a user guide to online engagement tools...a user guide to online engagement tools sarah parkins,...

AUserGuideto

OnlineEngagementTools

SarahParkins,MCRPCandidate

MasterProject,Spring2018

Advisor,WilliamRohePh.D.

[Page Left Blank Intentionally]

3

TableofContent

Introduction.................................................................................................................1

Background..................................................................................................................1

NeedforCommunityEngagement.............................................................................5

CritiqueofTypicalCommunityEngagementEfforts...................................................5

TechnologyandCommunityEngagement..................................................................9

BestPracticesfortheDevelopmentofEngagementTools......................................13

KnowyourAudience............................................................................................15

CustomizationandUsability................................................................................15

RegistrationRequirements..................................................................................16

VisualAppearance...............................................................................................16

Accessibility.........................................................................................................17

EvaluatingData....................................................................................................17

DisplayingData....................................................................................................18

OnlineEngagementTechnologyCaseStudies..........................................................18

CoUrbanize..........................................................................................................18

MetroQuest.........................................................................................................25

EngagingPlans......................................................................................................30

UserGuideDevelopment–CatalogueofOnlineEngagementTools......................34

References.................................................................................................................36

UserGuideofOnlineCommunityEngagementTools..............................................37

1

IntroductionCommunity engagement, an integral component of the planning process, affords community

memberstheopportunitytoweigh-inonprojectsthatmayimpacttheirwell-being.Whiletypical

engagementactivitiesincludetransparentreportingandtownhallmeetings,therehasbeena

shiftinhowgovernments,developers,andplannersengagewiththepublictoencouragetheir

participation.Althoughcommunitymeetingsandface-to-faceinteractionarevaluable,itisoften

difficult togetcitizens toengagedueto timeconstraints, lackofaccessibility,andpessimism

abouttheirabilitytomakeadifference.Therefore,thepushtomakedatamoreaccessiblehas

ledmany cities to use technology to increase participation in the process. The use of digital

engagementtoolstoincreaseawarenessandaideincollaborativedecision-makingisnotonly

useful,itisbecomingnecessary.

Existingresearchintheplanningfieldisnarrowlyfocusedonwhyplannersshouldutilize

suchdigitaltoolsratherthanhowtousethemsuccessfully.Furtherresearchmatchingthewhy

withthehowisnecessarysothatplannerscanunderstandthewaysthattheirprocessescanbe

improvedwiththesetools.

Thismaster’s projectwill focus on best practices for using digital tools developed for

communityengagement.Theendresultwillbeauserguideaimedatmakingplannersawareof

the various tools that exist and how to select the best ones for their engagement process.

Plannerscanaccessthisguidebyvisiting:https://engagecommunityonline.web.unc.edu

BackgroundTechnologydevelopedforcommunityengagementhasgrownsubstantiallyinthepastfiveyears.

Manyof thenewonline tools address the issues found in traditional engagementprocesses.

2

Althoughofferingmoreoptions forplanners, these toolshavestrengthsandweaknessesand

engage citizens in different ways, so when it comes to guiding planners through digital

engagementprocessesitiseasyforthemtobecomeoverwhelmedwiththemanychoicesthey

have.Someprojectsneedengagementprocessesthatwillcollectsurveydata,allocatebudgets,

or rank the priority of projects, and similarly different engagement tools collect this type of

information throughdifferentplatforms.Therefore,understanding the typesofdata the tool

collects, theways it collects thatdata, andhow thatdatabest informs theproject,will help

plannerstobetterengagewiththepublicandtohavebetteroutcomesintheirplanning.

Traditionally, planners have used public meetings, charrettes, and other in-person

meetingstorunengagementprocesses,butthesehavevaryingsuccessesandcanfailtobringa

wide, representative group from the community to the table. Technology fills this gap,with

engagementtoolsreachingabiggeraudienceandcollectingdatainthoughtfulways.Naturally,

therearebarrierstousingthesetechnologies,asnoteverycommunitymemberwillhaveaccess

to, or knowledge of, the tools. However, this gap is closing as technology becomes more

widespreadandaccessible.In2017thePewResearchCenterreportedthat88%ofU.S.adults

usetheinternet,77%ownasmartphone,and73%havebroadbandathome1.Thesenumbers

have steadily increased since 2000, indicating that technology is becoming more and more

accessiblefortheAmericanpublic.

Popular belief can lead to assumptions that spending more time online limits social

interactionsandthereforelimitssocialcapitalandcivicengagement.However,researchdoneby

1Smith,Aaron.RecordsharesofAmericansnowownsmartphones,havehomebroadband.PewResearchCenter.2017

3

DhavanShah,etal,in2002foundthattimespentonlineissignificantlyandpositivelyrelatedto

both traditionalcivicparticipationandpublicattendance2.This researchshows thatspending

timeonlineactuallygivesaccesstoresourcesthatfacilitatesocialinteractionssuchasemailand

chatboards,andsocialmediaspreadsinformationtolargeraudiences.Shah,etal,concludethat

theinternetholdspromisesforcivicrenewaleffortsthattargetyouth,adolescents,andyoung

adults--populationsoftentruantincommunityengagementprocesses.

Significantresearchhasbeendoneontheuseoftechnologyincommunityengagement

processes.Attygallewritesthatasonlinetoolsforcommunityengagementdevelop,itinvolves

citizenswhotypicallydonotparticipate.3Removingbarriersmakescitizensmoreaccountablefor

howtheircommunitygrows,shiftingpowerbetweenplannerstothepublic.Allygalleclaimsif

planners were to use tools that allow for this shift in power, communities could be more

responsiblyandcollaborativelydeveloped.However,theyfirstneedtoknowwhichtoolstouse.

Aguideforbestpracticesusingtechnologytoengageunderrepresentedcommunitiesin

planning,writtenbyJillLocantore,showsthepotentialforimprovingplanningprocessesthrough

onlineengagementtools.Sheclaimssocialmediaishighlyeffectiveinengagingthesegroups,as

people expect engagement on these platforms. Socialmedia can be effective for conducting

researchandgatheringinputfromavarietyofdifferentdemographicgroups,as72%ofallonline

usersusesocialnetworking4.

2DhavanShah,MichaelSchmierbach,JoshuaHawkins.NonrecursiveModelsofInternetUseandCommunityEngagement:QuestioningWhetherTimeSpentOnlineErodesSocialCapital.1December,2002.SageJournals.Vol79,Issue4.3Attygalle,Lisa.Forward:Howtechnologyimprovescommunityengagement.Engage!2015.Pages39-434Locantore,Jill.EngagementTechnologyForAll:BestPracticesforUsingTechnologyinEngagingUnderrepresentedCommunitiesinPlanning.Placematters.org.February2014.

4

NaderAfzalan’sdissertationevaluateshowandwhyonlineparticipatorytoolsareusedin

planmaking, specifically lookingat three tools:MindMixer, PlaceSpeak, andShareabouts.He

findsthatoftheplanningorganizationsusingthesetools,88%reportedthattheywere"satisfied

withtheusefulnessofthetoolsduringtheplanningprocess.Thetoolsallowedthemtoengage

withawiderarrayofpeoplewhichcreatedcostsavingswhencomparedtoin-personmethods,

andtheideascollectedfromthepublicwererepresentativeofthebroadcommunity."5Healso

pointsoutthatplannersandresearchersstilldon’tunderstandhowonlineplanningtechnologies

areusefultoplanmakingorwhatfactorsinfluencetheirusefulness.

Infact,severalarticlesandpaperspointoutlimitingfactorstounderstandingthesetools.

Raynes-GoldieandWalkerarguethereisalackofestablishedmethodologyforevaluatingthe

effectivenessofonlinecivicengagementtools6.TheFieldScanofCivicTechnologydevelopedby

OpenPlansalsopointsoutthislackofevaluation,andaddsittoseveralissuesindevelopingthese

tools.Specifically,theypointoutthreeareasneededtobeaddressedtoadvancethefield;(1)

bettermeanstoshareandevaluateexistingtools,(2)infrastructurerequiredtosupportthese

tools,and(3)marketplaceofvendorsprovidingthesetools.7Severalresearcherspointoutbest

practicesforuseofcommunityengagementtoolsstressingtheimportanceofunderstandingthe

stakeholdersinvolved,developingtoolkitsforavarietyofuses,andstillsupportingface-to-face

engagement inaddition toonline tools8.However, inorder tosuccessfullyuse the tools, it is

5 Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T., Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating Smarter Cities: Considerations for Selecting OnlineParticipatoryTools,Cities,67,21-30.6Raynes-Goldie,Kate,andLukeWalker.“OurSpace:OnlineCivicEngagementTools forYouth."CivicLifeOnline:LearningHowDigitalMediaCanEngageYouth.EditedbyW.LanceBennett.TheJohnD.andCatherineT.MacArthurFoundationSeriesonDigitalMediaandLearning.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress,2008.7OpenPlansandLivingCities,FieldScanofCivicTechnology.2012.8Locantore,Attygalle,Raynes-GoldieandWalker.

5

imperativethatplannersunderstandwhichtoolstouseforasuccessfulengagementprocess.

Therefore,thefieldmustfocusoncreatingastandardwaytoevaluatethesetools,whichisthe

aimofthismaster’sproject.

NeedforCommunityEngagement

Communityengagementisanimportantpartofanypublicplanningordevelopmentproject,yet

sometimesisnotadequatelyincorporated.Simplyput,communityengagementistheprocessof

providing access to information and providing an opportunity for community actors to give

feedbackinordertomakewell-informeddecisions.Traditionalengagementstrategiesareused

to involvecitizens indevelopmentprojects,yet theyare limited onhowmuch information is

shared and on opportunities for feedback. Often times, development projects most

supported by the community are the ones that incorporate community engagement in the

planningprocess.

CritiqueofTypicalCommunityEngagementEfforts

Therecanbemanynegativeeffectsfromtheabsenceofcommunityengagementinprojects.

AsoutlinedinPorter'sarticle,BreakingtheDevelopmentLogjam,9developerscanlosemoney,

time,andpredictabilityinthedevelopmentprocess.Localofficialsrisklosingthepublic’s

trust.Most importantly,thecommunitycanloseconfidencethattheir inputwillbetaken

seriously.Thesenegativeseffects showthatnotonly is it important tohaveacommunity

engagementprocess, it needs to be effective. Unsuccessful engagement fails to incorporate

communityfeedback,facilitateproductiveconversationsbetweendevelopersandlocal

officials,orresultindevelopmentsthatareprofitableforthedeveloperandcreateanassetto

thecommunity.9Porter,DouglasR.BreakingtheDevelopmentLogjam:NewStrategiesforBuildingCommunitySupport.ULI–theUrbanLandInstitute.June2006.Print.

6

Manyactivitieshavebeendesignedtoengagecommunitymembersduringdevelopment

projects; themost commonbeing publicmeetings. These events allow for local officials and

developerstopresentprojectstoalargegroupofinterestedcommunitymembersandprovide

opportunities for public comment. However, these publicmeetings can present a variety of

issues.Tokeepmeetingswithintimelimits,informationhastobeconciseanddetailsmaybe

leftout.Ifthereisalargepresence,theremightbeatimelimitimposedonpubliccommentsor

a cap on the number of citizens that can give comments. The timing ofmeetings can affect

workingfamilieswithresponsibilitieswhomaybeunabletoattend.Inaddition,manymembers

ofthecommunitymaysufferfrom“planningburn-out”,atermusedtodescribeattendingtoo

manyplanningmeetingsthatfailtoproduceresults.Fromthedevelopers’orcityofficials’point

ofview,reservingmeetingspace,preparingmaterialssuchaspostersandhandouts,andstaff

time spentattendingmeetingscanbecomecostly.Ifthereisalowturnout,thecostpercitizen

engagedcanbeconsiderablyhigh.

