## 4 Case Study: The Kimberley Climate Adaptation Project (KCAP)
### Evaluation of Visualization Rankings and Responses to Virtual Globes in KCAP  
The quantitative rating of visualization benefits and ranking of visualization media types in the post questionnaire, handed out at the KCAP public open house, asked respondents to compare 2D maps, posters, the PowerPoint slide presentation and the Kimberley 3D virtual globe (Google Earth) by ranking them in the order from 1 (best) to 4 (last): \"_During the open house, you saw various forms of visualizations. Please rank those visualizations you have seen, in order of importance to you if you were involved in making a comment on a planning proposal._\" \(n=38\) responses were received including 2 invalid responses (Table 2).  
Interestingly, the virtual globe was ranked first 16 times and ranked last 11 times, showing a bimodal distribution (Figure 10). The posters were ranked first 12 times and ranked last only once. Interestingly, the 12 respondents who ranked the posters first, ranked the virtual globe fourth on average (mean of their globe rankings = 3.083, median = 4, std. dev. = 1.165). The results suggest that respondents rating the posters higher gave lower ratings to the virtual globe. In contrast, respondents who gave higher ratings to the virtual globe also gave a higher rankings to the posters: in their responses, posters received a mean of 2.125 and a median of 2 with std. dev. of 0.5. Considering that  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c c c c c c c|} \hline  & **N (valid)** & **Min. rank** & **Max. rank** & **Median rank** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev.** \\ \hline Posters & 38 (36) & 1 & 4 & 2 & 1.94 & 0.826 \\ \hline Virtual globe & 38 (36) & 1 & 4 & 2 & 2.19 & 1.305 \\ \hline Presentation & 38 (36) & 1 & 4 & 3 & 2.83 & 0.775 \\ \hline
2d maps & 38 (35) & 1 & 4 & 3 & 2.86 & 1.167 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Medians and means of ordinal rankings of different media, \(n=38\).  
the posters presented more information at once, whereas virtual globe users had to explore the information through interaction, possible explanations could be that respondents who like the posters have a non-interactive learning style, or there could be digital tool barriers. The virtual globe might also provide too much simultaneous visual information at once, thereby increasing the cognitive load beyond user comfort. On the other hand, virtual globe users who preferred to explore the information interactively also, on average, liked the poster. An alternative explanation might be that expert users with advanced spatial skills preferred the posters because they provided a higher information density at first glance. Unfortunately, size and composition of the sample (\(n=36\)) were not sufficiently large to explore group differences on the basis of age, gender or profession with any confidence.  
Based on these findings, it is suggested that another explanatory presentation format is needed in addition to virtual globes in order to meet the learning styles of all respondents. Based on these findings, it is suggested that another explanatory presentation format is needed in addition to virtual globes in order to meet the learning styles of all respondents, in keeping with the mediated use of 3D landscape visualizations in [PERSON] _et al_. [24].As the average ranking of the posters was very good, they seem to be a suitable complement to the virtual globe.