The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 52... ...
C‐1 APPENDIX C: SURVEY SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Contents Overview .................................................................................................................................................... C‐2 Survey Respondent Characteristics .......................................................................................................... C‐2 Survey Section 1: Use of VPI During COVID‐19 ........................................................................................ C‐3 Survey Section 2: VPI and Vulnerable/Underrepresented Populations ................................................ C‐15 Survey Section 3: Moving Forward (33‐45) ............................................................................................ C‐19 Survey Section 4: Open‐Ended Questions: ............................................................................................. C‐21 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... C‐24
|
From page 53... ...
C‐2 Overview In winter 2022, the research team developed and fielded a detailed online survey questionnaire to capture and analyze data from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and regional planning organizations, such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
|
From page 54... ...
C‐3 Table 1 – Responses by Agency Type Type Freq. % State Department of Transportation 106 54% Rural Planning Organization 46 23% Metropolitan Planning Organization 27 14% Consultant or contractor 9 5% Municipal/Local Organization 7 4% Not Specified 1 <1% Total 196 100% Table 2 – Responses by Region Region Freq.
|
From page 55... ...
C‐4 Figure 1 – VPI Tools Used During Pandemic & Expect to Use After Pandemic Tables 3 and 4 further segment these responses by agency type. The tool that had the most variance by agency type was information videos: 81% of DOT respondents reported using informational videos compared to 56% of respondents from MPOs and just 28% from RPOs. Rural planning organizations were less likely to use websites and social media than State DOTs. Another notable finding is that over 90% of respondents from MPOs and DOTs reported using dedicated project websites compared to 67% of RPOs. Electronic surveys were commonly used by all three agency types, with MPOs having the largest percentage use at 85%. 14 12 28 34 35 46 46 43 57 62 119 117 126 147 150 150 162 162 12 13 23 33 42 43 47 50 57 60 123 124 127 150 158 163 165 181 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Other Drive‐In Meetings Virtual Reality Crowdsource Tools Telephone Town Halls Comprehensive VPI Platforms Text Messaging Project Telephone Hotlines Mobile Applications Online Collaboration Tools Digital Newsletter Informational Videos Project Visualization Tools Electronic Surveys Email Blasts Dedicated Project Websites or Webpages Social Media Virtual Public Meetings Used During Pandemic Expect to Use After Pandemic
|
From page 56... ...
C‐5 Table 3 – VPI Tools Used During Pandemic by Agency Type VPI Tool % of Respondents Reporting Used by Agency Type* Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization State Department of Transportation Virtual Meetings 100% 96% 92% Telephone Town Hall 4% 15% 28% Project Telephone Hotlines 7% 7% 37% Digital Newsletters 67% 67% 61% Electronic Surveys 85% 74% 75% Informational Videos 56% 28% 81% Social Media 89% 67% 90% Project Visualization Tools (e.g., Interactive Maps, 3D Renderings)
|
From page 57... ...
C‐6 Table 4 – VPI Tools Expect to Use Post‐Pandemic by Agency Type VPI Tool % of Respondents Reporting Plan to Use by Agency Type* Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization State Department of Transportation Virtual Public Meeting 89% 76% 88% Telephone Town Halls 4% 11% 24% Project Telephone Hotlines 7% 7% 33% Digital Newsletters 59% 59% 62% Electronic Surveys 85% 70% 74% Informational Videos 48% 24% 78% Social Media 89% 67% 87% Project Visualization Tools (e.g., Interactive Maps, 3D Renderings)
|
From page 58... ...
C‐7 1.3: Factors Influencing Tool Selection When asked what factors influence an agency's decision to select which VPI tools to use, the most common response was the tool functionality, followed by the audience the agency was seeking to engage and the agency's familiarity with the tool. The cost of the tool or platform was also selected by 51% of respondents, which makes it the fourth most frequent factor, ranking above factors such as the anticipated number of participants the tool could reach and the project's scope, geography, funding source, or timeframe. Figure 2 shows the number and percentage of responses for each influencing factor. Figure 2 – Factors Influencing VPI Usage 1.4: Types of Projects and Services Using VPI Respondents were asked to indicate which types of projects/services their organization had used VPI for during the pandemic from a list of eight types. As shown in Figure 3, planning projects were the most common type reported (at 85% of respondents) . The next two most common uses reported were for design projects (46%)
|
From page 59... ...