Engagement processes working to improve stand-alone public meetings can utilize

surveysorprojectwebsites.Surveyscanbesenttothecommunityviamailorcollectedinperson

togatherinformationrelevanttotheproject.Ifwelldesigned,asurveycaninformtheproject's

development,howeversurveysmightnotincludetherighttypesofquestionsortherecouldbe

alowresponserate.Surveyscanalsobeveryexpensivetoconduct.Forthesamereasonsasthe

publicmeetings, citizensmay not be inclined to respond to a survey due to lack of time or

motivation.

Websites allow for developers or officials to create an online presence to provide

information about the process, including project descriptions, meeting times, results of

7

community input, or developmental progress. While websites can be a great way to share

informationandkeepcitizensinformed,citywebsitesoftensufferfrompoorlydesignedlayouts,

lackofupdatedinformation,anddifficultyinadvertisingtheprojectwebsite.Developer-created

websitesfacesimilarchallenges,andmayhavetrustissuesfromthosewhobelievedevelopers

areonlygoingtogiveinformationthatportraystheprojectinapositivelight.

Another engagement process is the charrette, which is a meeting-like session where

communitymembers,designers,developers,andpublicofficialsworktogethertocreateavision

foradevelopmentproject. Itprovidesaforumforallactorsinthecommunitytoshareideas,

offerfeedback,andtroubleshootissues,givingdesignersanddevelopersthechancetoadvance

theirproject.Theyallowforthecommunityto feel liketheyaredirectlyaffectingtheproject

whileallowingdeveloperstoguidethediscussioninaproductiveway.Charrettesoftenwillstart

withapresentationtodescribetheprojectandthegoalsofthesession.Theycouldincludea

walk-throughofthesiteorprojectdesignto-date,andthensmallgroupsmaybreakofftooffer

feedbackandgothroughthedesignprocessbeforereportingbacktothewholegroup,creating

asharedcommunitydesign.Whilecharrettesareagreatwaytogetfeedbackfromthegroup

and to reacha tangible result, they also arenotwithout issues. Charrettes canbe incredibly

expensiveandcouldeasilycostdevelopersorpublicofficialsmorethan$100,000 inorder to

cover the cost of materials, design tools, refreshments, site-visit logistics, event space, and

facilitatorstoruntheprocesses.Oftentimes,charrettescanoccuroveraseriesof2-5days.Given

this huge time commitment, it is very difficult to get citizens to attend. This can frustrate

developersandlocalofficialswhospendasignificantamountoftimetoplantheseprocessesbut

8

thenhavealackofattendance,leavingasmallgrouptomakeopinionateddecisionsthatmay

notberepresentativeoftheentirecommunity.

Whiletheseengagementopportunitiesareplannedwiththebestintentionsinmind,they

allhavetheirdrawbacksandcanleaveeveryoneinvolvedfrustratedwiththeoutcomes.When

developers and officials spend time and money to plan these events, they hope that the

communitywillberesponsiveandparticipateintheprocessesdesignedforthem.However,itis

oftentypicalthatthemembersofthepublicthatattendarethosewhohaveverystrongopinions

about the project. Those groups are typically composed ofworking families. Developers and

officialsknowthatworkingfamiliesareoftennotwillingorabletocometotheseevents.Special

effortsareoftenmadetoencouragethemtoattendmeetingsbyprovidingfoodandchildcare

duringeveningmeetings,hostingmeetingsatdifferent times suchasa lunchtimemeeting in

additiontoeveningmeetings,andevenpartneringwithcommunitygroupsatsocialeventstotry

toencouragecitizenstoprovidefeedback.

Othergroupspoorlyrepresentedinthesemeetingsincludehomelessindividuals,thosewith

low mobility or disabilities, and other marginalized groups such as those in low-income

neighborhoods,peopleofcolor,orillegalimmigrants.Exclusionofthesegroupsresultsinpoor

communityrepresentation,asonlythesmallpercentageofthecommunityabletoattendwillbe

speakingonbehalfofeveryone.Ifeffortsarenotmadetoreachouttothesemarginalizedgroups,

theymayfeeltheiropinionsarenotwantedandtheirparticipationisawasteoftime.Homeless

individuals, as well as those with low mobility or disabilities, may not be aware of these

engagementprocessesorhavethemeanstoparticipate,even if theyarewillingtodoso.By

consideringaccessibilityinthedesignoftheseprocesses,morepeoplecouldbereached.

9

Ofcourse, therewill alwaysbe truantmembersofa community thatareunawareof the

engagementprocesses,orareawarebutchosenottoattend.Plannersanddevelopersmuststill

planforthesepeoplebecausetheywillaffectthewaythecommunitygrowsanddevelops.One

suchgroupincollegetownsisstudents.Studentsusuallydonotliveintheuniversity’scityor

townyear-roundandareonlythereforashortperiodoftime.Therefore,theymayfeellikeit's

notnecessarytobeapartoftheengagementprocess.However,alargepopulationofstudents

canhaveimplicationsonthedevelopmentofatownonthingssuchashousingdevelopment,

commercial activity, and economic stability. Planners and developers should account for the

effectsthatthesekindsofpopulationshaveonthecommunity.

Itshouldbeclearthateffectivecommunityengagementisimportantinordertopreventthe

negativeeffectsofitsabsence.Well-designedengagementprocessescanleadtohavingabetter

representationofthecommunityinthefeedbackstage,andcanlowerthecostoftheseevents

iftheyarewellattended.However,barrierswillalwaysexist,sobylookingtotechnologytohelp

overcomethem,thefieldofplanninganddevelopmentcanfurther improvetheircommunity

engagement processes. Especially by combining online engagement tools with in-person

engagementopportunitiestosuccessfullyreachabroaderaudience.

TechnologyandCommunityEngagementTechnology has allowed for communities to increase their community outreach, especially

throughtheuseofonlineengagementtools.Suchtoolscancomeintheformofmobileapps,

websites,orsocialmediaplatformsthatutilizemethodsofprovidinginformationandcollecting

feedback.Onlinetechnologiesallowforplannersanddeveloperstoengagewithmorepeople

than traditional participation techniques.Andalthough technologyhas achieved successes in

10

engagement,therearestillconsiderablebarrierstonavigatebeforetocanreachitsfullpotential.

Therefore,itisimportanttousetheseonlinetoolsinadditiontowithin-persontechniques.

Theuseofonlineengagementtoolshasbenefitstiedtoincreasingcommunitycapacity.

Forone, itallowsfordevelopersandplannerstosavetimeandmoney.Ratherthanspending

timetocreateandorganizesurveysorcharrettes,officialscanusethesetoolstogatherdata

more efficiently. They also can strategically use tools to determine which groups are not

participatingandthentargetthosepeople,therebyusinglimitedresourcesmoreeffectively.For

example,ifanonlinetoolonlyreachescommunitymembersthathaveaccesstotechnology,then

developers and planners can use different engagement tools such as in-person surveys or

communitymeetingstotargetthespecificgroupofnon-engagedpeople.

Cost savings can also be achieved using online tools. Research done by the Metro

NashvillePlanningCommissiononcostcomparisonsofvariousengagementprocessesusedfor

theirAPAaward-winningNashvilleNextprojectshowsthatonaveragetheonlineengagement

tool MetroQuest cost $3/participant, MindMixer cost $8/participant, and Textizen cost

$9/participant10.Meanwhile,engagementtechniquessuchasfocusgroupsandmeetingsrange

between$43-$47/participant.Thesetoolsalsoincreasethepublic'saccesstoinformationwhile

collectingfeedback.Plannerscanthencreateplansbasedondata-drivenrecommendationsand

a clear understanding of what the public wants. Overall, this improves the community

engagementprocess.

However, there are still many barriers to incorporating these technologies. Most

significantly,localgovernmentsareoftenconstrainedbyalackofstaffandfinancingtosupport

10 Biggs, Dave. How Much Does It Cost to Engage a Citizen. MetroQuest.com. 2016.

11

theuseofthesetools11.Andbecausethesetoolsarestillfairlynewtomostcommunities,there

isaperceivedriskofusingthemduetoalackofknowledgeaboutthetoolsthatexistandbest

practices for using them. Planners are not online communication experts, and may be

apprehensiveaboutusingtoolsinitiallywithoutpriorknowledgeoftheirmaintenance.

Whiletechnologyisrapidlyincreasingtheopportunitytoreachmorepeople,itcanstill

bedifficulttoreachlow-incomeindividualsthroughtechnologyalone.Thisislikelydueinpartto

alackofawarenessofavailableopportunitiestoengageandlimitedlanguageskillsorreading

comprehension. Previous negative experiences resulting in mistrust or hostility towards

governmentcanalsolimitthepotentialofthesetools12.

Currently the field of online community engagement lacks a deeper exploration of

communityneedsnecessarytodevelopthesetools.Mostonlineengagementtoolsarenotbuilt

inpartnershipwiththeintendedusersorinresponsetotheirpressingconcerns,butratherare

created as a one tool fits all engagement process. Some developers have recognized the

complexityofdevelopmentprocessstagesleadingtothecreationofdifferenttoolsdesignedfor

those different stages. Howver, news of successly using these tools travels slowlymaking it

difficultforothercommunitiestoshareandbenefitfromthesuccessesofothers.

Inadditiontobarriers,therearenegativeoutcomesthatmustbeconsideredsuchashow

thistechnologycanbeusedtoskewdataorframeissuesbythemoderator.Negativecomments

canbeomittedonwebsitestomakeitseemlikethereareonlypositiveresponses,resultingin

thecommunitylosingtrustindevelopersandbecomingmoreopposedtodevelopmentprojects.

11OpenPlansandLivingCities,FieldScanofCivicTechnology.2012.12Locantore,Jill.EngagementTechnologyForAll:BestPracticesforUsingTechnologyinEngagingUnderrepresentedCommunitiesinPlanning.Placematters.org.February2014.

12

Instead,byallowingformoretransparencyandrespondingtonegativecomments,amoreopen

dialogcandevelopandimproverelationships.

Lackofactiontakenaftergatheringdatacanalsocauseuserstobecomefrustratedwith

the process causing them to believe it was a waste of their time. Sometimes planners or

developersdon’tincludefeedbackfromthecommunitybecausetheydon’tagree,orwhathas

beensuggestedistooexpensiveordifficulttoprovide.Butbyacknowledgingthefeedbackand

comingtoacompromise,ratherthanignoringit,plannersanddeveloperscanfindcreativeways

tobenefitthecommunitywhilestillreceivingsupporttogetprojectsapproved.Itisimportantto

consider these potential negative outcomes when creating a mindset for community

engagementmethodsandusingdigitalengagementtools.

Bybuildingamindsetforhowbesttouseonlineengagementtools,thefieldcanachieve

theultimategoalofcommunityengagement --givingpowerback to thecommunity13.These

toolsallowthebroadercommunitytogivefeedbackbasedonaccurateinformationandmake

informeddecisionsabouthowtheywanttheircommunitytobeshapedbydevelopment.This

shift in power however, is limited by the barriers and potential negative outcomes outlined

previously.Abalanceofbothdigitaltoolsandin-personmeetingsshouldbeincludedfromthe

startsotheuseofthetoolscanbecomemorenormalized.Communitiesalsoneedtotakeamore

activeroleinbuildingandusingthepropertoolstoeffectivelycollectfeedback.Todothat,there

needstobeabetterunderstandingofthetoolsthatexist.

