GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 15-18 FINAL REPORT DELIVERING GDOT'S WORK PROGRAM: DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION AT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OPEN HOUSES TO ENHANCE THE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND AWARENESS OF NEED AND PURPOSE, TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES, AND CONSEQUENCES OF NOT IMPLEMENTING IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH GDOT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM OFFICE OF RESEARCH 15 KENNEDY DRIVE FOREST PARK, GA 30297-2534 1. Report No.: FHWA-GA-17-1518 2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: 4. Title and Subtitle: Delivering GDOT'S Work Program: 5. Report Date: May 2017 Developing strategies for successful communication at Public Meetings and Open Houses to enhance the conceptual understanding and awareness of Need and Purpose, transportation deficiencies, and consequences of not implementing improvements associated with GDOT's proposed Work Program 6. Performing Organization Code: 7. Author(s): Marcel Maghiar, Cheryl Aasheim, Jennifer 8. Performing Organ. Report No.: Kowalewski, Gustavo Maldonado 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No.: Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Management, Information Technology and Communication 11. Contract or Grant No.: Arts RP 15-18 / 0013245 Georgia Southern University PO Box 8077 Statesboro, GA 30460-8077 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Georgia Department of Transportation Covered: Office of Research Final; December 2015 - May 2017 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534 14. Sponsoring Agency Code: 15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract: The research project's purpose was to determine the most effective strategies, methods, and formats to inform the public about Georgia Department of Transportation's (GDOT) Work Program. The researchers investigated the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) and other state DOTs to determine what methods to employ for best practices to get public involvement. The project also looked to mass communication scholars to determine better ways to get public input and understanding, which is integral to the work done by GDOT. The study is providing an actual guide outlining better ways to present information in order to inform the public about GDOT's Work Program. The guide is inclusive of tools, visual formats, and strategies for the GDOT to provide the public with concise, understandable messaging in user-friendly formats, and to present approaches for keen invitations to comment and feedback as early as possible in the project life. As other state DOTs were examined, the conceptual guide recommends some best practices and successful strategies for improving content of meetings. After many individuals were surveyed for trust and knowledge about GDOT projects, recommendations were proposed to improve their participation in Public Meetings and Open Houses. Agenda setting and agenda building findings from the news media practitioners' interviews allowed researchers to recommend effective options for preparation of GDOT news to media. Finally, systematic messaging strategies and measures were recommended to determine the success of the strategies along with tactics for early public involvement in the planning process. 17. Key Words: GDOT Work Program, Open Houses, public input, 18. Distribution Statement: news media, messaging strategies 19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified 20. Security classification 21. Number 22. Price: (of this page): Unclassified of Pages: 244 ii GDOT Research Project No. 15-18 Final Report DELIVERING GDOT'S WORK PROGRAM: DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION AT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OPEN HOUSES TO ENHANCE THE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND AWARENESS OF NEED AND PURPOSE, TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES, AND CONSEQUENCES OF NOT IMPLEMENTING IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH GDOT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM Submitted by Marcel Maghiar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Cheryl Aasheim, Ph.D., Professor Jennifer Kowalewski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Gustavo Maldonado, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Management Georgia Southern University PO Box 8077, Statesboro, GA 30460-8077 Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration May 2017 The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or of the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVE, AND WORK PLAN ................................... 1 1.1 Introduction and Background Information ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective and Work Plan (description of tasks)............................................................... 2 1.3 General Literature Review (critical to the main tasks).................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Survey to Other State Departments of Transportation ................................................. 10 2.2 Examination of Results ..................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Recommendation of the Best Practices and Successful Strategies for Improving Content of Meetings ................................................................................................................ 25 CHAPTER 3. INDIVIDUALS' TRUST AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GEORGIA DOT . 31 3.1 Background Information on Public Trust and Political Knowledge ............................ 31 3.2 Public Trust and Political Knowledge Considerations .................................................. 32 3.3 Survey to Determine Public Involvement........................................................................ 39 3.4 Public Trust Findings........................................................................................................ 47 3.5 Political Knowledge Findings ........................................................................................... 54 3.6 Public Meetings and Open Houses Findings ................................................................... 58 3.7 Recommendations to Improve Public Participation Based on Survey Findings ......... 66 CHAPTER 4. PROJECT VISUALIZATION STRATEGIES ................................................ 