Practices for Online Public Involvement (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

34 This chapter summarizes the findings of the synthesis based on the literature review, responses to the surveys distributed to DOTs, and follow-up interviews with select DOTs. Recommendations for areas of further research are also included in this chapter. Summary of the Results Both the responses to the surveys from the 43 DOTs and the interviews from the five DOTs generated seven themes in which DOTs share common OPI practices, as well as areas where agencies differ. Summaries of each theme are as follows: 1. Support for OPI: DOTs cited public demand, transparency, and the desire to reach a broader audience as reasons for implementing OPI. Internal support for the use of OPI methods comes from high-level DOT staff and from DOT public involvement staff who are interested in exploring OPI methods. DOTs have been prompted to use OPI methods due to the influence of other DOTs and from learning about new practices at conferences. 2. OPI Policies and Procedures: Over half of the DOTs surveyed have PIPs that include policies specific to OPI methods. Furthermore, 58% of the DOTs that responded to the survey use project-, program-, or plan-specific PIPs such as construction projects, long-range trans- portation plans, bicycle pedestrian plans, and statewide transportation improvement plans. Thirty-two DOTs (74%) have formal social media policies in place while the remaining 11 DOTs (26%) are currently without a social media policy or procedure. 3. Types of OPI Tools and Approaches: The survey instructed respondents to describe OPI strategies that create two-way interactions between the DOT and the public; however, many responses also described one-way information dissemination. Websites and social media are the most commonly used online tools, while electronic surveys, informational videos, and digital newsletters were reported the second most commonly used OPI tools. 4. Challenges, Benefits, and Measuring Effectiveness: DOTs commonly cited technology issues, such as limited internet access and connectivity for some residents, as the biggest challenges to OPI, while agency staff inexperience and budget constraints limit its imple- mentation. Many respondents have used OPI to increase participation and reach a wider audience, including those who may not normally participate in traditional face-to-face involvement. DOTs also use metrics provided through websites and social media, such as page views, clicks, and likes, to assist with evaluating effectiveness. 5. OPI Staff and Organizational Structure: DOTs differ in the staff who oversee the imple- mentation of OPI and social media. These tasks may be the responsibility of a public involvement or communications department or a collaboration between the two depart- ments. In some DOTs, public involvement and communication staff are part of the same department. C H A P T E R 4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 35 6. OPI Feedback Management: OPI methods can generate a larger quantity of public feedback compared with traditional face-to-face involvement. The input can be efficiently summarized and easily communicated by public involvement staff to other DOT departments. However, the increase in information collected through OPI can also make it difficult to synthesize feedback and can put additional burdens on staffing and resources. 7. Reasons for Not Using OPI: The four DOTs that indicated in their survey responses that they have not yet implemented OPI methods are concerned with lack of staff training, the need to meet federal and state requirements for public involvement, and experiencing technical issues. All four of these DOTs do have social media accounts and websites, which they use to communicate about projects and plans with the public, but they do not currently use these online tools to gather specific feedback to meet requirements for public involvement required by federal and state regulations for certain projects. However, two of these DOTs are currently awaiting a suitable opportunity to initiate OPI. Topics for Further Research The findings of the literature review suggest that the majority of research conducted on OPI to date has centered on social media as a communication tool for agency interaction with the public. There is little research on the effectiveness or use of OPI as two-way communication between the public and an agency or organization. The feedback from the survey included using OPI as a one-way communication method; therefore, agencies blurred the distinction between one-way and two-way communication when using OPI methods identified in survey responses. Furthermore, the nuances of each agency’s experiences were difficult to capture using an online survey, even though many questions were open ended. The follow-up interviews provided more opportunity for explanation and perspective, especially helpful when trying to understand how and why a particular OPI activity was successful, and therefore interviews may be a more effective tool when conducting further research on this subject. In addition, because one survey response was submitted per DOT, perhaps other DOT staff did not know about or were not able to contribute to the survey. Ten topics for further research have been identified to gain a better understanding of the use of OPI at state DOTs and other public agencies. They are not listed in any particular order of importance, and many of these could be combined together for a larger research project or request for proposal (RFP). Topic #1: Variation in the Definition of OPI As evidenced in both the literature review and the survey, there appears to be difficulty in drawing a