Abetternetworkamongdevelopersandplannersindevelopingandusingthesetoolsis

necessary.Thereisplentyofresearchonwhyweshouldbeusingthistechnology,butwhatis

13Attygalle,Lisa.Forward:Howtechnologyimprovescommunityengagement.Engage!2015.Pages39-43

13

missingisthehow.Thefieldscanofcivictechnologydonein2012byOpenPlansandLivingCities

recommendstheneedforthreestepstocreatethisnetwork:(1)Abettermeanstoshareand

evaluate existing tools, such as peer networks and product reviews; (2) Developing the

infrastructure(datapolicy,technicalpolicy,etc.)requiredtosupportmanycivictechsolutions

andmakethemportablebetweencities;and(3)creatingamorerobustmarketplaceofvendors

providing civic tech product and services.14 This research project focuses on the first step,

creating a better way to evaluate existing tools as a means to share them with other

communities.

Giventhenatureofplanning,therearedifferentgoalstobeachievedthroughcommunity

engagement processes as such gathering comments on proposed projects, deciding on

guidelines,or implementingprojectplansorbudgets.Therefore,notall toolscanbesimilarly

appliedtoallprojectstoaddressdifferentgoals.Bycreatingamethodologyforhowtoanalyze

tools,plannersanddeveloperscouldbetterunderstandhowandwhentousethem,whatspecific

typesoffeedbacktheycancollect,andwhichtoolswouldworkbestfortheircommunity.Auser

guidethatappliesthismethodologytoeachtoolwouldgiveplannersaneasierwaytolearnabout

different tools thatexistandbuildabetter toolbox to improvetheircommunityengagement

processes.

BestPracticesfortheDevelopmentofEngagementToolsUnderstandingbestpracticesforthedevelopmentofonlinecommunityengagementtools,and

determiningwhatmakesthemsuccessful, isnecessarytocreateacriticalmethodology.Using

14OpenPlansandLivingCities,FieldScanofCivicTechnology.2012.

14

threecasestudiesonpopulartools,thisprojectaimstodesignamethodologythatcanbeuseful

tosystematicallyanalyzeonlinetools,basedonfactorsthatcontributetothebestpracticesof

the field. The three studies explore CoUrbanize, MetroQuest, and EngagingPlans; all well-

establishedtoolsusedthroughouttheplanningfield.Theyalsomeetthethreecriteriausedto

defineanonlineengagementtoolforthepurposeofthisproject:(1)thetoolisavailableonthe

internet, (2) the toolenablesmembersof thepublic toparticipate,and (3) the toolprovides

softwareasaservice(SaaS)product,meaningthatitisanapplicationavailableovertheinternet

rather thanhavingtobedownloadedontoacomputer.Foreachcasestudy, theanalysiswill

include:

1. thehistoryanddevelopmentofthetool;

2. theintendedgoalofthetool

3. howthetool’splatformoperates;

4. thestrengthsandweaknessesofthetool;

5. assessmentsofthenavigation,appearance,andaccessibilityofthetool;

6. thecostsandavailableITsupportforthetool;

7. awalk-throughofanexampleprojectthatusesthetool.

Unfortunately,somefactorsaredifficulttoincludeinthemethodologyduetothelackof

datatransparency,suchasthenumberordemographiccharacteristicsofparticipantsreached.

Without the data, it is difficult to quantitatively measure or rank these tools.Without data

transparencyamongalltooldevelopers,thefieldisnotaccountabletoensuringtoolsreachthe

groupstraditionallyunderrepresented. Instead,plannersusingthetoolsmustmakesurethey

usetherighttooltoreachthosegroups.

15

Becauseplannersarenotexpertsinonlinecommunication,theyarelimitedtothetools

thatcurrentlyexistwhichmaynotsatisfyalltheirneeds.Thishasallowedfortooldevelopersto

focusmoreonthemarketingsideoftooldevelopmentratherthancreatingstrongtools.Ideally,

tooldevelopersshouldworkwithclientstomakeahighlycustomizabletoolthatwillallowthe

plannerstoengageamorerepresentativegroupofthecommunitywiththelimitedresources

theyhave.

KnowyourAudience

Whenchoosingatoolforanengagementprocesstheaudiencemustbeunderstood15.A

toolhastheabilitytoreachawideaudience,butitwillbemoresuccessfulifdeployedmindful

of the audience. For example, a planning process for a neighborhood versus a regional

process should usedifferentengagementtools16.Theneighborhoodprocessesmayleadto

consensusbuildingwhiletheregionalprocessmayattempttoaddressconcernsaboutimpacts.

Smalleraudiencesmightbenefit from tools that use message boards where participants

can provide more detailedfeedback,whereasifalargeraudiencedidthesameitcouldresult

intoomuchdataforaplannertoanalyze.

CustomizationandUsability

Highly customizable tools allow for planners to use tools at different stages of the

engagementprocess, using toolsmore iteratively. Forexample, some toolsmaybebetter at

collectingdataaboutcommunitymembers’ideasaboutthetypeofdevelopmentacommunity

might be considering in the earlier stages, while a different tool might be best for getting

15 Attygalle, Lisa. Forward: How technology improves community engagement. Engage! 2015. Page 41 16 Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T., Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating Smarter Cities: Considerations for Selecting Online Participatory Tools, Cities, 67, page 25.

16

feedbackonspecificdetailsofthatdevelopment,suchasdesignguidelinesatthelaterstageof

adevelopmentproject.

Whilecustomizabletoolsareuseful,simplifyingthetechnologyisimportantinorderto

engagecitizenswhomaynotbeastechnologically literate.Toolsthatmake itdifficulttofind

informationor sharecomments/give feedbackmaynothavegreat success.However,making

toolsuser-friendlyandprovidingupdatedinformationrelevanttotheproject’scurrentprogress,

willlikelyleadtocommunitiesappreciatingthesetechnologiesandbecomingmoreinvolvedin

thefuture.

RegistrationRequirements

Thereareongoingdebatesaboutwhetherhavingparticipantssign-inandprovidebasic

personal informationwillreduceparticipation,or if it is imperativetodatacollection17.While

requiringasign-intoprovideaddressesorotherpersonalinformationmaypreventparticipation,

completeanonymitywillresultinnotknowingwhoisparticipatingandmaycauseissueswith

spam.

VisualAppearance

MetroQuest, in their guide of best practices for using their tool, stresses visual

appearance.Theyrecommendstickingtotheseven-secondandseven-minuterulethatitshould

takenomorethansevensecondstogetauser’sattention,afterwhichtheuser’sattentionwill

onlyberetainedforsevenminutes18.Toolsmustthereforebedesignedtobeattentiongrabbing

andconciseintheinformationthattheyaresharingorseeking.Todothis,MetroQuestsuggests

17Afzalan,N.,Sanchez,T.,Evans-Cowley,J.(2017).CreatingSmarterCities:ConsiderationsforSelectingOnlineParticipatoryTools,Cities,67,page27.18Attygalle,Lisa.Forward:Howtechnologyimprovescommunityengagement.Engage!2015.Page41

17

usingmorevisualsthantext,astexttakeslongertoreadandlargeamountsoftextmaydissuade

auserfromfiguringoutwhattheprojectisabout19.Havinganappealingdesignthatusesgraphics

overtextwillbemoresuccessful.

Accessibility

Thereareseveralrequirementsthatshouldbemadecompatiblewithtoolstomakethem

accessible to everyone. The most important, and frequently incorporated, is language

translation. It is important to enable community members to engage using their primary

language.OftentoolscanincorporateGoogletranslate,orasimilarproduct,thatautomatically

translates the text into a language of the user’s choice. Similarly, while visuals are often

encouragedforgrabbingattention,theyarealsousefultoimproveunderstandingforthosewith

poorreadingcomprehensionskills.Byusingsimplephrases,images,orvideocomponents,those

unabletoreadwellcanstillbeengaged.Itisalsoimportantfortoolstosupportaccessforthose

visuallyimpairedsuchastextaidsforthevisualimpaired.Incorporatingtheseconsiderationsin

toolplatformswillencouragemorecommunitymemberstoengage,especiallythosewhooften

feelleftout.

EvaluatingData

It is imperativethatcommunityengagementtoolsarechosenbasedontheirabilityto

analyze,report,andexportdata,aswelltheirfunctionalityintheengagementprocess.Evaluating

dataallowsforplannerstocomparedatatheyreceive.Incaseswheretheengagementprocess

isaskinguserstoranktheirprioritiesorbudgetallocations,toolsshouldbeabletoevaluatethe

dataandprovidethoserankedresultstotheplanners.

19PublicInvolvementSoftwareUserGuide.MetroQuest.Page5

18

DisplayingData

Similarly,itishelpfulwhentoolscanallowplannerstoeasilycreatemapsandgraphsof

thedataorexportdatatouseintheplanningprocess.Theultimategoalofonlineengagement

toolsistoallowthecommunitytoprovidefeedbacktobeusedinplanning.Ifthedataisignored,

thenthereislittlepointinusingthetools.

OnlineEngagementTechnologyCaseStudiesBasedonthesebestpracticesforonlineengagementtools,thefollowingsectionsexaminethree

casestudies,analyzingwhatmakesthesetoolssuccessfulorunsuccessful.Basedonthesecase

studies,thefinalmethodologywillbedevelopedandappliedtoalltheselectedtoolsintheuser

guide.

CoUrbanize

CoUrbanizeisaplatformthatallowsdevelopersandplannerstocreateandmanagetheirown

onlineprojectpagebyallowingthemtosendupdates,provideinformationandgivecommunity

memberstheopportunitytoaddideas,makecomments,oraskquestions.Thetoolistargeted

toanumberofclients,althoughit ismostlydesignedforprivatedevelopmentprojectsrather

thancommunityplanning.However,thereareseveralprojectsledbycouncilsofgovernmentfor

urbandevelopmentusingthetool.

CoUrbanizewasdevelopedbyateamfromMIT’sSchoolofArchitectureandPlanningand

foundedatTechStars,aBostonbasedstart-up/acceleratorprogram.Theydevelopedthetoolto

bring technology into the fieldof realestatedevelopment,urbanplanning,andconstruction,

realizing these professionals didn’t have the resources to reach a broader and more

representative audience online. Their goal is to: (1)make project information easy to share,

19

understand, and commenton; (2) and tohelp residents voice theiropinions; and (3)helping

developersstopmisinformationfrombeingcirculated.

Thetoolworksbygivingdevelopersaccesstoaself-serveplatformtocreateaproject

page,andalsoprovidesassistancebydrivingtraffictothepageviaemail,socialmedia,physical

signs,printmail,andotherservices.Theirflexibleplatformallowsforadifferentconfigurationof

servicesforengagementincludingcommunityforums,interactivemapping,SMStextmessaging

campaigns, surveying and polling, targeted emailing, sentimental analysis, civic engagement,

permitting and entitlement strategy, construction communication, social media and content

creation.Whilethetoolhasawiderangeofservicesthatitoffers,theprojectpagetemplateis

consistent across projects, allowing users to easily become familiar with the CoUrbanize

platform.

Figure1-CoUrbanizeProjectPageforKendallSquareatMITProject

20

Each project page opens to a homepage that shows a slideshow of images including

renderings,siteplans,andcurrentconditions,alongwithinformationabouttheprojectandthe

developer.Here,participantscaneasilylearnwhattypeofprojectitisandwhatthedevelopment

includes (usesandscale).Options to “commentonthispage,” “follow,”or “share” theproject

pagearealsoprovided.Thisinformation(Figure1)remainsatthetopofthepageasparticipants

exploretherestoftheprojectwebsite.Belowthistitlesection,developershavetheoptionto

choose the type of information tabs they want to include such as info, updates, timelines,

comments,FAQs,andotherpagetypes.Thesetabsworkasawaytoorganizetheinformation

thedeveloperdeemsimportanttoshare,withoutmakingthepagetoocluttered. Theinfotab

can include more detailed information about the project such as the reasons for the

development,howitwillaffectthecommunity,wheretheprojectcurrently is intheprocess,

whoisinvolvedintheproject(architects,consultants,etc.),mapsoftheprojectarea,plansand

documents,andanythingelsethatdoesn’tfitintootherinformationtabs.