70 4.1 Investigation of User-Friendly Formats for Visuals - Other State DOTs .................... 70 4.2 Visualization Techniques to Drive Individuals to GDOT Website (recommendations for VERG) ................................................................................................................................ 75 4.3 Effective Use of Social Media Sites, Visualizations Available to the Media and Visual Preference Survey.................................................................................................................... 93 4.4 Plan for Using the Website and Other New Technology Formats ................................ 96 CHAPTER 5. NEWS MEDIA PRACTITIONERS AND PREPARATION OF GDOT NEWS TO MEDIA.................................................................................................................... 102 5.1 Agenda Setting and Agenda Building............................................................................ 102 iv 5.2 Method - Qualitative Interviews .................................................................................... 109 5.3 Agenda Setting Findings ................................................................................................. 115 5.4 Agenda Building Findings GDOT in General............................................................ 118 5.5 Agenda Building Findings Public Meetings ............................................................... 123 5.6 News Values ..................................................................................................................... 125 5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations for GDOT ............................................................. 127 CHAPTER 6. US DOT STRATEGY VERSUS OTHER STATE DOTS BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 130 6.1 US DOT versus Other State DOTs Matrix ................................................................... 130 6.2 Systematic Messaging Strategies.................................................................................... 131 6.3 Recommended Timeline for Messaging and Measures to Determine the Success of the Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 135 CHAPTER 7. OPEN HOUSES RESOURCE EFFECTIVENESS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 141 7.1 Refining Conventional Practices .................................................................................... 141 7.2 Recommendations for Potential Savings and Increased Participation in Open Houses ................................................................................................................................................. 146 7.3 Recommendations for Public Involvement Early in the Planning Process ................ 151 7.4 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 155 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 161 State of Practices and Strategies to conduct Open Houses and Public Meetings Questionnaire......................................................................................................................... 161 APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................. 163 Survey to gauge Individuals' Trust and Public Knowledge about GDOT....................... 163 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................ 172 Interviews with News Media Practitioners (transcripts) ................................................... 172 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................ 214 US DOT State DOTs Matrix ............................................................................................. 214 APPENDIX E............................................................................................................................. 223 Social Media and Online Tools............................................................................................. 223 APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................................. 226 Research Team's Participation and Experiences ............................................................... 226 APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................................ 228 Technology Formats for Visuals .......................................................................................... 228 v APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................ 230 Visual Preference Survey...................................................................................................... 230 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Efficient Techniques for Finding Information........................................................... 11 Table 2. Most Involved and Active Public Audiences .............................................................. 12 Table 3. Effective "Face-to-Face" Techniques.......................................................................... 13 Table 4. Effective Venues for Public Meetings/Hearings......................................................... 14 Table 5. Effective Form of Social Media or Online Resource ................................................. 15 Table 6. Most Requested Content by Public ............................................................................. 16 Table 7. Most Convenient and Beneficial Times ...................................................................... 17 Table 8. Effective Advertisements.............................................................................................. 18 Table 9. Effective Method for Obtaining Feedback ................................................................. 19 Table 10. Most Used Forms of Feedback .................................................................................. 20 Table 11. Addressing Public Feedback...................................................................................... 21 Table 12. Other Activities for Involvement............................................................................... 22 Table 13. Use of Incentives ......................................................................................................... 23 Table 14. Ethnicity of Respondents ........................................................................................... 45 Table 15. Income of Respondents............................................................................................... 