FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway

Rural Virtual Public Involvement

Synthesis and Tools

Wallowa County, Oregon

Source: Oregon Capital Chronicle

June 20, 2023

Prepared for:

Federal Highway Administration

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Prepared by:

Oregon State University Policy Analysis 

Laboratory (OPAL)
Introduction to the Report

This report brings together the challenges of connecting with rural communities and 

implementing virtual tools under the shared umbrella of public involvement. It synthesizes 

existing research and practices pertaining to the overlap of rural issues in virtual public spaces, 

acknowledging that public transportation projects sometimes need to seek input from rural 

communities by methods that deviate from those used in urban projects. While the Covid-19 

pandemic introduced many agencies to the utility of virtual public involvement (VPI) tools, 

wielding these tools in rural project settings entails its own sets of challenges, benefits, and 

considerations. The purpose of the report is to assist transportation practitioners in developing 

their own, local frameworks for decision-making around how to connect with rural communities 

and whether virtual tools might be appropriate in doing so. In this context, transportation 

practitioners might include engineers, project managers, planners, or others who are weighing 

public involvement strategies for transportation-related projects. 

The report begins by broadly discussing the Challenges and Barriers to Rural VPI through a 

review of existing academic and organizational literature. From there, VPI Tools and Practices 

delves into the various categories of virtual tools available to facilitate public involvement, 

emphasizing the ways these tools respond to the challenges and barriers highlighted previously. 

Four Case Examples then exemplify how agencies contend with rurality while making decisions 

about VPI tools in context of their particular transportation-related objectives. Finally, we 

conclude with Recommendations and steps for practitioners to take as they advance their own 

projects.

This report was created through collaboration between the FHWA Western Federal Lands 

Highway Division and Oregon State University’s Policy Analysis Lab (OPAL). The members of the 

project management team (PMT) are as follows:

Cole Grisham, AICP – PMT Lead; Transportation Planner, FHWA Western Federal Lands

Jenna Berman – PMT Member; Active Transportation Liaison, Oregon Department of 

Transportation

Mark Edwards, Ph.D. – PMT Member; OPAL Supervisor and Sociology Professor, Oregon State 

University

Ravyn Cervantes – Co-author; Master’s Student, Oregon State University

Lauren Kolojejchick-Kotch – Co-author; Master’s Student, Oregon State University 
Table of Contents

Challenges and Barriers to Rural VPI: A Review of Existing Research..................................... 1

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

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

Frameworks............................................................................................................................ 2

Challenges and Barriers ......................................................................................................... 4

Underrepresented Populations ............................................................................................... 7

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 9

VPI Tools and Practices............................................................................................................... 10

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................10

Context..................................................................................................................................10

Existing VPI Tools .................................................................................................................12

Case Examples .............................................................................................................................22

Case Example 1: ...................................................................................................................22

Case Example 2: ...................................................................................................................25

Case Example 3: ...................................................................................................................26

Case Example 4: ...................................................................................................................28

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................31

What do communities need to be engaged?..........................................................................31

What else is needed to support practitioners in fostering diverse inclusion?..........................32

Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 35

Summary Points ....................................................................................................................35

Steps for Practitioners to Consider ........................................................................................36

Implementation Actions............................................................................................................. 39

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................40

Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 43
1 

Challenges and Barriers to Rural VPI: A Review of Existing Research

Introduction

There are many challenges to improving rural virtual public involvement (VPI) and many barriers 

to participation for rural communities. This section outlines the primary challenges for planners 

and agencies in this process, so that transportation practitioners can meaningfully consider 

solutions and apply helpful tools in their given context. 

We first offer background on the criteria used to structure this review, then introduce 

overarching frameworks that can be useful for contextualizing the subsequent sections. We then 

describe the primary challenges and barriers to rural VPI reported in the literature, before 

highlighting three underrepresented populations. 

Background

We use a definition of rural defined by the US Department of Transportation:1 a community of 

up to 5,000 people, located outside of a US Census-designated urbanized area (an area >50,000 

people). This definition includes incorporated, rural unincorporated, and Tribal communities in 

rural places. Rural areas cover 97% of US land area but contain about 19% of the population, 

have an older median age, and have a population that is more reliant on driving and has more 

limited transit service than urban areas.2 The documents surveyed in this review include 

academic literature from peer-reviewed journals, as well as reports found in the Transport 

Research International Documentation (TRID) database. Supplementary policy documents from 

government and nonprofit organizations were compiled to offer a fuller view of the topic from 

practitioners’ and partners’ standpoints. While the majority of sources pertain to US contexts, 

select international sources are included to supplement US-based contributions.

Rural populations often also include Tribal communities. The project team recognizes, however, 

that VPI is not the same as Tribal consultation, the latter being a formal government-togovernment process with sovereign Tribal nations and the former being a broader set of 

engagement tools. For the purposes of this study, the project team is focused on rural VPI 

barriers, opportunities, and tools generally that may be valuable to broad public engagement 

practices, including Tribal planning practitioners within their communities.

1 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, “Rural Eligibility,” Accessed March 20, 2023, 

https://www.transportation.gov/rural/eligibility. 2 Andrew Broderick, The Future of Rural Transportation and Mobility for Older Adults: Current Trends and Future 

Directions in Technology-Enabled Solutions, CITRIS and the Banatao Institute, and Grantmakers in Aging, 2018, 

https://www.giaging.org/documents/180424_CITRIS_rural_mobility_paper_F.pdf. 
2 

Frameworks

There are several terms and concepts relevant to the challenges and barriers to VPI that 

transportation practitioners must navigate. Even when operating within state or federal 

mandates, practitioners are responsible to help shape engagement processes. The following 

concepts can serve as reminders of some of the first questions to ask when preparing to solicit 

public participation for a project.

Entitativity can be defined as the property of a collectivity that differentiates a coherent social 

group from an aggregate of individuals. Entitativity offers a framework for understanding what 

qualities of a place-based social group make it different from merely an aggregate of 

individuals.3 While it is common to think of social groups as communities, entitativity enables a 

deeper and more rigorous investigation into the substance and meaning-making practices of 

those who reside in a place. How do individuals group themselves within a community and 

generate coherence? What factors render a community homogeneous or heterogeneous? 

Whitham4 studied rural communities in Iowa to understand how boundaries, interactions, 

shared goals, proximity, and similarity influenced community cohesion in ways that affected 

individuals’ local civic participation. Greater rurality (greater boundary discernibility), sociality, 

and shared goals were all positively correlated with civic participation among small-town 

residents. Practitioners can use these considerations in the planning stages as they evaluate how 

best to introduce VPI tools in a project. Each rural community contains a different set of factors 

that can influence its receptivity to particular tools and its motivation to engage with public 

projects. 

Entitativity can also offer insights into what promotes rural community resilience. In the UK, 

Roberts et al. examined how digital inclusion can factor into community resilience frameworks.5

Access to funding opportunities, protection of local natural resources, and the maintenance of 

social/public memory depend on an entitative understanding of rural communities as both 

active and proactive, and can highlight some of the benefits of digital inclusion. In addition to 

considering what the community is like and how it might respond as a place-based social group, 

transportation practitioners may also find value in thinking about how best to encourage 

meaningful citizen participation that supports the community’s existing goals. Arnstein’s Ladder 

can be a helpful visualization for the various types of citizen participation. 

3 Monica M. Whitham, “Community Entitativity and Civic Engagement,” City & Community 18, no. 3 (2019): 896-914, 

https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12385. 4 Monica M. Whitham, “Community Entitativity and Civic...”

5 Elisabeth Roberts et al., “A Review of the Rural-Digital Policy Agenda from a Community Resilience Perspective,” 

Journal of Rural Studies 54(2017): 372-385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.03.001. 
3 

Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation6 (See Figure 1) offers a community-centered way of 

gauging program effectiveness, reinforcing the significance and quality of citizen participation 

as both essential to a program’s success and also made better/worse by the entity implementing 

the program. It helps practitioners recognize that an agency’s willingness to share power is key 

to effective community programming. Haugen and Chouinard7 assert that power is essential to 

understanding relationships between evaluators, practitioners, and participants—and that the 

questions that frame program setup and implementation should consider these undercurrents. 

At the bottom of Arnstein’s ladder are Nonparticipation tactics like therapy and manipulation, 

grouped together as ways that an organization might take full control of a process and disallow 

citizens to participate by strictly enforcing their vision of the project onto all stakeholders 

outside the organization. Organizations that use these strategies may convey intolerance of all 

feedback, focusing instead on how to prevent other stakeholders from offering input. The 

ladder’s middle level, Tokenism, groups together behaviors that organizations use when they 

solicit community feedback but remain rigidly attached to their original plans. They may 

understand that stakeholder approval is necessary for the plan to move forward, thus engaging 

community stakeholders in limited ways that are designed to solicit such approval. 

In the upper steps of the ladder, Citizen Control denotes practices that organizations use to 

offer community participants a meaningful role in shaping the program’s direction and 

outcomes. These strategies require practitioners to be flexible with timelines, goals, and 

deliverables based on what community stakeholders declare is needed, and they allow 

community members to take various degrees of initiative in producing the desired outcomes. 

Because communities participate in shaping outcomes, those outcomes are more likely to be 

satisfactory and sustainable for citizen stakeholders. Blevins, Morton, and McGovern8 offer an 

example from the realm of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to emphasize careful 

consideration of not only practitioners’ desired degree of collaboration with community 

partners, but also the readiness and resources of those partners to engage in collaboration.

6 Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, no. 4 (1969): 

216-224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. 