The info tab is the most likely to become content heavy, but is arguably the most

important tab for theprojectpageas it is the firstoneparticipantswill see.Thus, itmustbe

structured well to introduce the participant to the project and make them interested in

continuingtousethetool,ratherthanoverwhelmingthem.Theupdatestabworkssimilartoa

blogformat,allowingdeveloperstocreateshortpoststhatshowthepageisbeingupdatedwith

informationregularly.Thetimelinetabprovidesaglimpseatimportantmilestonesfortheproject

inthepastandfuture,includingeventsthatparticipantscouldattendsuchaspublichearingsor

communitymeetings.Thetimelineisformattedinawaythatthemostrecenteventsareplaced

atthetopofthetabandparticipantscanscrolldowntoseeeventsthathaveoccurred.TheFAQ

21

tab allows for developers to anticipate or respond to commonly asked questions about the

projectandmaketheirstanceontheprojectclear.

TheprocessforpublicparticipationonCoUrbanizeishandledthroughthecommentstab

where thedeveloperhas theoption tocreateapollor survey thatwillallowthemtocollect

specificinformation.Thesurveystructureisflexibleallowingforopen-endedormultiple-choice

questions.Oftenthesesurveyswillaskonaveragefourtargetedquestionsinordertokeepthe

Figure2-CoUrbanizeCommentsTabforKendallSquareatMITProject

22

survey short and increase the likelihood of participants completing it. Below the survey,

participantshaveanoptiontopostacommentonamessageboard,whichisviewabletothe

public.Eachpost includestheparticipantsname,thedatetheypostedthecomment,andthe

optionsto“support,”“flag,”or“share.” Supportingthecommentissimilarto“liking”aposton

Facebook, indicating that other participants on the page support the comment that is being

made. Flagging the post allows participants to report the comment if they think it is

inappropriate. Sharing the post gives the participant a link to share it to other socialmedia

platformssuchasFacebook,Twitter,Googleplus,oremail.Bothparticipantsandthedeveloper

areable tocommentonapost,allowing fora two-wayconversation (figure2).Posts canbe

sortedbynewestorbypopularity,whichbringspoststhathavebeensupportedthemosttothe

top.

Inordertoparticipateinthesurvey,postacomment,commentonposts,orflagposts,

participantsmustbeloggedintoCoUrbanize.Ifyouarenotlogged-in,youwillbepromptedto

loginormakeanaccount.Asign-upscreenwillpopupgivingtheparticipanttheoptiontosign

upwithFacebook,Googleplus,oremail.DoingthisprovidesCoUrbanizewithyourfirstandlast

nameandyouremail.Whenfillingouttheinformation,thereisapromptthatreads“Fullfirstor

lastnamerequired.Pleaseuseyourrealname:)”.Ifaparticipantdoesnotwishtousetheirlast

name, theyhavetheoption touse their last initial instead.While the firstand lastnameare

required,participantsalsohavetheoptiontoaddaprofilepicturethatisvisibletoanyone,as

wellastheirzipcodewhichisnotvisible.Byaddingazipcode,participantscanoptintogetting

notificationsaboutnewnearbyprojectsthatcreateaCoUrbanizeprojectpage.

23

Critique

CoUrbanizehasseveralstrengthsthatmakeitasuccessfulplatformforengagement:thebiggest

strengthbeingthatneitherCoUrbanizestaff,northedeveloperscreatingtheprojectpage,can

hidepostsonthecommentstab.Theyreportthatthey“neverhide,edit,ordeletecomments

thatcomplywithguidelines,and[won’t]messwiththeirpopularityranking.”Thismeansthat

commentsthathaveanegativeattitudetowardstheprojectcannotberemovedorhiddenatthe

bottomofamessageboard,makingitappeartrustworthytocommunityparticipants.Thetool

alsoincorporatesseveralcapabilities,suchasincludingtheGoogletranslateintegrationthatgive

a choice of 18 languages; using Mapbox for information map graphics (widely used among

websitesmakingitfamiliartoparticipants);andoptimizingtheplatformtobeviewedonmobile

devicesandothersmallscreens.Byensuringthatparticipantscanaccessthetooleasilyandview

the information inwaysthatarefamiliartothem,thetoolcanbeverysuccessful inreaching

moreparticipants.Thetool’ssimplifiedlayoutforallprojectsalsomakesitsuccessfulasatool

that participants can become comfortablewith using, perhaps increasing theirwillingness to

participateinotherprojectsthatuseCoUrbanize.

However,thereisdebateamongthoseintheengagementtechnologyfieldthathavingto

log-on toawebsite toparticipate,especially to leavepubliccomments,willdiscouragemany

fromdoingso.Forprojectsthatarehighlycontested,membersofthecommunitymightnotwant

otherstoknowtheiropinions,orwanttopostonamessageboardwheretheircommentscan

betrackedbacktothem.Inordertoensurethatmessagesaren’tspam,andtobettercollectdata

onwhoisparticipating,requiringparticipantstolog-inorprovidebasicinformationcanhelpthe

developertoknowwhoisinvolved,andwhoisn’t,sotheycanbetterengagetheiraudience.For

24

thesakeofthisresearch,havingtolog-intoatoolwillbeconsideredaweaknessofthetool,

whereasonlyhavingtoprovideyournameorotherbasicinformationaspartofasurveywillnot.

Thisistoaccountfortoolsthatcreatebarrierstoparticipation,whicharedeemedlesssuccessful

forcommunityengagement.

CoUrbanizealsohasacoupleofotherlimitingfactorsintheirtooldesign,includingthe

projectpagestandardizedtemplate.Havingastandardtemplatethatallprojectpagesmustuse

ishelpfultobecomefamiliarwiththeplatform;however,itlimitsthetypeofprojectsthatthis

tool can accommodate, specifically in its community engagement capabilities.With only two

optionstoengagethepublic,abriefsurveyorviacomments,thetypeofengagementthatcan

bedone is seriously limited.Communitymembersmaybe less inclinedtouseaproduct that

allows them very little opportunity to engage and therefore may only use the tool for

information,nottoprovideinput.Thereisclearlyabalanceneededbetweenthetool’splatform

beingfamiliartoallusersandallowingforcustomizationsothatdevelopersandplannerscanuse

thetooltobestfittheengagementprocess.Toolsthatlimitcustomizationfortheirengagement

strategies,forthisresearch,willbeconsideredaslesseffectiveforthesereasons.

CoUrbanizestates that theirpartnersare“buildingbetterprojects faster”byusingthe

platform,andasanengagementtool it issuccessful insharinginformationandrespondingto

questionsorconcernsfasterandforlessmoneythantheywouldattraditionalmeeting.Thecost

for CoUrbanize varies from$1,500-$75,000 per project, based on the type of support that a

projectwillneed,suchasadvertising,analysis,andstrategyplanning.Asacompany,CoUrbanize

seemstobeverysuccessfulinreachingcommunitiesforthesedevelopmentprojectsandhelping

developerstonavigatethesecommunityengagementprocesses.Butthetoolseemstobedoing

25

onlythat,helpingdeveloperstomoreeasilyhaveacommunityengagementprocessusedfor

projectframing.Sowhilethetooliswelldesignedandhasgreatfeatures,itscapabilitieswhenit

comestodeepeningcommunityengagementthroughthedesignofengagementopportunities

arelacking.Insteadofhavingmultiplewaysforthecommunitytoprovidefeedback,thetoolis

more successful at providing information. That isn’t to say that CoUrbanize shouldn’t be

consideredforuseinthecommunityengagementprocess,asitcoulddowellasonetoolina

toolkitusedduringtheprocess.Butintermsofcollectingmeaningfulcommunityfeedback,this

toolisn’tassuccessful.

MetroQuest

MetroQuestisapublicengagementsoftwaretoolthatworkstomaximizethenumberandspan

of participants, and collect informed and actionable public input. The tool is different from

CoUrbanizeinthatinsteadofbuildingaprojectpagetoshareinformation,MetroQuestworksas

anonlinesurveycollectingtargetedinformationtobeusedinthedevelopmentofaproject.The

platform is targeted for planning and government agencies to use during community

engagementprocesses.MetroQuesthasbeenusedbymanylargeagenciesandconsultingfirms

acrossthecountry,makingitoneoftheleadingonlineengagementtoolsonthemarket.

MetroQuest was developed from a large, interdisciplinary research project at the

UniversityofBritishColumbiathathadbeenintendedtoservetwofunctions:“leverageback-

casting to help foster understanding of the sustainability of regional growth, and provide a

vehicleforresearchingtheeffectivenessandutilityofsuchtoolsandtechniques.”20Sincethen,

20Walsh,M.,&Burch,S.(2012).Communitiesatthecrossroads:Usingmetroquesttohelpcommunitiescreateconsensusaroundavisionofthefuture.InL.Bazzanella,etal.(Eds.),TheFutureofcitiesandregions(pp.45– 64).Dordrecht:SpringerNetherlands.

26

MetroQuesthasbeencommercializedbyEnvisionSustainabilityTools.FoundedbyDaveBiggs

andMikeWalsh,membersof theoriginal research team, toaddress theneedsofurbanand

regionalplannersindevelopinglong-rangeplans,MetroQuesthasbeendesignedtoeducateand

engage stakeholders, helping them to grapple with the complexities of thinking about

sustainabilityinthecontextofaregion,andthenmotivatingthemtogetinvolvedintheplanning

process.Whilethetooliscertainlystillusefulinlong-rangeplanning,ithasevolvedtodoingall

sortsofplanningprojects.

AllMetroQuestprojectsworkthesame.Aplannerwill

usetheMetroQuestdashboardtoset-upanengagementsite

and launch it to the public. The dashboard is then used to

watchdatacomein,aswellastoanalyzeandreportonallthe

public input. From the participants’ view, MetroQuest is a

project survey that contains a series of four to five

standardized screens that guide the participant through the

processoflearningabouttheprojectandprovidinginput.The

plannerhasawiderangeofscreentypestochoosefromthat

canbeeasilymixedandmatchedtosuittheengagementneed

of the development project. Figure 3 shows a list of all the

standardized screens that can be combined tomake up the

survey.

Figure3-ListofMetroQuestScreenOptions

27

Figure4-MetroQuestProjectPage,SouthernAllegheniesBikeandPedPlan

Each project survey starts with a “Welcome” screen that opens to a window asking

participantstotakeamomenttorespondtothesurvey(Figure4).Thewelcomescreencould

include details such as the title of the project, the agency sponsoring the survey, basic

informationabout theproject,orwhy theyareasking for surveydata.At the top righthand

corner,aprogressbarindicateshowfaralongtheyareintakingthesurvey.Atthebottomleftof

eachscreenthereisa“?”button,thatwhenclickedbringsupapop-upscreenthatincludes:a

helptabexplaining“whatshouldIdo?”“whenismyinputcollected?”and“whathappenstomy

input?”;aprivacytabthatexplainsMetroQuest’sprivacypolicy;andanaboutMetroQuesttab,

whichgivesinformationaboutthetool.Thesetabsarealsolocatedrightbelowthesurveyscreen

28

astextoptions.Ontherightofthescreentherearefourbuttonsthatallowparticipantstoshare

thesurveyviaFacebook,Twitter,email,orShareThis.