46 Table 16. Education Level of Respondents ............................................................................... 46 Table 17. Political Affiliation of Respondents........................................................................... 46 Table 18. News Sources of Respondents.................................................................................... 47 Table 19. Respondents' Internet Usage (hours per day).......................................................... 47 Table 20. Survey Questions on Public Trust............................................................................. 48 Table 21. t-tests Comparing Public Trust for GDOT versus US DOT................................... 51 Table 22. t-tests Comparing Political Efficacy and Political Cynicism for GDOT versus US DOT .............................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 23. t-tests Comparing Political Efficacy and Political Cynicism for GDOT versus Hypothetical Mean of 3 ............................................................................................................... 52 Table 24. Political Knowledge Questions and Percent of Respondents Who Answered Correctly....................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 25. Political Knowledge Frequencies and Relative Frequencies................................... 57 Table 26. Statistics for Regressions of Public Knowledge versus Public Efficacy and Public Cynicism ....................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 27. Summary of Themes Identified and Recommendations ......................................... 68 Table 28. Communication received from GDOT ................................................................... 112 Table 29. Media Coverage provided for Public Meetings/Open Houses .............................. 113 Table 30. Gender of Media Practitioners ................................................................................ 114 Table 31. Race of Media Practitioners .................................................................................... 115 Table 32. Job Title of Media Practitioners.............................................................................. 115 Table 33. News Values indicated by Media Practitioners...................................................... 126 Table 34. Estimated Costs associated with OES Public Involvement Activities for a Simple Project......................................................................................................................................... 144 Table 35. Estimated Costs associated with OES Public Involvement Activities for a Medium Project......................................................................................................................................... 145 vii Table 36. Estimated Costs associated with OES Public Involvement Activities for a Complex Project......................................................................................................................................... 146 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Efficient Techniques for finding information ................................................................ 11 Figure 2 Most Involved and Active Audiences ............................................................................ 12 Figure 3 Effective "Face-to-Face" Techniques ............................................................................ 13 Figure 4 Effective Venues for Public Meetings/Hearings ............................................................ 14 Figure 5 Effective Form of Social Media or Online Resource ..................................................... 15 Figure 6 Most Requested Content by Public ................................................................................ 17 Figure 7 Most Convenient and Beneficial Times ......................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Effective Advertisements ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 9 Effective Method for Obtaining Feedback..................................................................... 20 Figure 10 Most Used Forms of Feedback .................................................................................... 21 Figure 11 Addressing Public Feedback ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 12 Other Activities for Involvement ................................................................................. 23 Figure 13 Use of Incentives.......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 14 Percent of Other State DOTs Using Each Particular Visualization Technique............ 74 ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GDOT has a mission integral to the safety and security of Georgia residents, including maintaining state roads and bridges, and other modes of transportation, such as rails and air safety planning, and overseeing waterways, including intercoastal waterways. Despite being an organization that impacts everyday life for individuals in the state of Georgia, many residents seem unaware of the benefits this agency provides to them. Many of the project messages by GDOT seem to get "lost in translation" with individuals failing to understand the benefits of these projects. Consequently, the interest in Open House formats can be improved and, conceivably, the understanding and trust of the GDOT's Work Program may be increased. The objective of this study was to determine the most effective strategies, methods, and formats to educate the public about GDOT's Work Program. The researchers looked to the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), and other state DOTs to determine best practices for public involvement. The researchers also investigated mass communication scholars' research to identify better communication techniques GDOT might use in reaching out to the public and to the media about the importance of its Work Program. The proposed study has identified strategies and techniques for GDOT to use to proactively and clearly get its message out about the projects being done by the state agency. With regard to proactive messaging, this final report, the Conceptual Guide herein, suggests a multifaceted approach that includes effective use of the local media, as well as a more grass roots approach to community outreach through the use of established community organizations. The research approach includes two surveys, interviews with news media practitioners, and an investigation