7 Jaimie Stickl Haugen & Jill Ann Chouinard, “Transparent, Translucent, Opaque: Exploring the Dimensions of Power in 

Culturally Responsive Evaluation Contexts,” American Journal of Evaluation 40, no. 3(2019): 376-394, 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018796342. 8 Dean Blevins, Bridget Morton, & Rene McGovern, “Evaluating a Community-Based Participatory Research Project for 

Elderly Mental Healthcare in Rural America,” Clinical Interventions in Aging 3, no. 3(2008): 535-545, 

https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s1540. 
4 

Figure 1: Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)

Challenges and Barriers 

The previous Background and Frameworks sections acknowledge the challenges that 

transportation practitioners face in appropriately shaping the public involvement process, and in 

building readiness and resources in their agencies for public involvement. There are also 

overarching challenges in generating virtual involvement from rural communities. Existing 

literature reviewed for this report suggest the following: 

I. Gauging Existing Community Involvement

Practitioners from federal and state agencies can sometimes be viewed as outsiders to a local 

community. To the extent that they are treated as such, how can practitioners correctly assess 

who is already engaged within the community and who is not? Social inclusion is a communitycentered dynamic that has implications for individuals’ wellbeing; however, Shortall9 argues that 

it should not be equated with civic participation. Non-participation in certain civic projects can 

be a valid choice for some groups and is not always indicative of social exclusion. This means 

9 Sally Shortall, “Are Rural Development Programmes Socially Inclusive? Social Inclusion, Civic Engagement, 

Participation, and Social Capital: Exploring the Differences,” Journal of Rural Studies 24(2008): 450-457, 

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001. 
5 

that in addition to casting a wide net for potential participants, practitioners may also want to be 

attentive to feedback and other signals from community leaders when thoughtfully evaluating 

what inclusion looks like for a given project. Partnering with community leaders to address this 

challenge will be further explored in Tools and Practices.

Community entitativity can impact residents’ goals and vision for the community, which 

transportation practitioners can learn more about within shared community spaces.10

Practitioners will want to devote time and staff resources to learning about their communities in 

order to better discern how to structure invitations to participate in their own project. For 

example, if most members of a community pay utility bills in person, there may be an 

opportunity to offer information and hand out flyers about an upcoming project webinar at the 

utilities office, in addition to including information in bills mailed to community members. 

Public gathering spaces, events, and celebrations can offer glimpses into this community life. A 

challenge, however, is that the more cohesive a community is, the less welcome outsiders might 

be in these shared public gatherings. Both measuring and fostering community trust may be 

difficult. Modeling reciprocity is one way for practitioners to garner trust, as discussed further in 

Tools and Practices.

II. Integration of VPI with Traditional/Analog Tools

Engaging rural communities with virtual tools and practices does not negate the value of inperson and analog tools. Discerning the desired combination of tools across modalities can be a 

significant challenge. This challenge requires consideration of all populations that need to be 

engaged and how they might be most able or interested in participating, as well as what 

communication channels and efforts will be most effective and impactful.11 Deliberation about 

all of these considerations can happen in coordination with local partners and target 

populations. Early community engagement could include asking people how they want to be 

engaged, thus empowering participation and “ownership,” and ensuring that meeting timing 

and format are well-tailored. This topic is discussed in depth in the context of tools and 

practices that allow for the integration of VPI with analog tools.

10 Monica M. Whitham, “Community Entitativity and Civic...” 11 Get There Oregon. Core Principles for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Engagement in Transportation Options 

Programs. Accessed March 20, 2023. https://getthereoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Core-Principles-forLEP-Engagement-Appendix-FINAL.pdf. 
6 

III. The Digital Divide and Broadband Availability

The digital divide refers to the separation between areas that have access to digital 

communication technologies and those that do not (or have significantly reduced access).12 The 

effects of the digital divide and lack of comprehensive broadband Internet access in rural 

communities is a well-known issue both in the US and abroad. While rural business owners, in 

particular, can face threats to their prosperity in rural places that lack broadband access, it may 

also be true that communities without such access are dependent on particular business models 

in which the Internet does not play a heavy role.13 14 Thus, when considering the long-term 

economic growth of rural communities and what community members consider to be useful 

towards that goal, broadband Internet does not automatically correlate with perceived 

progress—nor does the mere availability of broadband correlate with community members’ 

desire to use it.15 16 This can make it difficult to introduce digital or technology-based tools into 

communities that do not find Internet technologies relevant to either the present or the future. 

Tensions around technology and digital access can undermine rural partnerships, necessitating a 

responsive and localized approach to ensure that the introduction of virtual tools achieves its 

intended purpose of broadening the base of participation in community projects.17 Sanders and 

Scanlon18 argue that rural communities that overlap with disadvantaged populations, including 

people of color and older individuals, are systematically marginalized by lack of broadband 

access in four primary domains: access, skills, economic opportunity, and democracy. 

Increasingly, Internet technologies are necessary to interact with the government, which impacts 

both the accessibility of necessary services and the democratic potential inherent in whether 

community members have a voice in the processes that govern their lives. Not knowing, or 

12 Michael O. Erdiaw-Kwasie & Khorshed Alam, “Towards Understanding Digital Divide in Rural Partnerships and 

Development: A Framework and Evidence from Rural Australia,” Journal of Rural Studies 43(2016): 214-224, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.002. 13 Teresa Correa & Isabel Pavez, “Digital Inclusion in Rural Areas: A Qualitative Exploration of Challenges Faced by 

People From Isolated Communities,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(2016): 247-263, 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12154. 

14 Leanne Townsend, Claire Wallace, & Gorry Fairhurst, “‘Stuck Out Here’: The Critical Role of Broadband for Remote 

Rural Places,” Scottish Geographical Journal 131, nos. 3-4(2015): 171-180, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.978807. 

15 Elizabeth A. Mack, “Broadband and knowledge intensive firm clusters: Essential link or auxiliary connection?” Papers 

in Regional Science 93, no. 1(2014): 3-29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00461.x. 16 Brian Whitacre & Jacob Manlove, “Use of Broadband Linked to Greater Levels of Civic Engagement,” The Daily 

Yonder, September 22, 2016, https://dailyyonder.com/use-of-broadband-linked-to-greater-levels-of-civicengagement/2016/09/22/. 

17 Michael O. Erdiaw-Kwasie & Khorshed Alam, “Towards Understanding Digital Divide...” 18 Cynthia K. Sanders & Edward Scanlon, “The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion 

Through Social Work Advocacy,” Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 6(2021): 130-143, 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9. 
7 

being able to learn, the skills necessary to succeed in a digitized economy can foreshorten rural 

residents’ economic opportunities, as well.

It is imperative that those who wish to introduce virtual tools must do more than simply offer 

them, but must partner with residents to help them see the value in Internet infrastructures and 

become digitally fluent. With regard to transportation and other public projects that may 

already have technological components built into user services, it is necessary to consider what 

digital inequality looks like and what its consequences are.19 Digital inequality can include 

differential access to phones and computers, and also disparate abilities to effectively use 

applications and interactive features. Having access to technology is not an automatic benefit 

for a community with low knowledge or motivation to engage online. Conducting any 

preparation, training, and support that may be offered for using virtual tools early in an 

engagement process can ensure that participants are more prepared to engage when core 

events are underway. 

Underrepresented Populations

We expected to see research devoted to engaging populations that are more challenging to 

connect with in a virtual or hybrid format, namely, older populations, those experiencing 

poverty, and populations with English language barriers. While academic literature pertaining to 

these populations was limited, some nonprofit and government documents provide relevant 

insight. Recommendations associated with these populations will be further described in Tools 

and Practices.

I. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Populations 

A report produced by Get There Oregon20 highlights challenges and best practices for better 

engagement with those who are not native English speakers. The report makes 

recommendations to address the specific challenges practitioners have encountered, including 

invitations to participate without a response, lack of trust, and not being able to reach target 

populations. Recommendations include building trust, establishing partnerships, identifying 

individual and cultural needs and barriers to using existing transportation options, identifying 

appropriate and viable solutions to these challenges, improving access to transportation options

to community events where they can engage, and building confidence in existing options. These 

types of considerations are often prerequisites to choosing effective virtual tools. The Case 

19 Anne Durand et al., “Access Denied? Digital Inequality in Transport Services,” Transport Reviews 42, no. 1 (2022): 32-

57, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1923584. 20 Get There Oregon, Core Principles for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Engagement in Transportation Options 

Programs. Accessed March 20, 2023, https://getthereoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Core-Principles-forLEP-Engagement-Appendix-FINAL.pdf. 
8 

Examples section of Tools and Practices offers specific examples of how addressing these 

prerequisites can impact a LEP community. 

Overall, few academic sources addressed this challenge specifically. The Greater Portland Council 

of Governments (GPCOG) describes some of the ways the City of Portland, Maine, reached out 

to local immigrant populations. Challenges included not just how to effectively communicate 

with these groups, but also how to gain access to them.21 They designed a leadership program 

called Natural Helpers, which trains and empowers local immigrants to distribute information on 

city initiatives and programs within community centers and via digital tools like WhatsApp. They 

also employ four interpretation providers to translate information as needed to immigrant 

community members.

II. Older Populations

The older demographic is important in rural places, where the average age is higher. A US 

Census Bureau report shows that 17.5% of the rural population was 65 years and older, 

compared to 13.8% in urban areas, and the share of this population is highest in the middle of 

the country.22 Some academic literature addresses engaging older populations in the context of 

potential access to resources and ability to navigate some systems. Blevins, Morton, and 

McGovern23 assessed a community-based participatory research (CBPR) program in rural 

Missouri that pertained to mental healthcare for older adults—a vulnerable population that 

tended to be less willing to access services despite greater need. They found that, even though 

the program began with a top-down approach, community members eventually asserted 

greater responsibility over outcomes. This was due to the value of CBPR in enabling effective 

interventions that communities could sustain. This also required community members outside of 

the target group (elderly people) to invest in this focus.

The largest barriers to engaging older adults in rural transportation planning conversations in 

virtual formats are residents’ virtual tool fluency (the ability to use virtual tools easily and 

accurately), communities’ broadband access, and, ironically, practitioners’ thinking about 

transportation as an isolated service rather than as a feature of a social determinant of health.24

Many older adult populations encounter significant mobility restrictions, and may use transit 

more and in very specific ways. Greenfield and Buffel25 reiterate that transportation access and 

engagement in planning processes is foundational to older adults’ ability to engage in 

21 Greater Portland Council of Governments [GPCOG], “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement: Lessons from the 

Field,” October 2020, https://www.gpcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1420/GPCOG_Virtual-Engagement-WhitePaper_Final_102120-for-website-1?bidId=. 

22 Amy Symens Smith & Edward Trevelyan, “The Older Population in Rural America: 2012-2016,” US Census Bureau, 

September 23, 2019, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/acs/acs-41.html. 

23 Dean Blevins, Bridget Morton, & Rene McGovern. “Evaluating a Community-Based...” 24 Andrew Broderick, “The Future of Rural...”