Tocontinuefromthewelcomescreentothenextscreenonthesurvey,theparticipant

mustclickonthesecondverticalbarontheright,whichwillsaythenameofthenextscreen,

suchas“standardsurvey”or“mapmarkers.”Theyalsocanclickonthebuttonintherightupper

handcornerthatsays“nexttask.”Eachtimeanewscreenisopened,adialogueboxwillopento

explainwhattheparticipantshoulddoonthatscreen.Iftheparticipantneedsareminderofwhat

todooneachpage,thereisa“?whattodo”buttonnexttothetaskbuttonthatwillreopenthe

initialdialogueboxforthatscreen.Attheendofeachprojectsurveytherewillbeeithera“final

questions”,“stayinvolved”,or“wrapupscreen”whichwilldenotetheendofthesurveyandthank

theparticipantfortheirtime.Whileparticipantsarenotrequiredtosign-in,thewrap-upscreen

allowsforthecollectionofdemographicinformationandcanaskforname,age,gender,email,

andiftheywouldliketostayinvolvedviaemail.

Critique

While theMetroQuest platform is static in that itwill always have four to five standardized

screens,thetoolishighlycustomizableforspecifictypesofengagementprojects.Thefourteen

differentscreentypesallowforplannerstogetveryspecificdatafromthecommunityinaway

thatiseasytoanalyzeandreporton.Thismakesthetoolveryfeaturerich,givingplannersthe

flexibilitytousethetoolatdifferentstagesoftheplanningprocess.Forexample,plannerscould

usethemapmarkerandprojectselectiontoolatthebeginningoftheprojectdevelopmentto

decideonwhatkindofprojecttodoandwhereitshouldbe.Thenlater,theycanhaveanother

29

MetroQuestsurveyforvisualpreference,budgetallocation,andimageratingtodecidewhatthe

projectshouldlooklikeandhowmuchitshouldcost.

MetroQuest also has written several blog posts and their CEO Dave Biggs gives

informationproductmarketingtalksoften,puttingthemaheadofthecurveonthebestpractices

fortooluse.Theseresourceshelpplannerstomakethemostofthetool,guidingtheminbuilding

asuccessfulsurvey.Aspartof theproductpackage,plannersreceive ITsupportandtraining.

MetroQuest claims that they have tools and techniques to identify and helpmitigate ballot

stuffing in order to protect the integrity of the data results.While the visual appearance of

MetroQuestisclearlydatedcomparedtoothermodernengagementtools,thetoolalwayslooks

thesameacrossdifferentprojects,makingtheparticipantfamiliarwiththetool.

In addition to the outdated appearance of the platform, MetroQuest also has the

disadvantageofnotbeingabletobeembeddedintoaprojectpage.Thismeansthatinorderto

find the survey, onemust have the link or follow the link from the projectwebsite possibly

resultinginparticipantsnotseeingitrightaway,ormissingitentirelyiftheprojectwebsiteis

poorlydesignedornotadvertisedwell.Thetoolalsohasnosocialcomponent,asitissolelyfor

datacollection.Ifaparticipanthasaquestionabouttheproject,theycouldnotuseMetroQuest

toaskthatquestionortogetananswertoit.Thecommunityingeneralwillhavenoideaifthe

surveyisbeingwellused,orhowothersintheircommunityareresponding.Thisfactormakesit

crucialthatMetroQuestbeusedinconjunctionwithin-personmeetings,sothatthecommunity

canstillaskquestionsandbeabletoknowwhatothersarethinking.

MetroQuest makes it very easy for planners to provide information and to collect

meaningful data to be used in the planning process. The company hasworked hard to give

30

plannerstheresourcestheyneedtocreatesuccessfulsurveys,whilesharingbestpracticesand

providingsupport.Thetoolhasalsobeenconsideredtobeacostsavingstoagencies.At$4,000

permonth,withoptionsforadiscountonvolumepricing,thecostwhenconsideringthenumber

ofparticipantscanbesignificantlylowerthanthecostofin-personengagement.TheNashville

MetroPlanningCommissionfoundthatthecostoftheircomprehensiveplanningprojectusing

MetroQuestwas$3perparticipant,comparedto$47perparticipantforin-personengagement

events21. The tool seems tohaveanexcellentbalanceof customization,allowingplanners to

createasurveythatfitstheirengagementprocess,whilealsoremainingfamiliartoparticipants

acrossdifferentprojects.As it isalreadywidelyused,MetroQuest isavery successful tool in

improving community engagement processes. However, additional research on just how

successfultheprojectstendtobe,especiallyinknowingtheaudiencesthattheyreach,andif

thoseaudiencesarewellrepresentedbyallgroupsinthecommunity,wouldimproveanalysisof

theirproduct.

EngagingPlans

Partof theUrban InteractiveStudio (UIS) thatspecializes inpublicengagementsoftwareand

consulting for public administration, planning, architecture, and engineering firms,

EngagingPlansisanonlineengagementtoolthatprovidesinteractiveprojectwebsitepagesto

help project teams effectively reach communities, share news and updates, and gather

community input through a range of services. The platform allows for planners to create

customizableprojectwebsites thatcan includevarious tools to share informationandcollect

21MetroQuest,NashvilleWinsanAPADanielBurnhamAward

31

databasedonthedesignofthecommunityengagementprocess.Theyhaveabroadrangeof

clients, includingpublicandprivatesectors,duetothetool’scustomizationabilityofthetool

thatmakesitusefulforanytypeofprojectincorporatingpublicinvolvement.UISisaDenver-

based cross-disciplinary team of planners, designers, andweb developers. Its founder, Chris

Haller,hasbeeninvolvedinfacilitatingstakeholderengagementsince2002andhasaneducation

backgroundincityandregionalplanning.22

EngagingPlansisatooltargetedforplanningagenciesthatdon’thavethestaffcapacity

to build a projectwebsite. It is similar to other commonwebsite creation software, such as

WordPress or Squarespace, except that is specifically designed for projects that involve

communityengagement.

No two project websites on EngagingPlans look the same, as they are completely

customizable.ByusingEngagingPlans,plannershaveaccesstotheEngagingPlansAppSuiteof

intuitivetoolsdesignedtomakecomplexinformationeasilyaccessibletocitizens,givingthem

powerastheyexplore informationandprovidefeedbackonprojects.Forsharing information

there are features such as new updates, event timelines, document libraries, FAQs, email

subscriptions,socialmedialinks,andimagegallery.Tocollect input,plannerscandeployidea

walls, discussion& comment sections, surveys, polls and instant results, anddraft document

review. EngagingPlans also offers tools to curate and evaluate data by using content

management systems, report builders and data exports, comment moderation options, and

spamfilters.Becauseofthiscompletecustomizability,itcanbeverydifficulttoanalyzewhether

EngagingPlanscanbeaneffectivetoolforeverycase.

22ChrisHaller,LinkedIn.com

32

Critique

As the platform is highly flexible to fit the needs of the project, the tool is built around the

engagementprocess,ratherthanmakingtheengagementprocessfitthetool.Inordertodothis

however,plannersmustknowexactlywhattheywant,whichmaybedifficultiftheyaregiven

toomany choices. EngagingPlans does offer IT support and training, therefore they canhelp

clientsbuildtheirprojectwebsitesbasedonbestpracticesforwebsitedesign.Thishelpstomake

projectpagesmorevisuallyappealing.Thetoolisalsohighlyfeature-rich,withmapsandsurveys

offeringmanydifferent topics for the typesofdata thatcanbecollected.However,with too

manyoptions,websitescanbecomeoverwhelmingfortheparticipantmakingthemunsureof

wheretostarttolookforinformation.

OneexampleofthisistheprojectfortheDowntownMasterPlanforToledo,Ohio23.The

homepageforthisprojecthasagridofposts,allcontainingdifferenttypesofinformationthat

donotseemtobearrangedinanysortoforder.Thewebsitealsohastabsatthetopofthepage

indicatingsectionsforhome,project,team,events,participate,gallery,andcontactus.However,

asparticipantshoverovereachlinktothattab,adropdownmenuappearsforevenmorepages

thatmust be selected to find information. All these choices, and the seemingly unorganized

nature of this website, are not appealing to community members who may become

overwhelmedbyalltheinformationandfrustratedwhentheycan’tmakesenseofit.

Somepagesarewellorganizedthough,suchastheFacilityMasterPlanfortheDenver

Zoo24. This project website is a single page, and as participants scroll down they start to

23http://downtowntoledoplan.com24http://denverzoomasterplan.org/facility-master-plan-community-feedback

33

understandwhattheprojectis,whyitisimportant,andhowthecommunitycanhelp.Thepage

includes photos and graphics that are eye catching to break up large amounts of text. As

participantsscrollthroughthepagetheyarenotoverwhelmedwithinformation,butinsteadfind

sectionsthataremucheasiertodigest.Attheend,thereisabriefsurveythatasksparticipants

torankfiveprioritychoicesandthenasksfortheparticipant’szipcodewithanoptiontoinclude

their name and email. This project pages shows the importance of process design and how

informationissharedinordertocapturetheattentionofanaudience.

Anotherweakness toEngagingPlans is thatplannersareable tomoderate comments,

givingthemtheoptiontoproactivelyreviewandapprovecommentsbeforetheyareliveonthe

site. If planners prevent negative comments fromgetting onto the site, it can lead to public

mistrust if the public believes their comments are being censured. This practice is generally

frowneduponforonlineengagementtoolsbecause itcreatesamajorbarrierbetweenthose

runningtheengagementprocessandthosewhoareparticipating.Thisisnotthestandardsetting

forcommentpageshowever,so it is theresponsibilityoftheplannerordevelopertochoose

whethertousethisoptionornot.

EngagingPlans iscertainlyusefulasanengagementtoolas it increases thecapacityof

agencies unable to create effective project websites, and it has the ability to include

opportunitiesthatallowforthecommunitytoparticipate.However,asatoolitdoesnotalways

encourageengagement,andsomeprojectsdon’t includeopportunitiesforengagementatall.

Thistoolcanbeusedbyagenciesthatknowthetypeoftoolsthattheywishtouse,butareunable

tocreatethewebsitethemselves.However, itmaynotbethebesttool foragenciesthatare

unclearonhowtostartanonlineengagementprocess.

34

UserGuideDevelopment–CatalogueofOnlineEngagementTools

These three tools,CoUrbanize,MetroQuest,andEngagingPlans,werealldevelopedasonline

engagement tools that share importantproject informationaswell as encourage community

participation. However, the three tools have very different functionalities giving them very

differentstrengths,weaknesses,andeffectivenessincommunityengagement.WhileCoUrbanize

offers a standard format that allows for familiarity along community projects and provides

coherentprojectinformation,itlacksin-depthcommunityengagementandmaybemoreuseful

for project framing. MetroQuest has a highly customizable platform that remains within a

standard framework and has excellent data collection capabilities, yet the appearance is

outdated and it cannot stand alone in a community engagement process. EngagingPlans

increases an agency’s capacity to build project websites, yet the highly customizable nature

makesitatoolnotrecommendedforagenciesthatneedmoreguidanceinonlineengagement

opportunities.This isnottosaythatanyofthesetoolsarebadornotrecommendedforuse.

Ratheritsupportstheargumentthatofalltheonlineengagementtoolsthatexist,eachhasvery

differentcapabilitiesthatplannersshouldunderstandbeforeselectingone.

Theconclusionsfromthesecasestudiessupportthreeimportantareastoconsiderwhen

analyzingalltheengagementtoolsforthisproject’suserguide:

1. Customization and standardizationmust bewell balanced, as they have trade-offs to

successfulandcontinuousengagementamongcommunities.Standardizationwillallow

participantstobefamiliarwiththetoolsinfutureprojects,makingthemmorelikelyto

35

participate;however,customizationallowsforagenciestodesignthetoolsaroundthe

engagementprocess,ratherthanmakingtheengagementfitthetool.

2. Engagementopportunitiesareasimportantasproject information.Aprojectpagecan

havealotofgreatinformationtoframeaproject,butifitmissesopportunitiesforthe

communitytogivefeedbackandotherwisebeengagedwiththeproject,thenit isnot

successfulasanonlineengagementtool.