clear distinction between one-way information dissemination and two-way involve- ment from public agencies, particularly about OPI. Responses from the survey indicated that one-way communication is often used to direct the public to provide feedback and input— either online or traditional face-to-face methods for public involvement—which blurred the distinction between one-way and two-way interactions. In many cases agencies indicated that they “push out” information using one-way online tools, such as social media, to drive people to engage in some two-way interaction (e.g., using Facebook or Twitter to publicize an online survey, invite people to an online public meeting, or participate in crowdsourcing). This made the task of isolating DOT use of OPI as two-way communication challenging, and many of the survey responses blurred the distinction between the two methods of commu- nication. Furthermore, some DOTs may not consider an activity formal “public involvement” if the information that is collected is not part of a structured and deliberate attempt to collect feedback for a specific plan, program, or policy initiative. On the other hand, some might

36 Practices for Online Public Involvement consider any interaction, regardless of specific purpose or use for the information collected, to be “public involvement.” This is further compounded by the fact that DOTs vary in how they define public involvement and what they include in their scope of public involvement activities. Individual staff members within a DOT may also have differing interpretations of public involvement. Although it was explicitly stated in the survey introduction that the scope of this synthesis is focused on two-way interactions between DOTs and the public, many survey respondents gave examples of one-way interactions in which the DOT disseminates information but does not solicit input. For many DOTs, simply having a social media presence constituted OPI, while others were more judicious in their definition. Further research could be conducted to better understand the variations in how DOTs define public involvement. This research could begin with a review of all available DOT PIPs to discern the extent to which policies and procedures distinguish between one-way communication or information dissemination and two-way public involvement. Topic #2: Identify Best Practices in OPI “Best practices” research should be conducted to specifically categorize and analyze current best practices for OPI by public agencies working in transportation (state DOTs and MPOs). This could be classified by different activities, such as projects, programs, and long-range plans, and further categorized by effectiveness based on place type and geographic size (rural versus urban settings or smaller versus larger states). This research could also examine the impact of agency type on OPI implementation, and whether transit agencies or MPOs are served better by OPI than DOTs due to smaller geographic scale, and whether project scale (neighborhood, region, state) affects the success of OPI. A qualitative focus on what these agencies identify as successful implementation of OPI, and the reason for such successes, would illustrate key learnings on how OPI can be better used by all agencies. Since the focus of this synthesis was on a general landscape of the use of OPI, and oppor- tunities for in-depth interviews were constrained by budget, schedule, and scope, there was limited time to analyze determinants and factors for successful implementation of OPI methods, which are critical to the acceptance and use of OPI. Furthermore, it was beyond the scope of this synthesis to convey any judgment or preference for OPI methods. Yet, it is likely that certain OPI methodologies are more effective, inclusive, and successful for state DOTs and should be researched and documented. Additional follow-up interviews could be conducted using the information shared in this survey to better understand the full landscape of which OPI practices are most successful for transportation agencies, how those practices can be implemented, and how OPI can best supplement current public involve- ment activities. Topic #3: Management and Use of Public Social Media Comments This synthesis found that nearly all DOTs have some type of social media presence. For many DOTs, social media is an important communication channel, whether used for one-way infor- mation dissemination or two-way interactions with the public. However, social media is an established platform for two-way communication, even when the intended use is one-way, as all posts/tweets/pictures/videos shared on social media have the functional capacity to receive comments, likes, or shares from the public. The survey results and interviews indicate differ- ences among agencies as to how to handle comments received via social media, and whether these comments can be considered official “public comment” or not. There also appears to be some discrepancy among DOTs’ policies and practices for managing and responding to public