25 Emily A. Greenfield & Tine Buffel, “Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Research to Strengthen Policy and 

Practice,” Journal of Aging & Social Policy (2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2022.2049573. 
9 

communal life, but they need to be welcomed in age-friendly ways. The authors discuss the 

importance of thoughtful engagement and cooperation with local partners, noting that 

engagement processes that center older and marginalized communities tend to increase when 

budgets are strong, and become deprioritized in lean times. This challenge of funding, more 

broadly, is a significant consideration for virtual public involvement going forward.

III. People Experiencing Poverty

We did not find academic literature on engagement processes for people experiencing poverty, 

at least not explicitly in research that relates to transportation planning. Healthcare policy 

research may lend more insight. Some literature discussed engaging “marginalized” populations, 

which obliquely included people experiencing poverty,26 but such a broad term did not lend 

insight to the challenges and barriers for this population specifically. Again, a practitioner’s 

approach to communication, building trust, inviting participation, and chosen venues for 

information sharing and gatherings are important considerations when engaging this 

population. 

Some government and nonprofit planning documents acknowledged that people with lower 

incomes are more likely to be excluded from digital and virtual forms of engagement. This 

observation emphasizes the significance of challenges pertaining to broadband internet access 

and literacy.27 28 From the TRID resources, GPCOG acknowledged the particular challenges of 

low-income populations and emphasized that people who cannot afford broadband Internet are 

more likely to rely on mobile phone plans for data access.29 Greater societal shifts toward digital 

communication may render this population increasingly disadvantaged as time goes on.

Conclusion

Many of the challenges that impact rural VPI rest on issues of access—not just rural community 

members’ access to broadband Internet or efficient transportation, but also practitioners’ access 

to the frameworks of meaning that undergird rural community life. For transportation planning 

practitioners, access can also take the form of deploying the resources required to meet rural 

VPI needs; these resources may depend on approved agency practices as well as budgets. 

Further, there are fundamental challenges in developing commonality and shared goals across 

community-practitioner lines. In Tools and Practices, we explore not only the types of tools that 

can be useful for practicing VPI, but also the sets of considerations that go into making these 

tools effective.

26 Cynthia K. Sanders & Edward Scanlon, “The Digital Divide Is...”

27 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...”

28 Nicol Turner Lee et al., “Why the federal government needs to step up efforts to close the

rural broadband divide,” Brookings, October 4, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federalgovernment-needs-to-step-up-their-efforts-to-close-the-rural-broadband-divide/. 

29 GPCOG. “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...” pg. 12.
10

VPI Tools and Practices

Introduction

In this section, we outline the purposes, strengths, weaknesses, and other considerations for

various virtual public involvement (VPI) tools. We first offer context around some of the 

challenges of implementing VPI tools in rural communities. Then we discuss the strengths, 

weaknesses, and uses of several distinct VPI approaches and offer case examples, followed by a 

discussion of how practitioners can make best use of this information. We conclude with 

recommendations for implementation. The materials in this section derive from published 

reports and websites, as well as four individual interviews with practitioners who discussed the 

ways their agencies address the overlap between rural community engagement and VPI 

strategies.

Context

VPI tools exist in abundance, but it is not always clear how they apply in professional practice 

with rural communities. As agencies have adapted to pandemic conditions since 2020, new 

findings have been released about the utility and challenges of virtual tools for rural-based 

public engagement. While virtual meetings, for example, became much more popular during 

Covid-19, practitioners with the Tennessee and Minnesota Departments of Transportation 

acknowledged that a lack of high-speed internet access can significantly undercut the 

effectiveness of this tool in rural settings.30 31 Virtual meetings and webinars that are mobile 

phone-compatible were better able to serve participants in public locations with wi-fi or by 

using mobile data plans. Similarly, other VPI tools that seem useful in theory, like online surveys 

and visualization models, may not successfully translate into rural settings if practitioners have 

not investigated a community’s existing resources, goals, and needs.

Choosing the right tools is about learning how to use them and understanding how to make 

them effective. It has taken time for practitioners to learn virtual tools, as well as to find ways to 

teach the necessary skills to the public audiences they hope to engage.32 There is also a 

lingering concern about missing the benefits of in-person meetings and other forms of 

interpersonal interaction, which can be perceived to offer more meaningful opportunities for 

30 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify Best Practices for Rural 

Community Engagement in Transportation Planning,” Transportation Research Record 2676, no. 8(2022): 292-311, 

https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221083611. 31 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other 

Disruptive Events,” June 2021, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2021/TRS2103.pdf. 

32 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”
11

connection and networking.33 34 However, the addition of virtual tools can offer opportunities 

for connection and interaction if used thoughtfully. They can even be used as part of an 

agency’s evaluation process, as we discuss in some of the following subsections of Existing VPI 

Tools and Practices.

In addition to these general challenges, reaching underserved populations such as older adults, 

those who speak languages other than English, and communities of color, necessitate a mix of 

various tools and techniques, and often require additional consideration and planning.35 36 Part 

of this effort requires practitioners to reach out beyond the limits of who they confidently know 

to be affected by an issue or project, or in ways that go beyond typical engagement efforts.37

Thus, wide-reaching radio ads, flyers at various community gathering places, translation of 

materials, and connecting with local, trusted community leaders will help ensure that those who 

may not be immediately visible to practitioners are still being included.38 39 

Because planners of public development projects can be seen as outsiders to a community, it is 

essential to not only rely on community resources for outreach, but to clearly explain, from the 

agency’s perspective, the expected community benefits of the project. Doing so will enable 

community members to make informed decisions about how (or whether) they want to be 

involved, and will motivate a sense of reciprocity that can galvanize community support.40 The 

Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG), for example, works with a large refugee and 

older adult population in Portland, Maine.41 GPCOG staff learned that traditional outreach tools 

(phone calls, printed materials) must continue to have a presence alongside social media and 

virtual tools. They have implemented specific techniques to reach underserved populations, such 

as creating custom “Welcome to Zoom” tutorials for older adults. For refugee and immigrant 

33 Courtney Cronley et al., “Utilizing an Inter-Professional Online Advisory Board: A Case Study to Inform Innovation in 

Community-Engaged, Transportation Equity Research and Planning,” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary 

Perspectives 10(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100365. 34 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”

35 Greater Portland Council of Governments [GPCOG], “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement: Lessons from the 

Field,” October 2020, https://www.gpcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1420/GPCOG_Virtual-Engagement-WhitePaper_Final_102120-for-website-1?bidId=. 36 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons from the 

COVID-19 Pandemic,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2022, https://doi.org/10.17226/26827. 

37 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”

38 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...” 39 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits and Barriers: A Practical Guide to VPI 

Tools,” Spring 2021, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/News-and-Outreach/PublicInvolvement/Guide-Virtual-Public-Involvement.pdf?rev=825951f16632433589b73160f86a4a6f. 

40 Andrew Broderick, The Future of Rural Transportation and Mobility for Older Adults: Current Trends and Future 

Directions in Technology-Enabled Solutions, CITRIS and the Banatao Institute, and Grantmakers in Aging, 2018, 

https://www.giaging.org/documents/180424_CITRIS_rural_mobility_paper_F.pdf. 

41 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...”
12

populations, they work with local community members to ensure their website and print 

materials are correctly translated into commonly used languages. Choosing virtual tools that 

work to reach underprivileged populations requires knowledge of the specific barriers these 

communities face.

Existing VPI Tools 

The purpose of this section is to spotlight the most common approaches to VPI that appear in 

the literature and that are used by both government and nonprofit organizations to meet key 

challenges and barriers to participation. In addition to leveraging VPI tools and practices for 

expanded public involvement, interviewed practitioners emphasized additional efforts to 

encourage public involvement, namely the importance of ongoing capacity-building for 

practitioners for virtual facilitation, as well as building participants’ technical knowledge so they 

are well-equipped for involvement. See Figure 2 for a summary of common VPI tools used by 

transportation practitioners in a 2022 survey of 196 agencies performed by the National 

Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).42 Each approach outlined in the 

following subsections includes a stated purpose, its primary strengths, weaknesses, or useful 

application, and relevant examples. 

42 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons from the 

COVID-19 Pandemic,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2022, https://doi.org/10.17226/26827. 
13

Figure 2. VPI tools used during pandemic and expect to use post-pandemic. Adapted from 

NASEM (2022, p.16).

I. Social media: Advertising and Engagement

For practitioners aiming to address the challenges of gauging community involvement and 

integrating VPI with traditional tools, social media can be a useful VPI tool. The use of social 

media has increased for many practitioners since the pandemic, as a means of both advertising 

and limited, deeper engagement. Social media can be used not only to advertise upcoming 

public engagement events, but also to host or broadcast the events.43 Additionally, it can be 

used as an online brainstorming tool with smaller populations. In both types of uses, it is 

important to establish a public protocol for handling comments on social media, since these do

not usually count as part of the official public record.44 45 Social media can offer unique 

43 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”

44 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

45 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”
14

opportunities, such as the ability to identify key community stakeholders for project managers 

to follow up with and meet in person.46 It can be useful for quick, real-time engagement, but it 

may not be sustainable for in-depth, long-term participation.47 

Example

Several respondents to a Minnesota DOT survey described how they used social media for 

publicity and to reach a wider range of stakeholders with pre-published project materials. 

Video content and other animated visualizations were especially suitable for social media 

distribution on sites like Facebook and Instagram.48 For brief updates that were easily 

shareable, Twitter was appropriate for some agencies.

II. Visualization Models

Visualization can refer to “a variety of photography, video, computer, and electronic technology 

used to create realistic pictures,” as well as “to the collection, manipulation, and management of 

all sources of spatially referenced data.”49 Visualization and virtual reality (VR) models have been 

shown to support public interest and involvement in land use projects by offering a concrete 

basis for stakeholders to form opinions, and they can be readily adapted as virtual tools.50

Visualization models can help practitioners aiming to integrate VPI with traditional tools, and in 

select cases, in addressing digital divide challenges.

Example

The FHWA VPI toolkit offers example mapping and project visualization tool resources from 

Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and North Carolina.51 A VPI technical assistance 

workshop hosted by Caltrans52 described how agencies had used existing experts, such as 

landscape planners, to help increase the public’s understanding of sidewalk projects through 

use of visualizations. Tools like ArcGIS were notable for being low-cost and easy ways to 

translate visualizations onto multiple online platforms.