3. Navigation and appearance of a toolmust bewell designed in order to engagewith

participants and not create barriers to participation. Tools that are unorganized, text

heavy, or are difficult to navigate will prevent participants from using the site and

discouragethemfromgettinginvolvedintheproject.

ThesethreepointswillbeconsideredinthemethodologyofanalysisfortheUserGuideofOnline

EngagementTools.Byanalyzingseveral importantaspectsoftooldevelopmentandproviding

themtoagencies,theuserguidewillaidthoseintendingtouseengagementtoolstofindtheone

thatbestfitstheircommunityengagementprocessneeds.

36

ReferencesAfzalan,N.,Sanchez,T.,Evans-Cowley,J.(2017).CreatingSmarterCities:

ConsiderationsforSelectingOnlineParticipatoryTools,Cities,67,21-30.Afzalan,N.Participatoryplanmaking:Whetherandhowonlineparticipatorytoolsare

useful.UniversityofColoradoDenver(2015).Attygalle,Lisa.Forward:Howtechnologyimprovescommunityengagement.Engage!

2015.Pages39-43Biggs,Dave.HowMuchDoesItCosttoEngageaCitizen.MetroQuest.com.2016.Claride,Tristan.DefinitionsofSocialCapital.” SocialCapitalResearch.OnlineBlogPost.

January7,2004.DhavanShah,MichaelSchmierbach,JoshuaHawkins.NonrecursiveModelsofInternet

UseandCommunityEngagement:QuestioningWhetherTimeSpentOnlineErodesSocialCapital.1December,2002.SageJournals.Vol79,Issue4,Page.

Huysman,MarleenandWulf,Volker.SocialCapitalandInformationTechnology.TheMITPress.2004.

Locantore,Jill.EngagementTechnologyForAll:BestPracticesforUsingTechnologyinEngagingUnderrepresentedCommunitiesinPlanning.Placematters.org.February2014.

OpenPlansandLivingCities,FieldScanofCivicTechnology.2012.Pathi,Krutika.CreatingaBetterCommunityThroughTextMessages.Citylab,14June

2017.Porter,DouglasR.BreakingtheDevelopmentLogjam:NewStrategiesforBuilding

CommunitySupport.ULI–theUrbanLandInstitute.June2006.Print.Raynes-Goldie,Kate,andLukeWalker.“OurSpace:OnlineCivicEngagementToolsfor

Youth."CivicLifeOnline:LearningHowDigitalMediaCanEngageYouth.EditedbyW. Lance Bennett. The John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation Series onDigital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 161–188. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.161.

Smith,Aaron.RecordsharesofAmericansnowownsmartphones,havehomebroadband.PewResearchCenter.2017

Walsh,M.,&Burch,S.(2012).Communitiesatthecrossroads:Usingmetroquesttohelpcommunities create consensus around a vision of the future. In L. Bazzanella, et al.(Eds.),TheFutureofcitiesandregions(pp.45–64).Dordrecht:SpringerNetherlands.

37

UserGuideofOnlineCommunityEngagementTools

38

Introduction

This User Guide for Online Community Engagement Tools has been developed for

practitioners hoping to utilize these tools to enhance their community engagement

processes. The following sections outline the terms and methodology categories that

were used to describe and organize the tools.

There are five groups of tools: surveys, website builders, budget simulators,

message boards, and mappings. Each grouping contains a chart for each tool that

outlines the analysis of that tool. It is recommended that practioners take time to think

about the type of information they hope to gather through the community engagement

process and then decide the type of tool that will best help them collect that information.

This analysis emphasizes opportunities for engagement, and therefore tools were

selected based on the quality of their engagement abilities. Each tool has different

strengths and weaknesses that should be considered when deciding among them.

Practioners should also consider the best practices outlined in the research that

accompanies this user guide.

Terms

Developer:Thedeveloperoftheonlineengagementtool

OnlineEngagementTool:ASaaSproduct(softwareasaservice)thatisviewableontheinternet,

helpsagenciescollaboratewiththepublic inaplanningprocess,andenablesmembersofthe

publictoparticipateintheonlineplatform.

Participant:Memberofthecommunitythatwillengagewiththeonlineengagementtool

User:PlannerorStaffMemberwhoisdeployingtheonlineengagementtool

39

MethodologyCategories

Thefollowingtableoutlinesthecriteriathatwillbeusedtoassesseachtool.Thetoolswillthen

besortedintodifferentgroupingsbasedontheiruses(survey,websitebuilder,etc).Thisprocess

willallowforuserstoeasilyfollowtheguidetochoosethegroupoftoolstheyneedfortheir

engagementprocess,andthenpickthebesttoolfortheirneeds.Thefollowingsectionsoutline

eachoftheanalysisprovidedforeachcategory.

Metric Analysis

Use/Purpose BriefOne-SentenceDescriptionInteraction/EngagementOpportunities

Quantitativelist/descriptionofopportunities(survey,poll,etc.)

Appearance/Organization Ranking(GraphicHeavy,EqualMix,TextHeavy)UserSet-up Ranking(Standardized,EqualMix,Customizable)Relevance/UpdatedInformation Measureoftime(daily,weekly,monthly,etc.)SupportsMultipleLanguages Yes/No-Number/listoflanguagessupportedStrengths QuantitativelistWeaknesses QuantitativelistCosts DollarValueAvailableITSupport Yes/No - Type/CostsassociatedTraining Yes/No - Type/CostsassociatedUse/Purpose

Aconciseone-sentencedescriptionofthetool’smainpurposeisprovidedtoallowtheuserto

easilyunderstandhowitshouldbeusedandwhatitscapabilitiesare.Forexample,thesentence

willincludethetypeofplatformthetooluses(website,survey,mapping,messageboard)and

explainthemissionofthetool,suchastomaximizeparticipants,collectinformation,createdata

graphics, etc. This sentence is based on the tool’smission and vision statements,marketing

40

information,andthroughanalyzingthestrengthsandweaknessesofthetool.Thiscategoryis

listedfirstsothatuserscaneasilydetermineifthistoolshouldbeconsideredfurther.

Interaction/EngagementOpportunities

Interactionandengagementopportunitieswillconsiderthenumberandbreadthofengagement

opportunities.Itwillincludealistordescriptionofeachwaythatparticipantscanengagewith

theprojectthroughthetool,aswellasgivefeedbackthroughdatacollectionandanalysis.

Appearance/Organization

Basedonbestpracticesfordevelopmentofonlineengagementtools,successfultoolshavemore

graphics than text in order to better engage with participants. This category will use three

qualitativemeasurestoassesthetools:“GraphicHeavy,EqualMixofgraphicsandtext,orText

Heavy.”Toolsthataregraphicheavywillberankedhigher,followedbyequalmix,andthentext

heavy.

UserSet-up

This category will consider whether the tool uses a more standardized platform, a more

customizableplatform,oramixofboth.Thiswillnotaffecttherankingofthetool,asitisupto

theusertodeterminewhethertheywantatoolthatismorestandardizedorcustomizable,based

onthetrade-offsthatareconsideredinbestpracticesforonlineengagementtooldevelopment.

Ifnecessary,usersetupwillbeexplainedfurtherineitherthestrengthsorweaknessescategory.

SupportMultipleLanguages

Thiscategorywilleitheransweryesorno,andifknown,willincludethenumberoflanguages

thatareavailableforeachtoolaswellasthetranslationplug-inavailable(Googletranslate,etc.)

41

StrengthsandWeaknesses

Thesetwocategorieswillcontainalistofthemostimportantstrengthsandweaknessesofeach

tool. This category will allow for an explanation of the ease of navigation,

interaction/engagement opportunities, appearance/organization, and relevance/updated

informationcategories.Thissectionwillnotcontributetotherankingofeachtool,butwillgive

furtherdetailontheuseofthetool.

Costs

Quantitativedataonthecostofthetool,andifavailable,whatisincludedinthatcost.

AvailableITSupport

Yesornoanswerand,ifavailable,furtherdetailonwhatisincluded.

Training

Yesornoanswerand,ifavailable,furtherdetailonwhatisincluded.

42

TableofContentsfortheToolsSurveyTools......................................................................................................................................43

MetroQuest................................................................................................................................................43

AllOurIdeas...............................................................................................................................................44

InteractiveText..........................................................................................................................................45

Codigital.....................................................................................................................................................46

WebsiteBuildingTools.....................................................................................................................47

CoUrbanize.................................................................................................................................................47

Neighborland..............................................................................................................................................48

BangtheTable/EngagementHQ................................................................................................................49

EngagingPlans.............................................................................................................................................50

CitizenSpace..............................................................................................................................................51

Crowdbrite.................................................................................................................................................52

Participate.Online.......................................................................................................................................53

Wejit...........................................................................................................................................................54

BudgetSimulatorTools....................................................................................................................55

BudgetSimulator........................................................................................................................................55

CitizenBudget............................................................................................................................................56

MessageBoardTools........................................................................................................................57

DialogueApp...............................................................................................................................................57

MindMixer..................................................................................................................................................58

Loomio.......................................................................................................................................................59

Zilino...........................................................................................................................................................60

MappingTools..................................................................................................................................61

Maptionnaire.............................................................................................................................................61

SocialPinPoint...........................................................................................................................................62

CommonPlace...........................................................................................................................................63

CommunityRemarks..................................................................................................................................64

PlaceSpeak.................................................................................................................................................65

43

SurveyToolsThe following toolsareused to create surveysorpolls thatwill beused to collectdata from

participants.Otherpopularsurveytoolsthatarenotincludedinthisguideincludewebsitessuch

asSurveyMonkeyandQualtrics.

MetroQuest Analysis

Use/Purpose Publicinvolvementsoftwarethatenablesuserstomaximizethenumberandbreadthofparticipants,collectinformedandactionablepublicinput,andbuildgreatercommunitysupportthroughinteractivesurveys.


Screens:welcome,wrapup,priorityranking,scenariorating,visualpreference,imagerating,mapmarker,projectselection,budgetallocation,fundingbalance,visionstatement,tradeoffs,strategyrating,standardsurvey

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Featurerich

•Nosign-inrequiredwithstillcollectingdemographicdata•Optimizedformobile/smallscreens

Weaknesses •Notaflexible,scalableprojectwebsitepublishingtool•Nosocialmediaintegration

Costs $4,000/month($12,000per3-monthproject)Discountforvolumepricing(ex.6projects$40,000)

AvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes,ProvidesGuideBookExample http://metroquest.com/how-it-works/

44

AllOurIdeas Analysis

Use/Purpose Createsa"wikisurvey"websitetoallowforparticipantstovoteonideasandaddtheirown.Thetooleasilycollectsthedata,transparenttotheparticipants,andallowsforuserstointegratetheresultsintotheplanningprocess


Participantsvotebetweenchoicesonagiventopicandaddtheirownchoices.Choicesaremoderated,thenappearasachoiceforotherparticipantstovoteon.

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-16Strengths •Participantscanaddtheirownchoices

•Simpletosetup,andsimpletouse•Participantscanseetheresultsinstantly

Weaknesses •Noinclusionorwrap-upinformationwhichcouldleaveparticipantsuncertainofthenextsteps•Verylittledescriptionofwhatisbeingdone/nocontext•Nocontroloverthesurveybecauseofthenatureofopenendedquestions/answers

Costs FreetouseAvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample http://allourideas.org/planyc_example?guides=true

45

InteractiveText Analysis

Use/Purpose Collectrepresentativefeedbacktobuildasharedvisionforthefutureorimproveexistingprocesses.Trackparticipantsovertime,soprogramscanimproveandgrow.Sendmessageswhenitcounts.Bite-sizededucationandreal-timeexercisesworkbetterforbusylives.Getpeoplesigneduponthespotandsendremindersbytext.Closethegapbetweeninterestandparticipation.