C‐8 Figure 3 – Types of Projects Used VPI For 1.5: Promotion and Social Media Use Respondents were asked about the most effective resources used to promote and spread the word about upcoming VPI events during the pandemic, and the results are shown in Figure 4. Social media was cited as the top method of promoting VPI events (68% of respondents) . Organization webpages or dedicated project websites and email blasts were also both selected by more than 50% of respondents. "Offline" promotional tools made up the next four most effective resources, including partner networks (38%)
|
From page 60... ...
C‐9 Figure 4 – Most Effective Resources to Promote VPI Events Figure 5 – Most Common Social Media Platforms Used 6 7 12 17 23 24 29 29 32 35 36 41 58 63 65 74 116 122 133 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Public Access TV‐3% Ads on Local Public Transit‐4% Blogs‐6% Text Messaging‐8% Attend Community Events‐12% Phone Calls‐12% Educational Project Videos‐15% Portable Message Boards/Signs‐15% Local Radio‐16% QR Codes‐18% Printed Flyers and/or Door Hangers‐18% Digital News Sources‐21% Trusted Community Leaders‐30% Print Newspapers‐32% Mailed Newsletters or Postcards‐33% Networks of Partner Agencies/Organizations‐38% Email Blasts‐59% Organization Webpages or Dedicated Project Website‐62% Social Media‐68% Survey Responses 8 15 21 77 103 127 155 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 TikTok‐4% Other‐8% NextDoor‐11% Instagram‐39% YouTube‐53% Twitter‐65% Facebook‐79% Survey Responses
|
From page 61... ...
C‐10 1.6: Tools Found Most Useful Respondents were asked to provide an open‐ended response about one VPI tool the agency had found extremely useful. The most common responses referenced various online meeting tools. The specific online meeting platforms mentioned varied, with Zoom and Teams mentioned most frequently. Respondents cited a variety of reasons why they found online meeting tools the most useful. These included their effectiveness in reaching diverse audiences, the ability to record and post meeting videos, ease of use across multiple platforms, and the standardization of communication with the public. Online survey tools and project websites were also cited frequently as key ways to share project information and succinctly collect input from the public when in‐person options were not available. Table 5 lists the tools mentioned and the number of times a comment mentioned that tool. Table 5 – One VPI Tool Found Extremely Useful (Open‐Ended) Tool Mentioned Number of Respondents who mentioned Online Meeting 99 Zoom 45 GoTo 4 Teams 20 Youtube 2 WebEx 2 Google Meet 1 Online survey 21 MetroQuest 10 Website 21 StoryMap 9 Social Media 8 Facebook 3 Videos 7 PIMA/all‐in‐one 5 PublicInput 5 Virtual Open House 5 Interactive Map 4 E‐blast 3 White Board 2 Message Board 1
|
From page 62... ...
C‐11 1.7: Tools Not Yet Used but Interested in Trying A follow‐up open‐ended question asked agencies if there was a VPI tool that they had not yet used but would like to try in the future. Some answers included tools that have previously been mentioned as effective by other agencies such as open house websites, virtual reality, the Public Involvement Management Application (PIMA) , and surveying. Additional tools not captured by other survey questions included podcasts and analytics software. Table 6 shows the list of VPI tools that were mentioned in the open‐ended comments. Table 6 –VPI Tool to Try in Future (Open‐Ended)
|
From page 63... ...
C‐12 Figure 6 – Great Benefits Experienced Using VPI Figure 7 – Metrics Used to Evaluate VPI Effectiveness 2 3 3 4 5 16 16 20 26 26 34 43 50 118 128 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Decreased technical difficulties‐1% Better civility among participants‐2% We have not experienced any benefits.‐2% Increased environmental sustainability‐2% Decreased security concerns‐3% Increased quality of public feedback‐8% Avoided project delay‐8% Increased participation among vulnerable populations‐10% Decreased organizational costs‐13% Decreased personnel time‐13% Increased transparency‐17% Increased quantity of public comments‐22% Increased outreach accessibility‐26% Increased overall public participation‐60% Increased convenience for the public‐65% Survey Responses 19 46 59 68 68 136 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 None‐10% Diversity of participants‐23% Comment quantity‐30% Metrics available through platform(s) used‐35% Comment relevance or quality‐35% Number of participants‐69% Survey Responses
|
From page 64... ...