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 37 comments on social media platforms, although this question was not explicitly stated in the survey to DOT participants. Further research efforts on management and use of social media could focus on online trolling, how agencies handle this behavior, and whether it has an impact on the use of OPI for agencies. Understanding the process by which social media comments (and by extension likes and shares) are integrated into DOT decision-making would help explain the importance and influ- ence these tools have on agency policies, plans, and projects, and could be quite useful in framing recommendations for effective social media use by public agencies. Topic #4: Impact of Staffing and Other Resources on the Use and Quality of OPI It is evident from the survey results that a variety of departments and staff members contribute to the planning and execution of OPI, such as the communications department, planning staff, and public involvement office. Follow-up research could be conducted to better understand the roles and responsibilities of staff members at various agencies, the specific skills and abilities of staff needed to manage and implement OPI, as well as how staffing resources and allocation may affect an agency’s ability to successfully implement OPI. The results of the survey and interviews indicate that there can be, at times, a disconnect between the various staff and departments working in public involvement. Variations in department priorities or staff member training may affect the quality of OPI implementation. In addition, consultants currently play a large role in implementing OPI due to limited staff, timing, and/or training of agency staff. The survey and interviews conducted as part of this synthesis indicate that the majority of state DOTs use consultant teams to assist in the planning and implementation of OPI, but the use of consultants does include some complications, such as issues with consistency and brand- ing, and transfer of knowledge. Case studies could be researched to better understand the role these consultants play in the quantity, quality, and overall impact on the use of OPI techniques by these DOTs. In particular, it would be useful to understand how consultants’ approach to public involvement might differ from that of agency staff, if it improves or damages the agency’s relationship with the public, and whether it is more or less effective. Furthermore, cost, resources, and level of investment in OPI by an agency are all factors in its use and should be examined more fully to understand the metrics and returns for using OPI. Additional research and recommendations on best practices for staffing, coordination, and resources may improve overall results and affect the use of OPI at agencies. Topic #5: Effectively Combining Online and In-Person Involvement The literature reviewed as part of this synthesis points to the importance of using OPI and civic engagement in conjunction with traditional approaches. In fact, some of the literature explicitly points to limitations of online interactions for facilitating true public activism and engagement. This finding is supported in the survey and interview results, which indicate that OPI is often used as a supplement to more traditional in-person, or face-to-face, approaches to public involvement. Research could be conducted to find best practices on supplement- ing traditional in-person involvement with OPI to maximize the impact of the overall public involvement on plans, programs, or projects. Topic #6: Public Preferences for OPI Methods To further the development of useful and impactful online tools for state agencies, it would be helpful to gain a better understanding of how much time people are willing to spend to

38 Practices for Online Public Involvement participate in OPI. Research could be conducted to uncover public preferences for how they would like to engage with public agencies online, including average time devoted to using an online platform, what personal information they are willing to share, and which online activi- ties are most appealing. Understanding these preferences will help agencies improve online interactions, assist with making more informed choices about the types of tools and platforms they deploy to conduct OPI, as well as determine the appropriate mix of online and in-person involvement activities. In terms of overall public relations and communications, further research could also be conducted to better understand how the public perceives the accessibility and responsiveness of their DOT and the roles that OPI and social media play. In particular, an analysis of whether having an active online presence yields a better perception of the DOT, or merely exposes the agency to increased opportunities for negative feedback would help clarify the costs and benefits of OPI. Furthermore, research could be conducted examining if an established online connection for the DOT (such as an active social media presence) at the outset of using OPI yields better participation results and/or generates a better public perception. Topic #7: Quality of Online Public Input The literature and the survey results have also shown a track record of increased participation and reach when using OPI, in that the absolute number of people that can be reached when using OPI seems to grow significantly. However, the literature implies that larger numbers of responses may not always be optimal, as it can be overwhelming or challenging to interpret and sift through online feedback, including determining if the comment and feedback are valid (user authentication). Furthermore, the survey results indicate that many DOTs are using OPI not to evaluate success based on “comment relevance or quality” but rather rely on more quantita- tive metrics available through platforms, tools, and websites. It should be noted that the types of responses and the quality of the input that can be collected online as opposed to in person might be substantially different. Research could be undertaken to understand whether there is a difference in the quality of the comments and the input that DOTs receive online contrasted with traditional in-person public involvement methods; whether there is technology or particular skill sets needed to determine the authenticity of the feedback from the public; and whether there is any