Sendtextmessages,participantsrespondtothetextmessage

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Cancustomizetocollectthedataneededwithmultiple

questiontypes,built-inlogic,customareacodes,etc.•Canbeusedatanytime,duringmeetingsorbefore/after

Weaknesses •Doesnotcollectdemographicdataunlessthatisthequestionbeingasked

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining YesExample https://www.textizen.com/welcome

46

Codigital Analysis

Use/Purpose Askanopenquestionandhaveparticipantssubmitananswer,ortakeanexistinganswerandtrytoimproveitwithmodifications.


Participantscanvoteonideas,editideas,oraddtheirownideas.Pairsofanswersareshowntoparticipantsandeachtimetheyareaskedtopicktheonetheyprefer,rankingthepreferenceofanswers.

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Allowsforparticipantstobeflexibleintheirresponses

(openendedanswers)•Simpleplatformthatiseasytonavigate•Prioritizesresponsesasparticipantsvote,makingiteasyfordataanalysisandincorporationintoplans

Weaknesses •Noprojectcontextorinformationgiventoexplainthepurposeofthesurveywithinthetool•Nocontroloverthesurveyasanswersareopenended•Textheavy•Noconclusionorwrap-upinformationincluded

Costs Freeforupto50participantswithoneprojectatatime.Corporateratesforunlimitedparticipantsandunlimitedprojectsarenotpubliclyavailable

AvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample http://cd.codigital.com/p/planet

47

WebsiteBuildingToolsThe following tools are used to create websites for community engagement projects. Other

popularwebsitebuildingtoolsthatarenotincludedinthisguideincludeSquarespace,Wix,and

Wordpress.

CoUrbanize Analysis

Use/Purpose Createsanonlinehomeforrealestatedevelopmentandcity/townplanningprojects.Userspostupdatesandhostonlineconversationsabouttheirplanswithparticipants


Suggestions/Askquestionsincommentssection.Receiveresponsesfromtheprojectteam.“Support”optiononcomments;“Follow”optiontoreceiveprojectupdatesbyemail;Surveying/polling/interactivemapping;Timelineofproject/teamupdates;Socialmediaandcontentcreation

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes– 18languagessupportedStrengths • Nohidingofcomments fromprojectteam

• Maphaslayers/legends(niceMapboxintegration)• Optimizedformobile/smallscreens

Weaknesses • Noanonymity.Noprivatemessaging• Projectpageisnotconfigurable• Limitedeventfunctionality

Costs Variable($1,500-$75,000perproject)AvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample https://courbanize.com/projects/theladybird/information

48

Neighborland Analysis

Use/Purpose Designedtohostprojectsonline,listentostakeholders,integrateonlineandofflineengagement,acceptdonations,conductsimplesurveys,andreportbackonimpact.Themissionistoempowerpeopletoshapethedevelopmentoftheirneighborhoods


Surveys,ideation,upvoting,commenting,prioritizations,mapping,scenarios,donations

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-googletranslateStrengths •Featurerich(manydifferentwaysforengagement)

•Googleanalyticsintegrationforreporting•Compatibleonalldevicetypes•Template-basedlayoutoptionsthatmeetspecificprojectneeds

Weaknesses •Longscrollingpagescouldbecomeoverwhelmingwithtoomuchtext•Havetosign-in(optiontoallowanonymoususers)

Costs $1000+/monthAvailableITSupport AdditionalfeeTraining Helptextbuiltintoadminview,howtovideosavailableto

partnersarefree.HandsontraininghasadditionalfeeExample https://neighborland.com/stadiumneighborhoods/about

49

BangtheTable/

EngagementHQ

Analysis

Use/Purpose UsestheEngagmentHQsuiteoftoolsfordesigningwebsitestocollectdataandreportinformation,andlistencitizens’totheconcernsofcitizens.Usedbytowngovernmentstosharemultipleongoingprojectsinoneplaceandallowsfordifferentengagementstrategiesforeachproject.


Engagementtoolsinclude:Mappingsurveying,"virtual"postitnotesforideas,surveys,forums,questions,guestbooks,andpollsInformationandreportingtoolsinclude:participantrelationshipmanagement,e-newsletters,socialplatforms,blogs,informationalwidgets,levelsofvisibility;datainsights,datasummaryreports,demographicbreakdown,commentanalysis,exportableformatsandcharts

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-cancreateseparatewebsitefordifferentlanguages,or

usethegoogletranslatewidgetStrengths •"Homepage"isverygraphicandeasytonavigate

•Eachprojectcanbetreateddifferently,withitsownwaystoengageorgiveinformation/updates•Projectpagesacrosstheboardarestandardized

Weaknesses •Requiressign-upinordertoparticipate;however,youdonothavetosharepersonaldetailswhenyouparticipate•Projectpagescanbeverytextheavy•Difficulttounderstandwaystoengageimmediately

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes

Example https://letstalk.niagarafalls.ca

50

EngagingPlans Analysis

Use/Purpose PartoftheUrbanInteractiveStudio–allowsforprojectteamstobuildaprojectwebsitethatincludestoolsforsharinginformationandcollectingfeedback


Sharinginformation(newsupdates,timeline,documentlibrary,FAQs,emailsubscription,imagegallery);collectinginput(ideawall,discussion&comments,surveys&polls,draftdocumentreview);evaluate(contentmanagementsystem,reportrebuild&dataexports,commentmoderationoptions,builtinSPAMfilter,helpdesk)

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up CustomizableSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-GoogleTranslateStrengths •Highlyflexible

•Feature-richWeaknesses •Commentscanbehidden/moderated

•Nosociallayer•Noconsistencyamongprojects

Costs Variable:$1,000-$20,000/projectAvailableITSupport Yes–WebsupportonlyTraining Yes–$125/hourExample https://abc-zone.com

51

CitizenSpace Analysis

Use/Purpose Anadaptablesystemforcreatingonlineconsultations.Manageallpublicinvolvementactivity,runonlineconsultationsandsurveys,andanalyzeandreportbackonfindings.Specificallydesignedwithgovernmentsforpublicsectoruse.(PartoftheDelibtoolset)


Participantscansearchfordifferentconsultationprojectsandengagementactivityopportunitiesthatanorganizationhasgoingon.Thetoolcanconnecttootherengagementtoolsoruseabuilt-insurveyapplication.Theorganizationcanalsoshareimportantinformation,summarizeconsultationresults,andprovidedocumentsandcontextualinformation.

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Keepsallengagementopportunitiesinonelocation-easyto

find•Canlinktoothertools,allowsformultiplewaysofengagement•Integratesdocuments,maps,andcontextualinformationeasily

Weaknesses •Limitedin-toolengagementopportunities-onlyoptiontocreatesurveys•Canbetextheavydependingonmanagementbyuser

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes-dedicatedsupportpersonforeachprojectExample https://www.citizenspace.com/info/tour

52

Crowdbrite Analysis

Use/Purpose Communicateplans,buildcommunity,prioritizeinvestment,andinspireactionthroughmobilefriendly,onlinetoolsforcomprehensiveplanning,capitalimprovements,andothermajorprojects.Hastoolsforfivemajorplanningareas:informing,consulting,involving,collaborating,andempowering.


Audio/video"welcomes"tocommunicatepurpose,goals,andobjective;visualsurveys;drag&dropideamap;idea/commentcards;progresstrackers;onlineopenhouse;documentreview;andfeedbackforms.Alsoprovidesresourcesforenhancingonsiteengagementoptionssuchastwitterpostcards,paperpolls,posterboards,workshopsupplies,mobilesurveys,kiosks,openhousehit,digitalworkshop/charrettekit,andsmarttables

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up CustomizableSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Compellingwebsitedesignsthatfeaturegraphicswith

informationoverlays•Widerangeofengagementopportunitiestofitanystageoftheengagementprocess•Layoutamongprojectwebsitesremainsstandard•Strongmobileandsocialcomponents

Weaknesses •Projectwebsitescancontaintoomuchinformation•Engagementopportunitiesnotimmediatelyfeatured,moreimportancegiventoinformationthandatacollection•Successfuldeploymentoftooldependsonguidancefromthetooldeveloperteam

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining N/AExample http://www.urbanforestsf.com

53

Participate.Online Analysis

Use/Purpose Projectwebsitesdesignedtomimicapublicopenhouse-stylemeeting.Thewebsitesectionsaretopicfocusedasifparticipantswereatanin-personmeeting(tables,booths,boards,organizedaroundaroom).Participantscantakenotesastheyreadthroughtheinformationandthensubmitcomments.


Surveysfordemographics,Commentsubmissions,onlineconversations,mappingcomments

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up CustomizableSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Flexibleintegrationwithothertoolssuchasmailchimp,

vimeo,andsuveygizmowithintheplatform•Don'tneedtologintoparticipate,veryeasytosubmitcomments•Usesgoogleanalyticstotrackdatacollected

Weaknesses •Highlycustomizableformatcanleadtotextheavyprojectwebsites•Websiteisformattedinthatyoureadthroughmanypagesofcontextbeforegettingtomakecomments(aplacetotakenotesisatbottomofeachpagehowever)•Limitedengagementopportunities

Costs $5000forsingleeventsAvailableITSupport YesTraining YesExample https://demo.participate.online

54

Wejit Analysis

Use/Purpose Createaone-pagewebsitethatcollectsvotes,commentsandresults


Participantscanrespondtothetopicbyselectingoneofthetopics(poll)orbywritinganopenendedanswer.

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Onlyonepagewhichkeepstheprojectsimple

•Fivedifferentoptionsforthetypeofengagementtouse(openendedanswers,yesornowithjustification,multiplechoice,prioritization,orvoteforsuggestion)•Canaddimage,video,anddocumentstothepage

Weaknesses •Limitedtoonlyonetypeofengagementopportunityperproject•Lackofcustomization•Havetolog-intoparticipate

Costs FreeAvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample http://www.mywejit.com/#!signin

55

BudgetSimulatorToolsThefollowingtoolsareusedtocreatebudgetsimilationstocollectdataonhowparticipantsthink

budgetsshouldbebalancedforcommunityengagementprocesses.

BudgetSimulator Analysis

Use/Purpose Engagecitizenswithbudgetsandinspireinsightfulresponse.Adigitaltoolthatletspeopleexploreandconsiderthetrade-offsbetweendifferentcombinationsofpriorities.(PartoftheDelibtoolset)


Participantsadjustslidersondifferentareasorthemes,seeingtheeffectonitemssuchaslikeoverallbudget,taxlevels,andconsequencesforservices.Usersarepresentedwithtotalbudgetandthencanadjustspendinginkeyareasuntilthey'resatisfiedwiththeoverallbalanceofallocations

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes(extrafeetoprovide)Strengths •Showshowbudgetscanaffectparticipantpersonallybased

ondemographicinformation(ex.Howthebudgetwillchangetheirpropertytaxrates)•Includespotentialconsequencestotheoverallprojectforeachchangetothebudget•Projectpagesacrosstheboardarestandardized,buteachprojectcanbecustomizedwithgraphics

Weaknesses •Maytakeawhiletosetupalltheinformation•Textheavywithahighreadingcomprehensionlevelneeded•Noteasilyembeddedintoprojectwebsite-needstoredirectparticipantstoaseparatewebsitetousethetool

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes-Providesaguideonlineandaccountmanagertohelp

withconfigurationExample https://www.budgetsimulator.com/info/tour

56

CitizenBudget Analysis

Use/Purpose Interactiveplatformthatshowsthefinancialimpactsonbudgetofparticipants'choicesinrealtime,educatingthemaboutthetrade-offsandconstraintsfacedbymunicipalities


Participantsmakebudgetchoices,answersurveyquestions,andmakecommentsonselectedtopics.Theyalsogetinformationaboutthetopics,andcanbelinkedbacktotheprojectwebsite/relativeprojectdocumentstohelpmaketheirdecisions.

