CHAPTER 5

Summary of Findings

Background and Objectives

Visualization, in its many forms, has long been recognized as an essential element of public involvement in transportation decision-making. As visualization technologies have matured and become more readily available, their potential to increase public understanding and inform dialog during planning and project development has expanded. However, despite the transformative potential of newer visualization methods for public involvement, uptake of such methods among state DOTs has been uneven, prompting a need to better understand the current state of the practice.

The objective of this synthesis study was to document state DOT practices of visualization for public involvement throughout the life cycle of plans, programs, and projects. To accomplish this objective, the synthesis study addressed (1) DOT use of visualization methods for communication with the public, (2) potential and actual challenges and barriers to broader adoption of visualization tools and methods, and (3) suggested future research.

Summary of Prior Chapters

The Introduction (Chapter 1) highlighted the uneven adoption of visualization methods for public involvement by state DOTs, with some DOTs taking advantage of the significant evolution of visualization methods and others remaining limited in their implementation. This synthesis report documents the current state of the practice and identifies gaps in knowledge to put forth suggestions for future research.

The Literature Review (Chapter 2) uncovered few recently published works on visualization for public involvement. Most information came through the FHWA EDC program and knowledge sharing in webinars, often focused on individual case examples. The limited availability of information may reflect a disparity in practice among public agencies, academia, and the private sector, as well as the continuously evolving changes in visualization technology and its implementation.

The State of the Practice (Chapter 3) analysis revealed that the use of less complex visualization is preferred, and the greatest use of visualization has been in design, environmental review, and concept development. The availability of agency policy and guidelines for visualization implementation and accessibility was assessed—few DOTs have written guidance or policies specific to visualization for public involvement.

The survey results were further supported by in-depth interviews with four DOTs. The results of these interviews were summarized in Case Examples (Chapter 4). Notable across the case example DOTs is the primarily decentralized approach to visualization funding, visualization initiation and implementation, and methods and practices.

Barriers to Advanced Visualization for Public Involvement

Across the responding DOTs, the survey results show that cost (or funding), staff technical capabilities, and the lead time needed to produce visualizations can present significant barriers to the use of advanced visualization methods in public involvement. The study findings revealed six potential barriers that may preclude or limit use of advanced visualization for public involvement:

1. Cost and Funding. The challenge with cost is not only the availability of funds, but also the allocation of visualization funding that occurs at the project level, in most cases. Often at the start of a project, project managers may not be able to budget adequately for immediate or future visualizations because the funding needed for public communications is uncertain at that point.
2. Staff Skills and Capacity. Many of the responding DOTs do not have staff trained or specifically tasked to use visualization technologies, thus requiring the use of consultants and vendors.
3. Lead Time Required. The rapid pace of projects can preclude the use of visualization tools requiring more lead time.
4. Equity and Accessibility. Some responding DOTs find it challenging to provide equitable access to visualizations or to meet ADA and Section 508 accessibility requirements.
5. Software and Hardware Procurement. The case example interviews revealed that an inability to obtain and install needed software due to strict software procurement policies is a critical barrier.
6. Decentralization. The case example interviews also suggest that when visualization is managed separately by each DOT region or district, it can be more difficult for a DOT to implement advanced methods.

Knowledge Gaps and Suggestions for Further Research

This synthesis report provides baseline data about (1) the visualization methods state DOTs use for public involvement in each phase of planning and project development, (2) state DOT objectives and approaches to presenting visualizations and gathering feedback, and (3) common barriers to the use of more complex methods of visualization. A remaining need is to understand what constitute the most effective practices in this area of work: to what extent do visualizations of different types, their specific features, or presentation methods help to improve participants’ understanding of transportation choices or increase the DOT’s ability to provide informed input into plans and projects?

Future research should seek to evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches and methods for visualization in public involvement, identifying examples of effective practice, and developing a comprehensive reference guide for practitioners. Suggestions for research along these lines are outlined in the following sections.

Documenting Visualization Effectiveness

Future research would be helpful if it could fill the gaps on the effectiveness of various approaches and methods. Possible topics include the following:

• Research to evaluate how accurately various forms of visualization help participants understand key transportation information such as current conditions and trends, transportation choices, the details or effects of a proposed project, or a proposed construction process.
• Research to identify effective practices for the visualization of project alternatives. A better understanding of which visual formats and features are most effective in helping participants

• understand distinctions, compare alternatives, and provide informed input would be especially helpful to agencies conducting environmental reviews. Methods experimented with by agencies for portraying alternatives could be compiled and evaluated systematically.
• Research to compile and analyze cost data on different methods of visualization (e.g., hardware/software procurement, skills training, and production time) and compare cost-effectiveness might confirm the value of lower-cost methods or help justify expenditure on higher-cost methods in certain circumstances.
• Research to explore how key visualization features, including the degree of realism, the use of multiple perspectives, or interactivity (i.e., the ability for self-directed engagement with the visualization) affect the public involvement process and outcomes. An observational study could help determine which of these features are most effective in promoting collaboration and dialog. A quasi-experimental approach could be used, testing alternative methods in separate in-person meetings for the same project.
• Research to (1) compare the effectiveness of guided versus “self-serve” visualizations would consider whether, or when, it is important for participants to have access to a transportation professional to explain or answer questions about a visualization versus viewing a visualization alone online, (2) evaluate whether video narration or explanatory text annotations can effectively substitute for live discussion in helping participants understand a complex visualization, and (3) explore how interactive features can support self-directed exploration most effectively.
• Research to incorporate a user experience method focused on how individual public participants navigate, perceive, and react to visualizations and users’ preferences for different design features.

Developing Visualization Guidance and Training for Public Involvement Practitioners

Future research on visualization guidance and training for public involvement practitioners would be helpful. Possible topics include the following:

• Research to develop a comprehensive guidebook on the use of visualization in all phases of public involvement. The guidebook might include a separate section on visualization for public involvement in non-project-specific plans, such as long-range planning and scenario planning, where the type of dialog can differ from that involved in projects.
• Research to develop guidelines on how to achieve accessibility with common forms of visualization to address the widespread agency concerns with ADA (Section 508) compliance noted in the synthesis survey.
• Research to update the FTA’s Choosing Visualization for Transportation tool, described in the literature review, to assist DOTs with selecting visualization methods for different types of projects.
• Research to develop a training package for state DOT public involvement staff on using visualization in public involvement, including general principles, options, examples, and resources for more information.

Research on Institutional Factors Affecting the Implementation of Visualization

Future research on institutional factors affecting the implementation of visualization would be helpful. Possible topics include the following:

• Research to organize agency visualization and public involvement functions, including organizational structure, staffing, internal communications channels, and visualization software procurement, deployment, and training.

• Research to examine visualization software and hardware procurement, deployment, and training practices across a sample of agencies and to develop guidance or models for how agencies can address information technology security limitations in procuring and deploying visualization software or hardware.
• Research to explore organizational practices for effectively integrating visualization into public involvement at state DOTs.
• Research to explore ways of addressing institutional barriers to the use of the more complex visualization methods, including AR, VR, and real-time interactive 3D, and developing case studies of cost-effective implementation of these methods as a foundation for peer learning.