margin of error that can be applied to determine the quality and validity of the feed- back. This research may be challenging to undertake, as the question of “quality” is subjective in nature. However, it is important to understand whether implementing OPI provides agen- cies with substantial improvements in not only the numbers of responses, but also the quality of information received online and how that information can influence how agencies plan and implement programs, policies, and planning activities. Topic #8: Integration of Online Public Input into Decision-Making Processes Follow-up research could be conducted to better understand the process by which DOTs and state agencies integrate public input into decision-making. Does the integration of public input vary by the type of input that is received? That is, does the more quantifiable data generated by many OPI methods get more easily integrated into the decision-making process? In particular, further research on this topic should include staff members, such as planners and engineers, who may not collect the public input or design public involvement activities but who instead are responsible for obtaining and/or incorporating public feedback into DOT plans and projects. Further, it would be helpful to better understand how public involvement activities are programmed and planned by DOTs. In particular, understanding the timeline for public

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 39 comment/involvement and any impacts to the schedules of the projects, plans, programs, and/or policy decisions would be beneficial. This research could also include an analysis of how OPI influences the outcomes of public involvement, and how OPI is integrated into the decision-making process at DOTs and other public agencies. Topic #9: Interpretation of Federal and State Regulations and Legal Requirements As indicated in the survey results, some DOTs do not use OPI because they are concerned about meeting state or federal public involvement requirements, although there is no federal prohibition on its use. However, nearly 40 states indicated in the survey that they do conduct OPI as part of their overall strategies for public involvement and did not indicate that federal regulations and legal requirements hinder their ability to deploy these tools. Perhaps under- standing how agencies interpret federal requirements would illustrate why certain DOTs feel encumbered by the regulations while others do not. This research might also provide an oppor- tunity to develop better communication about federal requirements or staff training to assist in properly meeting guidelines, while also allowing for the use of online tools and approaches when appropriate. Topic #10: Understanding Representation of Affected Population Because access to technology and interest in participating in OPI may differ among various segments of the general population, there are times when OPI could unintentionally create a “self-selection” of respondents that does not accurately reflect the population that would be affected by a particular transportation planning or policy decision. Additional research could be conducted to improve understanding of whether current OPI methods accurately reflect the interests of the entirety of an affected population. Such research could investigate what groups and individuals may have been included or excluded by the OPI method(s) selected, how to determine what portion of the “affected” population or audience is missing, and whether there is a better way to use OPI to address the needs of the underrepresented portion of the affected population. Finally, the research could examine what public involvement methods could sup- plement OPI so that the interests of underrepresented populations can be better incorporated into transportation projects and services. Such research would provide insight into improving equity, balance, and representation in transportation planning and policy decision-making. Conclusion This study documents findings based on a literature review and analysis of the responses from both an online survey and interviews conducted with state DOTs regarding OPI. While online public involvement (which also includes participation or engagement) was defined in the survey as a two-way process using internet-based tools to incorporate interests and concerns of the public into decision-making, there was not a clear distinction between one-way communication or information dissemination and two-way involvement resulting from usage of online tools from the survey responses. Often, they were used interchangeably. Further- more, after a review of the literature, there appears to be limited research about state DOTs’ use of OPI, and much of the research emphasizes how governments and public agencies have adopted social media as their new form of digital communication, rather than examining a broader set of online tools and platforms that are now currently available to gather feedback and input from the public.

40 Practices for Online Public Involvement The literature review as well as the survey and interviews from the state DOTs regarding online involvement practices suggested a number of topics that were identified for further study, including defining OPI, best practices for OPI use, managing the input from OPI and integrating into decision-making, staffing impacts and use of consultants for OPI, as well as interpreting federal and legal implications related to OPI. As technology continues to advance, OPI is emerging as a significant component for state agencies when gathering feedback from the public to guide decisions, which therefore expands the need and demand for further and continued research on OPI.