46 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic 

and Beyond: A Guide for Community-Based Organizations,” Urban Institute, September 2020, 

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/community-engagement-during-covid-19-pandemic-and-beyond. 

47 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...”

48 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”

49 Keiron Bailey, Joel Brumm, & Ted Grossardt, “Integrating Visualization Into Structured Public Involvement: Case 

Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky,” Transportation Research Record 1817, no. 02-3113(2002): 50-57, 

pg. 51, https://doi.org/10.3141/1817-07. 

50 Keiron Bailey, Joel Brumm, & Ted Grossardt, “Integrating Visualization Into Structured...”

51 US Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], “VPI Toolkit,” US Dept. of Transportation, updated December 8, 2022, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/virtual_toolkit/. 

52 California Dept. of Transportation [Caltrans], “Virtual Public Involvement Technical Assistance Summary Report,” 

April 21, 2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/. 
15

These models benefit from contextualization and should not be used as a substitute for more indepth information sharing, but having strong visuals is often key when sharing lengthy 

information.53 Figure 3 offers some considerations for practitioners wanting to implement 

visualization tools. The more sophisticated the tool, generally the more expensive it will be and 

the more specialized training will be required of practitioners who use it. This table was used by 

the authors to summarize findings from an investigation into how visualization tools could be 

used as enabling technologies. In this sense, the premise of the research was that visualization 

could help increase community satisfaction with the progress and results of a project; at the 

same time, the three different visualization modes shown below come with capacity 

considerations for practitioners.54 Another challenge with more advanced visualization 

techniques is whether rural communities have the Internet infrastructure and knowledge to 

participate in them. When practitioners do choose to invest resources into these advanced tools, 

it is essential to budget for community infrastructure adaptations and training, in addition to 

practitioner training.

Figure 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Three Visualization Modes. 

Adapted from Bailey et al. (2002, p. 53).

53 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...” 54 Keiron Bailey, Joel Brumm, & Ted Grossardt, “Integrating Visualization Into Structured Public Involvement: Case 

Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky,” Transportation Research Record 1817, no. 02-3113(2002): 50-57, 

pg. 51, https://doi.org/10.3141/1817-07. 
16

III. Digital Surveys

Digital surveys can be a way to gain understanding of opinion patterns within the communities 

that practitioners want to reach. They might not, however, offer in-depth feedback on areas of 

support or concern. Digital surveys can also be used in meetings to get real-time feedback (live 

polls), or as a follow-up to webinars and virtual meetings to get feedback and demographic 

information from participants. When surveys are used as a tool for gauging project interest or 

support, it is often necessary to broaden the format beyond digital. Practitioners should 

consider allowing their surveys to be administered in alternative formats, such as over the phone 

or on paper, and making sure the community knows about these alternatives.55 Surveys can also 

be very useful in evaluating the effectiveness of agency engagement efforts. They can reveal 

deficiencies and improve relationships with affected communities by offering a “means of 

providing feedback, not only on projects, but also on the public involvement processes.”56

The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)57 describes how the Pittsburgh Regional 

Transit agency used online surveys extensively to gather broad input on projects during the 

pandemic. Surveys were advertised on social media and offered via the project website. Hard 

copies were also distributed to senior centers, at pop-up events, and at heavily trafficked bus 

stops. Advertisements for the survey included both a toll-free number and an SMS text number 

for those who did not have smartphones or Internet access. While the online form of the survey 

was the most popular, 68% of paper surveys returned to the agency were from non-white 

households, and 37% were from low-income areas, demonstrating the efficacy of using multiple 

survey strategies in addition to a primary online format. 

55 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...” 

56 Kate Gunby, “Practice Makes Perfect: Five State DOTS Implement a Public Involvement Effectiveness Measurement 

Toolkit,” TR News, November-December 2022, https://doi.org/10.17226/25447. 

57 Transit Cooperative Research Program [TCRP], Inclusive Public Participation in Transit Decision-Making: A Synthesis 

of Transit Practice, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2023, https://doi.org/10.17226/26940. 
17

Example 

Surveying Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations: Findings emphasize collaborating 

with trusted and connected partners to develop and deliver a survey is highly effective. 

Authors also emphasize the importance of using plain language to write and communicate 

about a survey, and they provide a plain language guide.58 The document emphasizes using 

simple vocabulary, short sentences, and first-person pronouns like “we” to promote 

accessibility. 

Get There Oregon, US Department of Transportation and the Plain Language Action and 

Information Network (PLAIN) all offer plain language guides that may be helpful to 

transportation practitioners. 

IV. Advertising

Multifaceted advertising strategies can account for generational differences in how community 

members receive news and updates, gauge existing community involvement, and help integrate 

VPI and traditional tools. Newspaper ads may reach older populations, while social media might 

better reach those who are of middle age or younger. It is also important, however, not to rely 

on stereotypes to guess what type of advertising may be best.59 Radio ads can encourage wordof-mouth communication, as can flyers at community centers, the post office, or local coffee 

shops.60 Even if events are virtual, advertising does not need to be. Thought should be given to 

the visual presentation of information, whether it is virtual or physical, and it is likely that both 

forms are necessary to reach a range of target audiences. Especially for print ads, like flyers, the 

size of the text, and the clarity and use of plain language is key. 

Examples

In a Minnesota DOT survey,61 almost all practitioners used multiple digital methods to notify the 

public of upcoming meetings: posting on the project website, using social media, and including 

information in email newsletters. This multi-method approach was based on an understanding 

that potential participants included groups with different preferences for how they received 

information about the projects. It is worth considering whether digital venues are sufficient for a 

given project, or what types of in-person promotion might be useful supplements.

58 Get There Oregon, Core Principles for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Engagement in Transportation Options 

Programs, accessed March 20, 2023, https://getthereoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Core-Principles-forLEP-Engagement-Appendix-FINAL.pdf. (Plain language guide begins p. 13.) 

59 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...” 60 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...”

61 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other 

Disruptive Events,” June 2021, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2021/TRS2103.pdf. 
18

(Cont’d.) Another survey conducted by the Virginia Transportation Research Council62 revealed 

that the Nevada DOT uses US Census data and other demographic resources to determine 

whether to use advertising in languages other than English for particular areas. It is common 

practice for them to provide a Spanish-language version of project websites based on this 

information. Other agencies that responded to the survey have mentioned combining this 

demographic data with location-specific advertising (like food banks and community centers) to 

reach non English-speaking or LEP populations in person, demonstrating the utility of mixed 

methods for reaching some underserved populations.

V. Live Stream Events

Local media outlets, as well as social media, can host or broadcast live project meetings.63 Tools 

like telephone town halls can also enable the public to tune into live meetings without being 

present or even needing a special app or program.64 These VPI tools can help practitioners 

gauge community interest, integrate VPI and traditional tools, and in some cases, address digital 

divide challenges. As the imminent threat of Covid recedes, many practitioners may return to 

live, in-person events. Some members of rural populations, however, may have ongoing health 

challenges or transportation-related disadvantages that make it difficult to attend in-person 

events. Live streaming through the above mentioned sources can be a relatively inexpensive way 

to increase the reach of in-person events. At the same time, if practitioners do choose to live 

stream events that are primarily in-person, care should be taken to directly address remote 

viewers, help them understand that their virtual presence is appreciated, and ensure that there 

are appropriate avenues for remote viewers to contribute feedback and have their concerns, 

questions, and feedback addressed.

Example

The Great Lakes ADA Center65 described how it used live streaming to simultaneously 

broadcast virtual meetings on Facebook or YouTube. While participants could join the Zoom 

meeting directly, the simultaneous live broadcasts ensured a wider reach for those who were 

not comfortable using Zoom or did not have sufficient connectivity. Configuring the live stream 

directly through Zoom enabled accessibility features, such as captions, to remain intact across 

platforms. It is important to plan for how live streaming audiences can provide feedback and 

get questions answered in addition to accessing the content.

62 Lance E. Dougald & Eric S. Williams, An Analysis of Virtual Public Engagement in the Transportation Planning 

Process, Virginia Transportation Research Council [VTRC], October 2022. 

http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/23-r6.pdf. 63 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...”

64 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

65 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...” p.22. 
19

VI. Virtual Meetings and Participatory Design 

Virtual meetings (including virtual town halls) are the most commonly cited tool used by 

transportation practitioners. Virtual meetings can help practitioners gauge community interest, 

be venues for integrated use of VPI and traditional tools, and, in their design, help address 

digital divide challenges. The pandemic highlighted how well virtual meetings can work to 

mitigate logistical difficulties, such as ensuring that participants maintain safe practices for 

wellness while interacting with others. Virtual meetings can also be seen as more convenient for 

those who cannot easily travel to a physical meeting space, and as a tool to ensure greater 

geographic equity. 

Examples from across the country, fact sheets, and case study videos are available in the cited 

FHWA VPI Toolkit.66

At the same time, for virtual meetings to be logistically easier for participants, practitioners must 

take many factors into consideration. These factors can include meeting timing, platform used, 

chat/Q&A availability and staffing, use of captions and other built-in features, interpretation and 

translation, and recording availability. For example, when and where should virtual meetings be 

held? Some practitioners suggest that virtual meetings should occur around lunchtime or after 

typical work hours (5pm or later) to support broad attendance.67 Hybrid meetings can also 

support this goal, especially if the in-person part is held at a community center or another easily 

accessible location. 

A challenge of hybrid meetings, however, is ensuring that both participant groups (online and 

in-person) are engaged and attended to. Another key consideration for virtual meetings is 

facilitation technique and capacity. This may require additional staffing and facilitation expertise. 

Meeting times, just like the other factors mentioned, are often not straightforward decisions, but 

should be areas for transportation practitioners to consider and apply what they know about the 

communities they are trying to reach.

Zoom and Microsoft Teams were practitioners’ most preferred meeting platforms in a multistate survey conducted by the Minnesota DOT.68 Zoom was cited as having the best camera and 

chat functionalities, while Microsoft Teams was easiest for practitioners because it was 

integrated with other Office tools and used the least computer memory. Considering how to 

66 US Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], “Virtual Town Halls,” US Dept. of Transportation, updated December 8, 

2022, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/virtual_toolkit/virtual_town_halls/.cfm. 

67 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...”