C‐13 1.9: Challenges to Implementing VPI Respondents were asked what challenges their organization had faced in implementing VPI during the pandemic. Separate questions were posed about external and internal challenges, with a list of potential choices for each question. Figure 8 shows the external challenges reported. The most commonly cited external challenges were a lack of computer/technology skills and slow internet speeds of the participants the agencies were engaging with. The RPOs that responded were much more likely to encounter slow internet as a challenge than other types of agencies, with over 63% of those surveyed reporting it as an issue. Over 55% of respondents from MPOs and RPOs reported challenges with participant computer skills compared to 40% of state DOTs. Figure 8 –External Challenges to VPI Implementation Figure 9 shows the most frequently cited internal challenges for survey respondents. The most common internal challenges mentioned were lack of staff training (27%) followed by lack of internal VPI policy/guidance (19%)
|
From page 65... ...
C‐14 Figure 9 –Internal Challenges to VPI Implementation 1.10: Hybrid Events Respondents were also asked about their experience hosting hybrid events during the pandemic, defined as an event that included both in‐person and virtual participation. More than half of the respondents (58%) said they had hosted hybrid events during the pandemic. A higher percentage of RPO respondents had hosted hybrid events (74%)
|
From page 66... ...
C‐15 Lastly, respondents were asked about what type of assistance would be most helpful to their organization moving forward. 36% respondents listed online training as one of their top three priorities while only 21% listed hands‐on training. Table 7 – Most Common Source of Training for Staff Who Received Training Where Staff Received Training % of Respondents Reporting Source by Agency Type* Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization State Department of Transportation Staff Within Organization 50% 50% 88% Consultant/Contractor 17% 10% 34% Customer Support for Specific Platform 42% 30% 34% FHWA Guidance Document 58% 10% 41% Non‐FHWA Federal Government Resources 17% 30% 9% State/Local Government Resources 33% 40% 38% Peer Organization 58% 30% 25% *
|
From page 67... ...
C‐16 Figure 10 – Groups Had Most Difficulty Engaging Respondents were also asked to report the most commonly encountered barrier(s) they faced when seeking to engage vulnerable and/or underrepresented groups. Responses were similar to the external challenges faced overall with VPI, with the most common difficulties reported being lack of online access (internet, Wi‐Fi)
|
From page 68... ...
C‐17 2.2: Strategies Used to Reach Vulnerable/Underrepresented Populations Respondents were asked what strategies they had used to increase public participation in their projects among vulnerable/underrepresented populations during the pandemic, with the ability to select all that applied from a list of 19 choices. The three most commonly cited strategies, used by at least half of respondents, were: posting meeting materials and recordings online; sharing project information via traditional outlets such as mail, newspapers and radio; and promoting project information and events utilizing social media advertising. Partnering with local community networks or leaders was also frequently noted, with the most common partners being local non‐profits, advocacy groups, community centers and schools. Figure 11 shows the engagement strategies used to increase participation among vulnerable groups by frequency. Figure 11 –Strategies Used to Increase Participation Among Vulnerable/Underrepresented Populations Table 8 further segments the responses by agency type. Relative to other agencies, respondents from RPOs were most likely to partner with local community networks (52%) while respondents from DOTs were most likely to share information via traditional outlets like mail and radio (57%)
|
From page 69... ...
C‐18 Table 8 –Strategies Used to Increase Participation Among Vulnerable/Underrepresented Populations by Agency Type Strategy % of Respondents Using by Agency Type* Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization State Department of Transportation Partner with Local Community Networks or Leaders 48% 52% 42% Extend Public Comment Periods 33% 11% 39% Provide Traditional Feedback Options (e.g., call‐in numbers, paper surveys)
|
From page 70... ...
C‐19 When asked about the types of community organizations their agencies partnered with during the pandemic to engage with vulnerable/underrepresented populations, the top answer was local or regional non‐profits (41% of respondents) , followed by advocacy groups and community centers (both at 35%)
|
From page 71... ...
C‐20 Respondents were also asked what types of assistance would be most helpful to their organization in improving or expanding its use of VPI moving forward. Figure 13 demonstrates the responses in order of frequency. The most common responses were best practice resources and demonstrations (42%) , followed by online training and technical assistance (36%)
|
From page 72... ...
C‐21 Table 9 – Most Helpful Assistance Moving Forward by Agency Type Type of Assistance Agency Type* Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization State Department of Transportation Development Of Internal VPI Policies 26% 20% 27% Online Training and Technical Assistance 41% 48% 27% Hands‐On Training and Technical Assistance 19% 28% 19% Peer Exchange Workshops Focused on VPI 26% 17% 27% Best Practice Resources And Demonstrations 59% 33% 42% Updated FHWA Guidance on VPI 30% 20% 25% Funding Support For VPI Platform Purchas 26% 46% 22% *
|
From page 73... ...