on best practices in government-based x transportation agencies with a specific focus on communication practices and also on the use of technology to improve communication. The first survey was administered to individuals to understand their level of trust and knowledge of the GDOT and its Work Program. The second survey consisted of interviews of news media practitioners. The purpose of the interviews was to understand how GDOT might better prepare messages for the media to use to provide better coverage of GDOT-related stories and to reach the public more effectively through the media. The results of the research on best practices along with the results of the two surveys were combined to produce the present Conceptual Guide customized for GDOT. The Guide outlines communication strategies to improve understanding and acceptance, awareness of projects, and increase public participation in Open Houses. The Conceptual Guide was completed by a research team consisting of two civil engineers with experience in construction, a mass communications specialist, and an information technology specialist. The civil engineers conveyed a better understanding for the nature of these projects and the technical details of the projects that the GDOT is trying to communicate in Open Houses. The mass communications specialist investigated the best and most effective communication strategies for the projects, as well as gauging public trust and knowledge about GDOT projects. The information technology specialist was instrumental in distribution of surveys and analysis of results, as well as the various technologies and formats that can be used for transmitting information/messages. The findings and recommendations are included in each individual chapter and reinforced in the final chapter. The Guide includes tools, visual formats, and strategies for GDOT to provide the public with concise and more user-friendly messaging formats. xi Also, it presents approaches to elicit comments from the public and to receive feedback as early as possible in the project life cycle. From the analysis of other state DOTs' best practices and strategies, the Guide recommends some of the best practices and successful strategies for improving content of meetings. Individuals surveyed on trust and knowledge about GDOT projects helped researchers identify common recurring themes and issues. The recommendations made in Chapter 3 are aimed at improving participation in Public Meetings and Open Houses. The news media practitioners' interviews provided insights on how messages could be better geared for the news media to encourage the news media to use the information from GDOT in news stories. The team also identified the news values as indicated by media practitioners that communication has to have from GDOT to the news media in order for the media to want to use GDOT's information. Finally, systematic messaging strategies were presented. In addition, some measurements to determine the success of the strategies were recommended, along with tactics for early public involvement in the planning process and refinement of conventional practices. The significance of this Guide is the provision of more consistent ways to present information in order to inform the public about GDOT's Work Program. This Guide includes tools, visual formats, along with strategies and plans for the agency to provide the public with effective, concise, and understandable messaging in user-friendly formats early in the project life cycle. Key Words: GDOT Work Program, Open Houses, public input, news media, messaging strategies xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors and students who contributed to this report would like to take this opportunity to thank the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for its strong support and valuable input. The work conducted was sponsored by the Office of Research o f GDOT ( Research Project 15-18). The researchers particularly want to acknowledge the contribution and support of Supriya Kamatkar, Office of Research; Dr. Verlin (Ryan) Perry, Office of Environmental Services; Karlene Barone, Office of Communications; and David Jared, Assistant State Research Engineer. Also, the research team would like to acknowledge the kindness and the valuable information shared to all investigators by Glenn Williams from the Office of Design Policy and Support and Kristi Patterson in the Visual Engineering Resource Group (VERG). xiii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVE, AND WORK PLAN 1.1 Introduction and Background Information "Delivering GDOT'S Work Program: Developing strategies for successful communication at Public Meetings and Open Houses to enhance the conceptual understanding and awareness of Need and Purpose, transportation deficiencies, and consequences of not implementing improvements associated with GDOT's proposed Work Program" is the GDOT research project contracted by a Georgia Southern University multidisciplinary research team. GDOT has an important mission to maintain state roads and bridges, and other modes of transportation, such as rails and air safety planning, and overseas waterways, including intercoastal waterways. Despite being an organization that affects everyday life for most Georgians, many residents seem unaware of the benefits this agency provides. Many of the project messages by GDOT seem to get "lost in translation," and individuals may not understand the benefits of projects. Therefore, the interest in Open House formats may be improved and, perhaps, the understanding/trust of the GDOT's Work Program can be increased. This final report is identifying strategies and techniques based on best practices for getting the message regarding projects to the public proactively. It is also identifying clearly the benefits to the public and the impact on the public in language and formats that are easy for the public to understand and access. With regard to proactive messaging, the guide is encouraging a multifaceted approach that includes effective use of the local media, as well as a more grass roots approach involving community outreach and the use of established community organizations. This guide has laid important conclusions inferred from two surveys and research on best practices in 1 government-based transportation agencies with a specific focus on communication practices and a focus on the use of technology to improve communication. Also, a series of interviews