68 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”
20

balance the needs of practitioners and participants may also require practitioners to decide 

whether virtual meetings or webinars are most preferred. Virtual meetings enable participants to 

unmute themselves to provide feedback, while webinars typically do not allow for feedback 

except in individual instances where the moderator unmutes someone temporarily or enables 

the Q&A feature. 

Practitioners should determine how much community input can and will shape the project 

outcomes, and therefore, whether more or less participation in the event is needed or desired.69

If virtual events are less participation-focused, community members may lose interest over time 

and show less commitment to long-term involvement in the project.70 Practitioners may also 

want to think about a community’s capacity for virtual meetings if other local organizations and 

events utilize similar technologies. “Virtual meeting fatigue” can set in when participants must 

stare at screens for long periods of time, which was a particular challenge of the pandemic.71

While the event is in progress, attendees should be immediately, and periodically, informed if 

the event is being recorded—especially if it will be made publicly available afterwards.72 It can 

also be useful to send a follow-up email to registered participants after the event, so that 

feedback can be incorporated into future events. Beyond the logistics of virtual or hybrid 

meeting formats, a strong facilitation skillset is imperative for transportation practitioners. 73

These measures can help support the capacity of participants to interact in the ways they feel 

most comfortable. 

VII. Information Sharing and Communication

The category of information sharing and communication is a component of most VPI tools in 

some ways, but it also denotes specific sets of strategies. Information sharing VPI tools can help 

gauge community interest and existing involvement, as well as integrate virtual and analog 

approaches. Virtual information sharing can take the form of virtual office hours, in which 

practitioners make themselves available for community members on a drop-in basis.74 75 Virtual 

office hours can be a way for community members to obtain VPI tool support or ask questions 

directly. These can occur in brief, 15-minute time slots to ensure the practitioner’s greatest 

availability. Do-it-yourself (DIY) videos (short recordings taken with a smartphone or digital 

camera) can also be an effective means of training participants and communicating about plans, 

69 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

70 Courtney Cronley et al., “Utilizing an Inter-Professional...”

71 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”

72 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...” 73 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

74 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

75 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”
21

projects, and events, and can be embedded in streaming sites, social media, and project 

websites. Examples from Alaska DOT, Utah DOT, and the Strafford Regional Planning 

Commission in New England, are available in the cited FHWA VPI Toolkit.76 

Project websites, available with translation, are often a logical and effective way to convey 

updates and information about a project. If using a project website, it is important to 

communicate project goals in a clear and visible manner.77 The same goes for digital newsletters 

or other email updates that are sent to participants. 

Example

Get There Oregon78 offers a comprehensive guide for inclusive communication practices, 

which entail emphasizing important information/dates, using plain language (no jargon), and 

using the first-person, active voice. Multi-language community workshops, both to determine 

barriers and needs for participation, and to facilitate core engagement opportunities, and 

community informed messaging and marketing materials are also emphasized in community 

case studies. Group WhatsApp text messaging was also emphasized as a communication tool 

that is already widely used by LEP populations and young community members. 

Various information sharing and communication tools can be used to transparently and 

regularly communicate how community feedback is shaping the process and outcomes, which is 

especially important if the planning organization has decided to emphasize higher rungs in 

Arnstein’s79 Ladder of Citizen Participation in order to gauge project effectiveness by the 

standards of the community. Whether a planning organization is interested in emphasizing an 

approach at higher or lower rungs of Arnstein’s Ladder, Michigan DOT also offers a simple guide 

for practices to start with when communicating with the public.80

76 US Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], “Do-It-Yourself Videos,” US Dept. of Transportation, updated 

December 8, 2022, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/vpi_toolkit/diy_videos.cfm. 77 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

78 Get There Oregon, Core Principles for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Engagement in Transportation Options 

Programs, accessed March 20, 2023, https://getthereoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Core-Principles-forLEP-Engagement-Appendix-FINAL.pdf. 79 Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, no. 4 (1969): 

216-224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. 

80 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...” pg. 10
22

Case Examples

The following case examples stem from semi-structured interviews conducted with a 

representative from each agency listed below. Representatives discussed their agencies’ 

experiences with VPI tools and some of the ways implementation has been shaped in response 

to the populations being served. Each case example includes a description of how the agency 

contends with rural VPI topics. When relevant, harder-to-reach populations are highlighted to 

illuminate how the interviewees think through strategies to reach these groups. Finally, each 

example includes recommendations intended to help practitioners meet their goals of 

improving rural VPI strategies. Additional information about the interviews is included in 

Appendix A. 

Case Example 1:

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) – Region 2, Active Transportation 

Within ODOT’s Region 2 (pictured as the blue area in Figure 4) are clusters of small towns 

intersected by federal highways. Especially when these highways constitute main streets, small 

towns sometimes wish to make changes to enhance walkability or bikeability (active 

transportation) on these roads. Small town governments, however, may not have existing 

resources or frameworks to facilitate easy access to ODOT contacts or approval procedures. 

Conversely, in situations where ODOT seeks public input on active transportation add-ons to 

existing projects in a community, the agency sometimes does not know how to connect to local 

stakeholder groups who are not already involved in public planning. Facilitating connections 

between ODOT and small, local communities was identified as a disconnect in the process of 

approving active transportation projects.
23

Figure 4. Oregon Department of Transportation Region Map.

81

 

In one small community, ODOT solicited input on a proposed road reallocation—replacing one 

highway lane with a dedicated bicycle lane. Analysis of traffic conditions concluded that car 

volumes were low enough to support this reallocation, which would improve bikeability across 

town. At public meetings, a contingent of vocal residents strongly opposed the plan. With these 

residents’ assertiveness unmatched by other public groups, ODOT removed the road 

reallocation from the highway plan. A lingering concern, however, was to what extent this small 

group represented the views of the town’s population more generally. Given ODOT’s current 

funding structure, which prioritizes add-ons to existing projects over standalone proposals, it is 

unlikely that the possibility for road reallocation will resurface again in this remote community 

for some time. Such considerations raise the stakes for facilitating inclusive public involvement 

in rural communities. 

Harder-to-Reach Populations

Spanish-speaking populations: ODOT uses project websites to update the public on local 

highway projects, and they offer a version of the website in Spanish in areas with Spanishspeaking populations. The availability of information in Spanish, however, has not always led to 

involvement from Spanish-speaking communities. Culturally, there may be differences in 

attitude toward government initiatives more generally, as well as different frameworks around 

the prerogative to voice opinions to the government. Logistically, Spanish-speakers who do visit 

ODOT’s project websites may not easily locate Spanish-language translations, which tend to be 

indicated by a small button in a far corner of an otherwise English-language page. 

81 https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/TRSDocs/regionmap.pdf. 
24

(Cont’d.) Visually impaired populations: Among ADA-related comments fielded in ODOT Region 

2 projects, visual impairment is one of the most common considerations mentioned. ODOT has 

worked to address visual impairment by ensuring that all online documents contain alt tags for 

any images used—a distinct accessibility advantage for online and virtual materials. Even so, the 

agency continues to field many visual impairment-related concerns from public participants that 

arise within specific projects and are not easily generalizable across communities. 

Recommendations:

Consider trust-building as a precursor to broader engagement. Virtual tools for public 

involvement were acknowledged to sometimes help cast a wider net in ODOT communities, but 

these tools did not, in themselves, instill trust in community members. Especially for Spanishspeaking communities, ODOT teams have found greater success with interpersonal interactions 

rather than with exclusively online distribution of information. Conducting such activities as 

group walkabouts may be a necessary precursor to the success of online informational tools. 

Even when these tools, such as Spanish-language QR codes, are implemented, it may be 

necessary to use a hybrid approach: employing a community liaison and native speaker to 

distribute the codes on flyers may represent an effective interpersonal and virtual blending of 

methods. 

Plan to offer something in return for participants’ engagement. Despite restrictions on federal 

funds, reciprocal engagement was seen as a logical component of building trust with ODOT 

communities who were not primed to engage. For in-person events, ODOT plans for childcare 

needs and will offer snacks in some settings. While the virtual environment presents a challenge 

to the already narrow range of approved reciprocal techniques available to a state agency, some 

offerings—such as modest grocery gift cards—have the potential to be distributed to virtual 

participants. Additionally, when ODOT collaborates with community organizations for grant 

funding, these grants offer an enhanced capacity for line-item inclusion of funds for public 

participation incentives.

Invest in personnel dedicated to community relationship-building. While ODOT does employ a 

community liaison for Region 2, this single role does not contain all of the capacity required to 

foster deep, long-term relationships with various community organizations throughout the 

geographic area. Though many of the towns in this region are very small, they cannot be treated 

as interchangeable. Some statewide organizations, such as Oregon Commission for the Blind, 

exist in multiple communities and can offer pathways for connecting to harder-to-reach 

populations in many places. Other organizations, such as the Mano a Mano Family Center in the 

Salem-Keizer region, possess decades of experience working within specific regions. In all cases, 
25

these trusted community partners could benefit from the dedication of ODOT personnel who 

take time to invest in partnerships beyond their relevance to specific transportation projects.

Case Example 2:

National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) – NADO Research 

Foundation

NADO works closely with member development organizations across the US. An agency 

interviewee offered insight into common challenges and approaches for transportation planning 

efforts across these development organizations, and also reflected on unique experiences within 

NADO’s membership. A number of regional transportation planning efforts, including in North 

Carolina, California, Maine, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon, have recently leveraged VPI 

tools like online mapping, virtual meetings and outreach, recorded presentations that reflect 

“views” that indicate reach, and other virtual public engagement tools to address rural 

engagement challenges. 

To gain more geographic equity and communicate with hard-to-reach populations through 

public engagement processes, virtual meetings, mapping tools, and surveys with QR code links 

have been used widely, but the interviewee emphasized efforts beyond choosing the right VPI 

tool. Understanding “demand,” or why community members need transportation systems—to 

get to work, access medical care and food—helps practitioners design a process and engage 

partners appropriately. In addition to virtual or hybrid meetings, strong facilitation skills, as well 

as ensuring equitable access to technology and training that builds technical knowledge, are 

critical. Getting the word out when broadband access is not ubiquitous requires partnering with 

trusted voices, spreading the word through several methods, and going to where people are, 

perhaps multiple times. Choosing the right VPI tool to fit the particular engagement challenge a 

practitioner might face in a given community is just as important as using the tool(s) well and 

engaging humans on a human level. 

