the BGS directly (this wouldn’t provide a mapping service just raw data).
As can be seen in the comment s below the alternatives given did not offer the same level of service.