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up CustomizableSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Canembedlinksandgraphicsintotooltolinkbackto

projectwebsite•Optiontocreateprintversionsofbudgetconsultationtoreachofflineresidents•Commentboxesandsurveyquestionsincludedwiththebudgetsliders

Weaknesses •Maytakeparticipantsawhiletoanswerallquestions•Customizationcancauseanoverwhelmingamountofinformationprovidedtoparticipants•Notvisuallyexciting

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes-dedicatedsupportpersonforeachprojectExample http://www.citizenbudget.com/index.html

57

MessageBoardToolsThefollowingtoolsareusedtocreatemessageboardsforcommunityengagementprocesses

thatwillallowparticipantstohaveconversationswitheachotheraswellaswiththeusersofthe

tool.Socialmediasiteshavesimilarcapabilitiesasthesetools,howevertheyarenotincludedin

thisguide.

DialogueApp Analysis

Use/Purpose Solvepolicychallengeswithinputfromparticipantsthroughconstructiveconversationonline.Dialoguegivesusersanopportunitytoinvolvecommunitiesintheissuesthatmattertothem(PartoftheDelibtoolset)


Participantscanaddcommentstotopicscreatedbytheuser,commentonotherparticipantsposts,andvoteoncomments.Usersareabletorespondtocommentsaswell

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Verysimpleplatformthatiseasytouse

•Moderationformatkeepsconversationsontrackandencouragesproductiveengagement•Userdashboardgivesheadlinestatswithabilitytoexportdataeasily•Verysimpletoolsetupwithuser-friendlyadmintools

Weaknesses •Notvisuallyexciting,nographics•Lacksspacetoincludecontextaboutprojects

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes-dedicatedsupportpersonforeachprojectExample https://www.dialogue-app.com/info/tour

58

MindMixer Analysis

Use/Purpose Createsaprojectwebsitethatallowsforusestoshareprojectinformationandreceivecommentsfromparticipantsondifferenttopics.


Participantscanaddideasindifferenttopicsections,rateothersideas,commentonthoseideas,orsharethroughsocialmedia.

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-GoogleTranslateStrengths •Hasdedicatedspacetoincludecontextabouttheproject

•Engagementopportunitiesarefoundeasilyandsimpletouse•Canchoosetoreceiveupdatesabouttheproject

Weaknesses •Limitedpublishingfunctionality•Havetosignintoparticipate•Limitedspaceforgraphics,makingittextheavyandoverwhelmingonsomeprojects

Costs •$3,000/annualfor1license•$5,000/annualfor5licenses

AvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample https://www.mindmixer.com

59

Loomio Analysis

Use/Purpose Appforcollaborativedecision-making.Empowersparticipantstocometogether,buildsharedunderstanding,andagreeonaclearcourseofaction.


ParticipantsgatherintheLoomioapp,startadiscussionwhereeveryoneinthegroupcanparticipate,makeproposals,andthendecideandactbyagreeing,abstaining,disagreeing,orblockingtheproposal.Whenparticipantsselecttheirpositionstheycanalsoenterashortstatementtoexplainwhy,creatingasummaryofeveryone'sthoughts.Alsooptionsforpollingabouttopics.

Appearance/Organization TextHeavyUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Simpletouse

•Formatmakesdecisionmakingmoreefficient•Formattedwellformobileuseandintegrationwithothertools

Weaknesses •Mustuseemail,Google,orFacebookaccounttologin•Lacksspacetoincludecontextaboutprojects

Costs •Freeforcasualandcommunitygroups(onegroupatatime)•$19/monthforGoldsubscription•$99/monthforProsubscription

AvailableITSupport N/ATraining OnlineguideExample https://www.loomio.org/p/lGcs8zJ5?invitation_token=

3ccd3ef5fcc5b002a890

60

Zilino Analysis

Use/Purpose Zilinoisaweb-basedsolutionforhostingadvancedgroupdialogues.Zilinoenablesfacilitatorsandothergroupprocesspractitionerstodesign,hostandmanagedeliberativeonlineforumsandothertypesofintentional,well-structured,well-facilitatedandoutcome-orientedparticipatoryprocesses.


Moderateannouncementsandgroupupdates,resourcesharinganddocumentuploadforcollaborativelearning,whole-groupdiscussionincludingstructuretheming,small-groupdialogueandbreakoutsessionsincludingcollaborativenotetaking,pollingandvotingincludingrankorderingandrangevoting,storytellingandstorysharing

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Incorporatesseveralwaysforengagementfocusedaround

theconversation•Projectpagesnotvisuallyexcitingandcanbecometextheavy

Weaknesses •Mustcreateanaccounttoaccessanypartofthetool•Cannotbeembeddedintoexistingprojectwebsites

Costs •PerProject:$5/participant/month,$150/facilitator/month•Subscriptionsstartat$100/month•Full-servicepackagesrangebetween$5,000-$25,000

AvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/AExample http://ecastonline.zilino.com

61

MappingToolsThe following tools are used to create maps that collect data from participants on various

communityengagementprojects.

Maptionnaire Analysis

Use/Purpose Engagesparticipantsthroughmappingtocollectsurveydata.Usersmakeamap-baseddatacollectionandcantransformthedataintotangibleinsightsanddevelopdeeperunderstandingoftheresults.IncorporatedatacollectedusingMaptionnariesintoplansanddesigns.


Participantsanswersurveyquestions,placemarkersonthemap,andaddcomments.

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages YesStrengths •Givesparticipantsoptionsfortypesofmaptouse(Bing

satelliteorMapBox)•Surveyquestionsstartwithdemographicswithoutrequiringanameoremail•Differenttypesofsurveyquestionskeepparticipantsengagedandinterested•Howtoaddmarkersandcommentstothemapiswellexplainedandeasytodo

Weaknesses •Cannotseeother'sresponseswhileaddingtothemap•Lacksspacetoincludecontextabouttheproject•Cannotbeintegratedintoanexistingprojectwebsite

Costs Oneprojectcanrangefrom$625-$2000dependingonthenumberofmonthstheprojectislivefor•$250/monthforeachmonthover4months•$6251/yearforafullannualplan

AvailableITSupport Yes-AdditionalpriceTraining Yes-AdditionalpriceExample https://app.maptionnaire.com/en/2133/

62

SocialPinPoint Analysis

Use/Purpose Mappingtoolthatallowsparticipantstoshowexactlywheretheirfeedback,ideas,andconcernsrelateto.


Participantscanaddcommentstoamap,viewotherscomments,likeordislikeothercomments

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Projectsetupisquickandsimple

•Comprehensivedataanalysisprovidedbyplatform•Hasawiderangeoffeaturestobeutilized•IncorporateownGISdataintothemap

Weaknesses •Cannotbeintegratedintoexistingprojectwebsite•Nowaytocollectdemographicinformation•Limitedengagementopportunities

Costs •StandardProjectLicense$1920/annual•ProfessionalProjectLicense$2880/annual•Enterpriselicensenotpubliclyavailable•Organizationalpricingalsoavailableformultipleprojects

AvailableITSupport YesTraining N/AExample https://www.socialpinpoint.com/project/central-coast-

council-coast-pathways/

63

CommonPlace Analysis

Use/Purpose Commonplace'sonlineconsultationplatformgivesqualityanddepthofengagementneededtoincreasereach,buildtrust,andgetbuy-infromlocalcommunities.Allowsuserstosetupawebsitetoprovideinformationandupdatesaboutaproject,whilereceivingcommentsaboutareasthatneedimprovementsorfeedbackontheproposeddesigns


Participantscanmakecommentsonamapbychoosingthelocation,providinganactionthatisneeded,andanyadditionalcomments.Participantscanagreewiththesecommentsbylikingthem,orsharingthemonsocialmedia.Inprojectswithnomapsparticipantscanmakecommentsontopics.Optiontolinktosurveysfromexternaltools.

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up EqualMixSupportsMultipleLanguages N/AStrengths •Choiceofstandardizedlayoutsforwebsitesthatallowsfor

customizationthroughthetypeofinformationtheuserprovides•Addingcommentsisveryeasyandtakesverylittletime•Providesoptionsforresponsesinordertoframethediscussionratherthangatheronlyopenendedanswers•Norequirementtolog-intoprovidecomments•Optiontocreatecompellinggraphicsfromtheresultsofcommentscollected

Weaknesses •Cannotbeintegratedintoexistingprojectwebsite•Nowaytocollectdemographicinformationunlessparticipantchoosestocreateanoptionalaccount

Costs NotPubliclyAvailableAvailableITSupport N/ATraining N/A

Example https://bristolbugbears.commonplace.is/comments

64

CommunityRemarks Analysis

Use/Purpose CommunityRemarksmakesiteasyforparticipantstoplotacommentonaGooglemap.Showsimprovementprojectsandillustratespertinentprojectdetailstogetinformedfeedback.Crowdsourcecommentsduringthevisioningprocess,thenpresentplansforfeedback.Useitcontinuouslyforalltypesofprojectsinplanningareaswithoutincreasedfees.


Participantscanaddcommentstomaptopics;addphotostocomments;voteonother'scomments;cansharecommentsonsocialmedia;commentsarealsoaddedtostreetview.Registrationisnotrequired,butoptional.

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-GoogleTranslateStrengths •Commentsubmissionisguidedthroughpromptsrather

thanopenended•Googlemapsintegrationmakestheplatformfamiliartomostparticipants•OverlayscanbeaddedtomapstoshowlandmarksthroughGISlayers(canalsobeexportedtoGIS)•Wellintegratedformobileuse-willfindcurrentlocationofparticipant

Weaknesses •Cannotbeembeddedintoexistingprojectwebsite•Doesnotintegrateanyotherwaysforengagement

Costs •BasicLicense,collectplace-basedcomments:$1,995(one-timefee)•Basic+Plus,allphasesofengagement:$2,720(one-timefee)•Basic+PlusforTIP,DOTprojects&fiscalconstraints:$5,845(annual)•WebHosting:$320(annual)

AvailableITSupport Yes(dependsonlicensing,minimumof4hoursoftechnicalsupport)

Training Yes-1-hourdemosessiontofullyutilizeallthefeaturesintheadmin

Example https://communityremarks.com/projects/

65

PlaceSpeak Analysis

Use/Purpose PlaceSpeak’suniquegeo-verificationprocessconnectsparticipants’digitalidentitytotheirphysicallocationandmakecommentsonprojects.Existingparticipantsareautomaticallynotifiedofnewconsultationsintheircommunitybasedontheirinterests.


Participantsselecttopicsonamapoftheirlocalareaandaddcommentsortakesurveys

Appearance/Organization EqualMixUserSet-up StandardizedSupportsMultipleLanguages Yes-GoogleTranslateStrengths •Canbeintegratedintoanexistingprojectwebsite

•Engagementopportunitiesoneachsectionforeachproject•Lightontext,makingitvisuallyappealingandeasytonavigatethrough•Canviewotherparticipantscomments

Weaknesses •Participantsmustregisterforthesitewiththeiraddressandphonenumber,howevertheycanmaketheiraccountprivate•Doesn'tcollectanyotherdemographicdataotherthanlocation

Costs •StandardLicense$249.99/monthor$2499.99/year•PremiumLicense$499.99/monthor$4999.99/year•Additionalchargesforadd-ons

AvailableITSupport YesTraining Yes-$500/hourforupto4peopleExample https://www.placespeak.com/en/topic/5700-556-576-

conservation-dr/#/overview

66

[End of Document]

a user guide to online engagement tools...a user guide to online engagement tools sarah parkins,...

Documents