NADO and member regional planning organizations have all had luck engaging older rural 

populations with higher mobility; however, the level of engagement by this population varies by 

income level. Higher-income older people congregate in predictable places like senior centers 

and tend to have time to engage in planning processes. Other populations have not been so 

easy to reach, and some of the solutions that member organizations have applied are as follows. 

The agency representative emphasized the importance of using interdisciplinary approaches and 

partners for harder-to-reach populations. 
26

Harder-to-Reach Populations

Low-income populations and those with low/no access to Internet and technical tools: Improving 

equitable technology access is a key consideration, as is timing of a meeting according to work 

schedules. Practitioners should consider how accessible tools are on smartphones, for those 

using data plans in rural places rather than consistent Internet connection. 

Youth: Virtual tools can be especially useful in engaging this population, but engagement often 

focuses on the future rather than their present opinions and current needs. Practitioners 

should feel encouraged to also orient outreach to capture the present. Group WhatsApp text 

messaging was also emphasized as a communication tool that is already widely used by young 

community members, and LEP populations.

LEP populations: Working with a wide range of partner organizations that have existing 

relationships with these groups, including volunteer interpreters in medical or educational 

settings, is helpful. Engaging refugees is particularly challenging in many communities and 

requires a strong network of interdisciplinary efforts and research, including many contacts 

that are not immediately considered. 

Indigenous and People of Color: Ensuring adequate time, budget, and attention is devoted to 

building trust and meaningful engagement early in the process is critical. Tribal leadership and 

community member engagement should be approached very thoughtfully due to sovereignty

and cultural considerations. Again, meaningful and timely engagement is essential. 

In addition to cultivating interdisciplinary partnerships, considering “value chain development”—

a rural wealth creation framework82— was also emphasized as a useful tool to prompt creative, 

systems-level thinking. Facilitation support and training for practitioners was also 

recommended, whether meetings take place in-person, virtually, or in a hybrid format. The TRB 

public involvement committee, among others, has resources and expertise in this area. 

Case Example 3: 

Regional Tourism Coordination Organization – Oregon Coast Visitors Association 

(OCVA)

OCVA leadership is a frequent partner in regional planning efforts, including state transportation 

agency planning efforts. The organization also leads regional engagement efforts with key 

82 See: Wealthworks at https://www.wealthworks.org/ for an example.
27

stakeholder populations, with which the organization has worked hard over many years to build 

trusting relationships. OCVA is well aware of regional engagement challenges and VPI tools that 

have been used successfully. The interview emphasized key strategies to address persistent 

planning challenges, the perennial importance of building and utilizing political and social 

capital, and working closely with trusted local and regional organizations. 

Social and political capital, in this context, pertain to networks of relationships between 

interconnected groups and the bonds of trust that enable them to interact.83 These were 

acknowledged to be required resources, and building these forms of capital was promoted as an 

important goal of community engagement work, whether virtual, in-person, or hybrid. The 

“high context culture” of rural communities, in which context, cultural meaning, communal 

benefits and personal relationships are important, is something that OCVA has seen neglected 

by many practitioners. In a high context culture, rural community members require a higher 

degree of trust and communication and a deeper relationship in order to actively participate in 

efforts to bring about a shared goal. Essential steps include public education, as well as a long 

planning horizon adequate for providing key information and allowing adequate time for the 

public to consider the challenges and opportunities. Social identity is highly important, as is 

connecting with organizations, trusted partners, and community leaders on a local level. 

Recommendations: 

Double timelines: Essential “pre-work” at an agency, organization, and individual level requires 

time and attention. Engaging community and regional partners early and often builds important 

buy-in and brings their knowledge about what works, and what has not, to the table. Adding a 

social component to meetings will help foster relationships, and perhaps encourage people who 

might not have spoken up to participate. Extending timelines can help bring up issues from 

stakeholders for the current or future projects that are invaluable to their success and to 

ensuring satisfaction from the communities these projects are meant to serve. 

Double financial resources: Practitioners might ask, what latitude is there to be responsive to 

public engagement feedback and fund a critical tool or approach that will help overcome a 

significant engagement challenge? Regional partners like OCVA can (and have) provided 

conferencing technology to trusted local organizations or gathering places, to support greater 

participation in virtual meetings. Extending timelines, being responsive to organizations and the 

public, responding to public engagement feedback, and investing more deeply in VPI tools and 

processes takes resources, both for “infrastructure” and for staff time. Additionally, engaging 

83 Margarita Poteyeva, “Social Capital,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed May 7, 2023, 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-capital. 
28

harder-to-reach populations often requires having equitably fostered partnerships, additional 

events, duplicate communication and information sharing strategies, and more costly VPI 

engagement tools. Efforts to engage these populations require deeper investment of resources.

Case Example 4:

Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute – North Dakota State University

The activities of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute include working on projects with 

the Transportation Research Board and coordinating with Tribal governments on transportation 

projects. One of the central questions in working with Tribes is to understand how to support 

and assist them in implementing self-determination goals. Much of the existing transportation 

infrastructure was put in place long ago by non-Tribal entities; Tribes may have thus inherited 

transportation systems over which they have no authority. Public involvement figures centrally 

into projects that impact Tribes as a way of leveling the playing field between those who design 

and implement projects and those who use these goods. Furthermore, the degree to which 

private interests leverage the use of public goods—such as in the construction of oil pipelines—

is of particular concern to Tribal nations that have historically lacked authority over public 

goods. 

Centering Tribal self-determination means that when the Institute works with Tribal communities 

on transportation projects, it is important to connect the project to the social determinants of 

health that such infrastructure can impact—including access to healthcare, education, and fresh 

food options. In addition, the safety of roads is of central importance, as vehicle crashes are a 

major killer of Native people in the Dakotas region. 

Empowering Tribal communities to understand the implications of transportation projects 

enables frameworks for asking key questions that impact their support for the direction of a 

project. The Covid-19 pandemic proved highly disruptive, as neither individuals nor Tribal 

agencies had pervasive, easy access to broadband Internet to continue in-depth conversations. 

While agencies gradually adjusted to the reality of virtual meetings, conveying the context 

around projects remained challenging, and public participation was often low. Community 

members did not always know what questions to ask when there was an open-ended call for 

questions in a virtual space. Instead, the Institute found success with more targeted virtual 

engagement tools, such as polls that provided a limited number of response options about a 

specific project-related decision. 
29

Harder-to-Reach Population

The urban Tribal diaspora: While rural populations are often perceived as harder to reach due to 

the Digital Divide, the Institute has found that Native people who live off-reservation—typically 

in larger cities—can be the most difficult to involve in transportation projects. There is wide 

variation in how closely these individuals maintain ties with family and friends still living on the 

reservation, which impacts not only whether they choose to be involved with a project, but also 

whether successful contact can be made in the first place. It is important for Native sovereignty 

that as many Tribe members have a voice in these projects as possible, regardless of whether 

they currently reside within the bounds of a reservation. The Institute acknowledged that a 

significant amount of “cyber-sleuthing” is often required to discern where Native urban people 

go to be informed and connect with one another. Despite the unique challenges of reaching this 

population, virtual tools can be beneficial in facilitating access for those who do not live in the 

region.

Recommendations: 

Consider what may be required to make a project relevant to communities when in-person 

conversations are not possible. The Institute found that investing in sophisticated graphics, as 

well as video content, helped to orient Tribal communities to the tangible impacts that were at 

stake in a project’s design. These graphics then formed the basis for asking specific, choicebased questions of community participants. Not only might participants be more likely to form 

an opinion on such questions after interacting with detailed visual content, but the questions 

themselves can offer participants a frame for understanding how their input will be of value to 

project planners. As echoed in other case examples, it is imperative to curate virtual content to 

mobile phone users so that data plans can be used to access content that may otherwise eat up 

Internet bandwidth. 

Plan for “bookends” of engagement around key project events. During the time period prior to a 

planned event, practitioners should budget time for observing/participating in community 

happenings without a project-focused agenda. Trust-building is essential for agencies that aim 

to incorporate input from Tribal governments and communities, and oftentimes, merely showing 

up to a community space may not be acceptable when doing so with an explicit project to 

advertise. Tribal citizens may need evidence that practitioners are interested in learning about 

the community on its own terms. Similarly, even when compelling visuals and pointed questions 

work to elicit public input during a virtual event, the public involvement portion of a project 

should not be considered complete after a successful virtual event. To the extent possible, 

following up on an individualized basis with virtual participants—whether by phone, one-on-one 
30

virtual calls, or in-person—communicates that the practitioner is there to serve the community 

and not just clear a hurdle. Because of the perceived capacity for private interests to structure 

the distribution of public goods, individualized connection and follow-up is necessary for 

building trust in Tribal spaces. 

Show (and budget) respect for participants’ time. Whether it is a bowl of candy at a booth, an 

online drawing for a gift card, or something else, participants must be welcomed into giving up 

their time for project input. Any form of data collection from federal agencies—whether surveys, 

demographic details, or ISP data from website visits—may be seen as threatening and 

unnecessary to communities who do not trust these agencies to serve their interests. Even small 

tokens of respect for participants’ input can be pivotal in gaining access to valuable data. 
31

Discussion

In the Challenges and Barriers section at the beginning of this report, we identified three 

challenges of implementing VPI tools in rural settings: gauging existing community involvement, 

integrating VPI tools with traditional methods of public engagement, and contending with the 

digital divide. Understanding some of the ways in which transportation practitioners already 

think about and use various VPI tools post-pandemic, we have identified two central questions 

for consideration that alternately speak to the challenges identified, as well as highlight existing 

gaps between discourse and practice. These questions can help practitioners focus on the most 

salient, and complex, aspects of the pre-work that precedes choosing a set of VPI tools. 

What do communities need to be engaged?

While VPI tools can increase the pool of potential participants in rural transportation projects, 

the efficacy of virtual tools must be supported with a foundation of trust-building and training 

from agencies. Communities deserve to understand why the issue or project is relevant and 

important to them—why it is worth their attention and energy.84 85 Building awareness of a 

project, in itself, does not build community investment. The extent to which various populations 

within a community are already engaged with public projects cannot be assumed. 