C‐22 Project websites became increasingly important resources for projects, both for sharing and collecting information. ‐ Websites offer a low‐cost method of sharing information with the public that was generally very successful. In particular, online comment forms were cited by numerous agencies as an effective way to promote engagement. Crowdsourcing and mapping tools allowed for improved visualization and project understanding by the public and increased participation (for example, as measured by number of survey responses) . ‐ Respondents indicated that tools like MetroQuest and ArcGIS Story Maps helped increase the quality of public engagement, allowing the public to interact directly with maps related to potential projects. One agency developed a relationship with non‐ profits representing vulnerable groups and was able to quickly implement improvements to the maps that made them more useful to community groups. Those who have used specialized public engagement platforms have found these all‐in‐one tools to be extremely helpful. ‐ Ready‐made tools were some of the most effective due to the breadth of features they provided, such as the ability to receive comments via text message, the ability to easily integrate census data into maps, and language translation capabilities. Zoom is by far the most commonly reported platform for online public meetings, and many feel that online public meetings overall will become standard practice for their agency moving forward. The Microsoft Teams platform was also widely used among respondents. ‐ Some of the advantages cited of utilizing Zoom and Teams for public outreach were agency and participant familiarity, ease of use, as well as access to customer support for technical assistance. Social media remains an important tool to spread the word and increase participation. ‐ Facebook in particular was cited as an effective way to advertise events and surveys. Physical and more traditional forms of outreach can serve as effective strategies to promote VPI tools and meetings. ‐ Many agencies mentioned using more traditional outreach including physical signage, flyers, roadside display signs, and radio advertising to promote online events and surveys, which was especially effective at reaching people who do not use social media. Agencies reported success holding both virtual and in‐person meetings as well as distributing surveys both via the internet and paper. Partnerships with community organizations were an effective way for many agencies to increase the quality of engagement. ‐ Agencies reported having success partnering with community organizations to raise awareness of engagement opportunities. Existing technology infrastructure at libraries and houses of worship helped agencies host meetings and helped participants access
|
From page 74... ...
C‐23 virtual engagement options. For example, one agency partnered with a library to provide computer access for constituents. Another held a hybrid neighborhood meeting at a church that typically broadcasts its services, and church staff handled the broadcast technology for the meeting. 4.2 Key VPI Challenges Many respondents had difficulty reaching populations that did not have the technology skills or infrastructure to participate virtually. ‐ Elderly populations and rural areas with lack of internet and/or cell service were particularly hard to reach through virtual engagement. Individuals with hearing impairments may have particular difficulty with online meetings. Some agencies also have populations that do not use electronic technology for religious reasons. Virtual outreach is not a panacea: some groups who are more difficult to engage with traditional methods, such as low‐income populations, remained difficult to engage after the shift to virtual outreach. ‐ While some agencies found success engaging low‐income and other vulnerable groups with virtual outreach and participation options, other agencies reported difficulty. For some, even deploying a combination of virtual outreach and physical outreach, such as distributing flyers and other resources, yielded little engagement. Technical difficulties with virtual engagement were common among both agencies and participants. ‐ Agency staff and members of the public seeking to provide feedback often had difficulties using virtual platforms and learning to mute, share screens, and use other features. Closed captioning and translation features were often low‐quality. One agency mentioned inviting an ASL interpreter to a call but had difficulties with that person participating because he/she did not have an agency email address. Agencies that were unable to use more comprehensive VPI tools often were not sure of the audience with whom they were engaging. ‐ Agencies responded that it was difficult to determine who was participating and they were thus unable to determine which populations, if any, were being left out. One agency mentioned they suspected people who felt strongly about an issue would comment many times to make it appear that their opinion was more common. VPI tools and staffing can be expensive and time‐consuming. ‐ Many agencies expressed a need for more funding for platforms and more staff to effectively continue their virtual outreach. Some also mentioned that virtual engagement was more time‐consuming and required more staff time to effectively implement.
|
From page 75... ...
C‐24 Conclusion The survey conducted in February 2022 captured a range of experiences from transportation agencies during the COVID‐19 pandemic. It is clear from the wide range of responses that agencies had a variety of different experiences adapting to these new tools and formats, and that there were successes and frustrations along the way. In addition, responses indicated that agencies continue to learn and adapt their approaches to VPI in order to gain new participants and increase engagement with their state or region's most vulnerable/over‐looked populations. The findings from this survey provide the research team with important context and insights that will help in the next steps of this research endeavor, the facilitation of focus groups and interviews with these agencies. The survey findings provide an important baseline assessment of current use and experience with VPI during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.