Virtual tools may offer more methods of communicating, but a wider choice of tools may not 

inherently encourage wider community participation. Practitioners can encourage investment by 

committing to reciprocal practices, such as those suggested by ODOT’s Active Transportation 

Region 2: decrease barriers to both virtual and traditional forms of participation, and offer 

incentives when feasible. Additionally, when people take the time to offer input on a stage of a 

project, it is recommended to keep them updated on how that feedback has been 

incorporated.86 If practitioners expect to consult with local community leaders extensively, 

consider adding compensation for this partnership into the project budget.87

Local community leaders and organizations are the experts on their community’s needs and 

interests, as OCVA emphasizes. Therefore, practitioners should understand them as experts who 

have valuable insights into reaching populations that are underrepresented in public 

84 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...” 85 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

86 Courtney Cronley et al., “Utilizing an Inter-Professional Online...”

87 Get There Oregon. Core Principles for Limited..., pg. 9.
32

participation.88 89 90 91 They can be partnered with as co-leaders, which may be especially 

beneficial for supporting a community’s long-term resilience. Greater transportation diversity, 

which is premised on more effective attention to diverse voices in the planning process, can help 

more community members to meet their daily and evolving needs.92

Practitioners should be clear about how much public engagement will shape the ultimate 

outcome; they must also understand why they need public involvement in the first place.

Practitioners can strive to make clear what the project goals and impacts are, and emphasize the 

importance of community input in shaping a workable solution; but they must also be cognizant 

of the level of demand they are placing on participants. The Urban Institute adds: 

Do we have mechanisms in place to avoid overburdening our community members with 

requests for input? (Answering this question will require an awareness of what other 

outreach community groups are doing and of what resources and budget are 

available).93 

Finally, communities may need additional training and support to fully participate. They may 

also need access to digital tools for participation if they do not already have access locally 

(computers/tablets, hot spots, survey response tools, etc.). In addition to partnering with trusted 

leaders and organizations, ensuring that materials are accessible and legible to all target 

populations, and that they have a place to go to ask questions, may be needed. 

What else is needed to support practitioners in fostering diverse inclusion?

Practitioners will want to take time to be comprehensively trained in facilitation techniques and 

any virtual tools they are considering implementing. There may be times during the early 

planning stages when it is difficult to fully assess how well a given tool might work for a 

community without greater technical knowledge of its possibilities and functionality, which can 

also inform how best to introduce and facilitate its use. Planning and reflective monitoring will 

help practitioners both anticipate diverse needs and also respond to how well they achieve 

inclusion goals during the stages of implementation.94 

88 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...” 89 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster, “Delphi Study to Identify...”

90 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...”

91 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

92 Andrew Broderick, The Future of Rural Transportation... 93 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...” pg. 4.

94 Devendra Potnis & Bhakti Gala, “Best Practices for Conducting Fieldwork with Marginalized Communities,” 

Information Processing and Management 57(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102144. 
33

These can both be supported by rubrics and other measures that encourage practitioners to 

identify specific inclusivity criteria and then think about the characteristics of various tools that 

will address those criteria. GPCOG,95 for example, developed a matrix to rank different tools 

used for live polling based on community needs (see Figure 5). Developing the matrix required 

them to identify community needs, such as device compatibility and language access, and then 

research various polling tools to determine which ones met their criteria. Using this method 

could result in none of the available tools being a full match for all of the inclusion criteria. What 

may be more important than finding the “perfect” tool is knowing in advance where a chosen 

tool falls short and addressing those deficiencies through other means.

Figure 5. Live Polling Tools Rating Matrix. Adapted from GPCOG (2020, p. 13).

Training can also help ensure that practitioners are responsive and flexible when unexpected 

issues arise with a virtual tool in practice, and that they can offer tool training and guidance to 

community participants. It is useful to identify subject matter experts (technical support) within 

the organization to support tool training and be on hand during implementation.96 97 98 99 When 

formal training is not available, practitioners may wish to take advantage of (or create) peer 

exchanges and internal VPI working groups to help advance training needs across divisions of 

an organization.100

Questions surrounding a rural community’s existing forms of engagement, its receptivity to 

using specific virtual tools to supplement or replace traditional ones, and its capacity for 

Internet-based involvement cannot be generalized; the answers must be discovered. 

Practitioners will want to take opportunities to get to know the communities they are trying to 

95 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...”

96 Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Public Engagement Practices During...”

97 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...” 98 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

99 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”

100 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”
34

reach. One way to do this is to be present at community events that are not about the project.101

Since practitioners may not have the opportunity to get to know all of the underserved 

populations in the project area prior to soliciting public feedback, it is important to always 

describe and model inclusive interaction practices at any public-facing event. Ask participants to 

speak slowly and clearly, and to state their names, optional pronouns, or other measures to 

support comprehension and foster a welcoming environment.102 Such practices, while seemingly 

small, can signal who is included in the practitioner’s intended audience. 

When pondering these individual-level decisions, in addition to the frameworks of public 

participation and trust-building more broadly, practitioners will recognize that these 

responsibilities require large amounts of dedicated time and energy. Agencies may need to 

consider how to feasibly build capacity to fully support the work of practitioners in fostering 

sustainable, long-term community relationships.

101 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...”

102 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...”
35

Conclusion and Recommendations 

This section summarizes the findings from this report and details possible steps for 

transportation practitioners to take when considering specific VPI tools for rural projects. 

Summary Points

I. Gauging Community Involvement

It can be useful to consider solicitations for public involvement as opportunities to support the 

resilience of rural communities. Transportation practitioners, as public servants, can help 

community members engage in public projects in ways that support long-term satisfaction with 

the outcomes. Achieving this ideal requires that practitioners invest in getting to know the 

project community and allowing its members to demonstrate how they would like to accomplish 

their own goals. As in ODOT’s Region 2, some communities, like the Spanish-speaking 

population, may not engage with any VPI tools unless rapport and trust have been established 

through in-person interactions. This does not mean that VPI tools should not be used; rather, 

practitioners must be sensitive to their status as community outsiders and recognize that 

preestablished rhythms of engagement must be discovered before they can be leveraged in 

support of practitioners’ goals. Practitioners may need to reflect on what degree of engagement 

is possible given their agency’s capacity, 

II. Integrating VPI Tools with Traditional Methods 

After identifying appropriate VPI tools, ideally in coordination with local contacts, practitioners 

working in rural communities might consider how integrating VPI and traditional engagement 

methods can help reach a range of target populations. Practitioners will want to consider 

balancing the use of technology with a human center. Digital tools (like email newsletters) do 

not always require virtual capacity-building, and virtual options are not inherently best. Many 

communities consider a range of virtual meeting opinions from telephone town halls (easiest 

participation, especially for those without Internet access) and online meetings (most common) 

to hybrid in-person and online meetings (most complex).103

Digital and analog tools can be used to both enhance the effectiveness of virtual tools and 

substitute for the deficiencies of them. Digital tools, such as email, may be more broadly 

accessible than virtual tools like webinars, and can be used to notify of upcoming events as well 

as provide information. Analog tools, like phone calls, telephone town halls, or even tabling at 

local community fairs or meetings, can reach populations who are not online—or encourage 

103 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...” pg. 8.
36

individuals to participate in future virtual engagement.104 105 Figure 6 exemplifies how different 

modalities of tools may interact within different points on the spectrum of community members’ 

participation. Notice that, as public participation gets elevated along the spectrum, the type of 

tool becomes less important than the degree of involvement it facilitates. 

Figure 6. IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. Adapted from GPCOG (2020, p. 4).

Steps for Practitioners to Consider

Prior to beginning the public involvement phase of a project, take time to engage in active 

reflection about the communities you are aiming to reach. This reflection can even be done with 

local partners. Some questions for ultimately choosing a virtual tool might include:

● Who are you trying to connect with? 

● Who are the necessary partners?

● What are the outreach goals? 

● When is the best time to reach out? 

● Who is impacted? 

● What are the unique stakeholder needs? 

● Why should people be interested? 

● What is your budget? 

104 Andrew Broderick, The Future of Rural Transportation...

105 Martha Fedorowicz, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes, “Community Engagement During the...”
37

● What is your department’s capacity for outreach, engagement, and follow-up? 

● What strategies have been used in the past and how were they evaluated?106 107

These questions can be, at times, difficult for transportation practitioners to answer on their 

own. Figure 7 depicts additional practical considerations that agency planners said they have 

used for choosing VPI tools during the pandemic.108 While project geography is not a very 

common consideration, it is clear that rural communities have particular characteristics related 

to Internet access and entitative dynamics that should be investigated prior to determining 

which VPI tools will garner the public feedback you require. With some discussion and, 

potentially, outreach to community leaders, the answers to the above questions can be paired 

with specific features of various VPI tools to provide the solution that best fits the community in 

question.

Figure 7. Factors influencing VPI usage. Adapted from NASEM (2022, p.23).

I. Addressing the Digital Divide 

Effectively addressing limits to broadband access in rural communities is, in many ways, another 

component of meeting communities where they are and becoming familiar with their own goals 

and capacity. Trusted community leaders can act as valuable sources of feedback on the types of 

VPI tools being considered for a project, and the level of access community members might 

have to the technological tools needed to consistently engage. It may be that VPI tools indeed 

widen the base of public participation, but only when specific accessibility steps are taken, such 

106 GPCOG, “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement...”

107 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Virtual Public Involvement Benefits...”

108 NASEM, “Virtual Public Involvement: Lessons...”
38

as using (and advertising) sign language translation during live webinars. In instances where 

many community members go without broadband Internet and primarily connect to services 

through mobile data plans, practitioners will need to focus their energy on adapting their tools 

and ideas to what works. Arriving with a firm preconceived idea of the type of VPI tool one 

wishes to implement may be less feasible in rural communities—and ultimately less useful in 

obtaining needed public input.

II. Investing in Practitioner and Community Capacity-Building 

Practitioners may need additional technical and facilitation skills training to successfully launch 

and conduct meaningful engagement with VPI tools. Community members may also need 

different types of training and technical assistance along the way. Investments take resources. 

The literature highlighting successful community virtual public involvement, as well as the case 

study interviews, offer a strong recommendation for increased investment of time and financial 

resources in community engagement processes that are appropriately calibrated to the ultimate 

needs and anticipated outcomes of the project.

This summary of recommendations is intended to encourage collaboration and thoughtful 

consideration of challenges and barriers to rural participation, and to provide an overview of VPI 

tools at our collective disposal to surmount these challenges and support the role of public 

involvement in shaping project outcomes. Decisions about tools and processes are necessarily 

place-specific, but there are many communities discerning how to bring ambitious goals to 

fruition with the help of VPI tools. Many of these communities have shared insights in reports, 

resources, toolkits, videos, and webinars that can serve as a reference and example, and many 

are highlighted in this report. There is a research community through the Transportation 

Research Board, US Department of Transportation FHWA, and other organizations asking critical 

questions about how to best leverage virtual tools for more robust public involvement, and this 

work will surely continue to evolve.
39

Implementation Actions

Task Description Lead

Develop single page 

information brief for each 

section

Visual summary of content of 

each piece of the report for 

simple navigation

FHWA

Develop slide deck of content 

and findings

Summary of project, approach, 

and findings for dissemination

FHWA

Develop, Deliver Recorded 

Webinar

Summary of project, approach, 

and findings for dissemination

FHWA

Create Navigable PDF PDF based on webinar 

presentation

FHWA

TRB Poster Session TRB Annual Meeting held in 

January. Joint presentation 

with FHWA

FHWA

Collect Research Need 

Statements

Develop new research 

statements based on Final 

Report and dissemination 

efforts

FHWA; TRB Committees on 

Parks and Parks and Public 

Lands (AEP20) and Native 

American Transportation 

Issues (AME30); TRB Rural 

Transportation Issues 

Coordinating Council
40

Bibliography

Arnstein, Sherry R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of 

Planners 35, no. 4 (1969): 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. 

Bailey, Keiron, Joel Brumm, & Ted Grossardt. ”Integrating Visualization Into Structured Public 

Involvement: Case Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky.” Transportation 

Research Record 1817, no. 02-3113(2002): 50-57, pg. 51. https://doi.org/10.3141/1817-

07. 

Blevins, Dean, Bridget Morton, & Rene McGovern. “Evaluating a Community-Based 

Participatory Research Project for Elderly Mental Healthcare in Rural America.” Clinical 

Interventions in Aging 3, no. 3(2008): 535-545. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s1540. 

Broderick, Andrew. The Future of Rural Transportation and Mobility for Older Adults: Current 

Trends and Future Directions in Technology-Enabled Solutions. CITRIS and the Banatao 

Institute, and Grantmakers in Aging. 2018. 

https://www.giaging.org/documents/180424_CITRIS_rural_mobility_paper_F.pdf. 

California Dept. of Transportation [Caltrans]. “Virtual Public Involvement Technical Assistance 

Summary Report.” April 21, 2019. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/. 

Correa, Teresa, & Isabel Pavez. “Digital Inclusion in Rural Areas: A Qualitative Exploration of 

Challenges Faced by People from Isolated Communities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated 

Communication 21(2016): 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12154. 

Cronley, Courtney, Vivian J. Miller, Noelle L. Fields, & Stephen P. Mattingly. “Utilizing an 

Inter-Professional Online Advisory Board: A Case Study to Inform Innovation in 

Community-Engaged, Transportation Equity Research and Planning.” Transportation 

Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 10(2021). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100365. 

Dougald, Lance E., & Eric S. Williams. An Analysis of Virtual Public Engagement in the 

Transportation Planning Process. Virginia Transportation Research Council [VTRC]. 

October 2022. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/23-r6.pdf. 

Durand, Anne, Toon Zijlstra, Niels van Oort, Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser, & Serge 

Hoogendoorn. “Access Denied? Digital Inequality in Transport Services.” Transport 

Reviews 42, no. 1 (2022): 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1923584. 

Erdiaw-Kwasie, Michael O., & Khorshed Alam. “Towards Understanding Digital Divide in Rural 

Partnerships and Development: A Framework and Evidence from Rural Australia.” Journal 

of Rural Studies 43(2016): 214-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.002. 

Fedorowicz, Martha, Olivia Arena, & Kimberly Burrowes. “Community Engagement During the 

COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: A Guide for Community-Based Organizations.” Urban 

Institute. September 2020. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/communityengagement-during-covid-19-pandemic-and-beyond. 

Get There Oregon. Core Principles for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Engagement in

Transportation Options Programs. Accessed March 20, 2023. 

https://getthereoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Core-Principles-for-LEPEngagement-Appendix-FINAL.pdf. 
41

Greater Portland Council of Governments [GPCOG]. “Inclusive & Accessible Virtual Engagement: 

Lessons from the Field.” October 2020. 

https://www.gpcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1420/GPCOG_Virtual-EngagementWhite-Paper_Final_102120-for-website-1?bidId=. 

Greenfield, Emily A., & Tine Buffel. “Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Research to 

Strengthen Policy and Practice.” Journal of Aging & Social Policy (2022). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2022.2049573. 

Gunby, Kate. “Practice Makes Perfect: Five State DOTS Implement a Public Involvement 

Effectiveness Measurement Toolkit.” TR News. November-December 2022. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/25447. 

Haugen, Jaimie Stickl & Jill Ann Chouinard. “Transparent, Translucent, Opaque: Exploring the 

Dimensions of Power in Culturally Responsive Evaluation Contexts.” American Journal of 

Evaluation 40, no. 3(2019): 376-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018796342. 

Lee, Nicol Turner, James Seddon, Brooke Tanner, & Samantha Lai. “Why the federal government 

needs to step up efforts to close the rural broadband divide.” Brookings, October 4, 

2022. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-needs-to-stepup-their-efforts-to-close-the-rural-broadband-divide/. 

Mack, Elizabeth A. “Broadband and knowledge intensive firm clusters: Essential link or auxiliary 

connection?” Papers in Regional Science 93, no. 1(2014): 3-29. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00461.x. 

Michigan Department of Transportation. ”Virtual Public Involvement Benefits and Barriers: A 

Practical Guide to VPI Tools.” Spring 2021. https://www.michigan.gov/-

/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/News-and-Outreach/Public-Involvement/Guide-VirtualPublic-Involvement.pdf?rev=825951f16632433589b73160f86a4a6f. 

Minnesota Department of Transportation. “Public Engagement Practices During the Covid-19 

Pandemic and Other Disruptive Events.” June 2021. 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2021/TRS2103.pdf. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. “Virtual Public 

Involvement: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.17226/26827. 

Potnis, Devendra, & Bhakti Gala, ”Best Practices for Conducting Fieldwork with Marginalized 

Communities,” Information Processing and Management 57(2020), 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102144. 

Roberts, Elisabeth, Brett Anne Anderson, Sarah Skerratt, & John Farrington. “A Review of the 

Rural-Digital Policy Agenda from a Community Resilience Perspective.” Journal of Rural 

Studies 54(2017): 372-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.03.001. 

Sanders, Cynthia K., & Edward Scanlon. “The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing 

Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy.” Journal of Human Rights and Social 

Work 6(2021): 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9. 

Shortall, Sally. “Are Rural Development Programmes Socially Inclusive? Social Inclusion, Civic 

Engagement, Participation, and Social Capital: Exploring the Differences.” Journal of Rural 

Studies 24(2008): 450-457. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001. 
42

Smith, Ann Symens, & Edward Trevelyan. “The Older Population in Rural America: 2012-2016.” 

US Census Bureau. September 23, 2019. 

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/acs/acs-41.html. 

Transit Cooperative Research Program [TCRP]. Inclusive Public Participation in Transit 

Decision-Making: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. The National Academies Press (2023). 

https://doi.org/10.17226/26940. 

Townsend, Leanne, Claire Wallace, & Gorry Fairhurst. “‘Stuck Out Here’: The Critical Role of 

Broadband for Remote Rural Places.” Scottish Geographical Journal 131, nos. 3-4(2015): 

171-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.978807. 

Uddin, Mohammad Moin, Candace Bright, & Kelly Foster. “Delphi Study to Identify Best Practices 

for Rural Community Engagement in Transportation Planning.” Transportation Research 

Record 2676, no. 8(2022): 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221083611. 

US Dept. of Transportation. “Rural Eligibility.” Accessed March 20, 2023. 

https://www.transportation.gov/rural/eligibility. 

US Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]. “VPI Toolkit,” US Dept. of Transportation, updated 

December 8, 2022. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/virtual_toolkit/. 

Whitacre, Brian, & Jacob Manlove. “Use of Broadband Linked to Greater Levels of Civic 

Engagement.” The Daily Yonder, September 22, 2016. https://dailyyonder.com/use-ofbroadband-linked-to-greater-levels-of-civic-engagement/2016/09/22/. 

Whitham, Monica M. “Community Entitativity and Civic Engagement.” City & Community 18, no. 

3 (2019): 896-914. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12385. 
43

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

To obtain a set of interviewees for the case examples included in this report, we first solicited 

contacts and suggestions from the members of the project management team (PMT). The PMT 

members are based in Oregon and the contact list reflected predominantly Pacific Northwest 

regions, so we also searched relevant TRB literature pertaining to VPI topics and considered 

several contacts of our own to broaden the options across geographic location. We then 

identified individuals who would offer representation across geographic area, type of 

organization, and scope of responsibility. 

We conducted interviews via Zoom during the months of March and April 2023. Interviews 

lasted 60-90 minutes and were based on a set of semi-structured questions, as follows:

1. Would you tell me about your current role?

- What types of experience and interests led you to this position?

- Generally, what types of questions or problems do you address in your role?

- [position-specific follow-up questions...]

2. Why, or in what ways, is public participation and input important to the work that you

do?

3. How would you characterize the public(s) you serve? (Demographically, ideologically...)

4. How has the pandemic informed public involvement for your organization? What

changed and what worked well?

5. What are some challenges or barriers you’ve encountered with getting virtual public input on 

projects from rural stakeholders?

6. Would you give me an example of a project you’ve worked on and how you strategized

around the virtual or hybrid public involvement piece?

7. Who are the populations/groups/communities you’ve discovered are harder to reach?

Who have you had more success reaching and why?

8. How do you try to ensure that you are reaching everyone you want to reach, including the

hard-to-reach folks?
44

9. What virtual tools have you used successfully, and what did success look like in each

case?

10. Is there a virtual public involvement tool or approach you’d like to have more 

information about or more support to use it in your context?

11. Is there anything I haven’t asked you that would be important to know?
45