were conducted by researchers to news media practitioners in the state about how GDOT could better prepare messages for state media to use. The first survey was administered to individuals in order to understand their level of acceptance and knowledge of the GDOT and its Work Program. The second survey administered focused on the news media to understand how GDOT might better prepare messages for the news media in order to be presented to the public. The results of the research on best practices along with the results of the two surveys are combined to produce the present Conceptual Guide. It was customized for GDOT and outlines communications strategies to improve understanding and acceptance, and increase public participation and awareness of projects. The research team accomplished this endeavor and produced this Guide for GDOT by involving two civil engineers with experience in construction, a mass communications specialist, and an information technology specialist. The civil engineers understood the nature of the projects and the technical details of the projects that the GDOT was planning, designing, and trying to communicate to public. The mass communications specialist determined the best and most effective communication strategies for these projects, and the information technology specialist was involved in analyzing and determining the most effective communication strategies and the various technologies that can be used for transmitting information/messages. 1.2 Objective and Work Plan (description of tasks) Objective of the research project The research team established that the main objective for this project was to determine the most effective strategies, methods, and formats to 2 educate the public about the GDOT's Work Program using best practices for public involvement as identified by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), other state DOTs, and mass communication scholars. The work plan established by Georgia Southern University research team was diligently carried out as outlined in the following main six tasks. Task 1: Other state DOTs were examined to determine if there is information regarding best practices and strategies that these DOTs have found successful. Surveys were conducted with other state DOTs to determine what strategies worked best (as DOTs that have demonstrated success in public meetings or project messaging was identified). The results from examining and conducting these surveys with other state DOTs and the results of the interviews of the media (Task 4) were used to develop strategies for improving the content of the meetings, getting the public to the meetings, using outreach to get the project information to the community, and using the media to inform the public about the projects. Task 2: In an effort to gauge individuals' level of trust and knowledge, the research team used a survey instrument for individuals to understand the level of trust they have in GDOT. Through the same survey instrument, the team also determined how much individuals understand the mission, the nature, and the benefits of GDOT projects Task 3: On this particular task, strategies were investigated in order to improve the presentation and format of messages delivered to the public. In this sense: Team worked and looked into developing a plan for using the website and any 3 other new technology formats to help drive users to the site for additional information. Visual techniques were investigated for presenting information in user-friendly formats, such as 3D visualization, interactive displays, kiosks, and mapping using a Geographic Information System (extended to techniques used by other state DOTs). The team worked with VERG (Visual Engineering Resource Group) and GDOT in an attempt to understand how to drive more individuals to the website. Investigation of potential effective use of social media sites, visualizations available to the media and on the site, and a visual preference survey to be given to the public were proposed. Task 4: A survey to news media practitioners was created and deployed. It was about how GDOT could better prepare messages for the media to use. Results of the survey have provided insights about how the media determines what issues are important enough to include on the media's agenda and what information GDOT could provide that might help convey the importance of the GDOT's message. Task 5: Investigation on US DOT strategy with respect to best practices versus other state DOTs to determine their best practices as well as systematic messaging strategies was at focus for this task. The team proposed recommendations regarding which techniques are most effective given the nature of the project or meeting(s). The results of this task were combined with the results found in the other tasks to determine what combination of messaging techniques work best to build this 4 Conceptual Guide customized for GDOT. The final report (the guide) includes other strategies for getting messages regarding projects to the public including open houses and use of media formats. The guide also recommends timeline for messaging and provides a variety of measures that can be used to determine the successfulness of the strategies suggested including, but not limited to, increased number of attendees at meetings and events, positive results of surveys regarding meeting effectiveness, decreased number of complaints, increased positive mentions in the local and state news, and favorable comparison of the survey administered in Task 2 regarding individuals' knowledge of and trust in GDOT given by the researchers administering the survey again in the future by GDOT. Task 6: Investigation of Open Houses held in conjunction with public meeting/hearing situations and use of shared resources for potential savings. Recommendations are made on the anticipated costs associated with refining conventional practices currently in use, as well as determining early in the planning process which project types/situations are candidates requiring proactive messaging. The significance of this final report, Conceptual Public Guide, is that public input and understanding is integral to the work done by GDOT, as a lack of understanding can cause delays and increase costs. The body of this work is providing an actual guide that outlines better ways to present information in order to inform the public about the GDOT Work Program. The Guide is inclusive of tools, formats, and strategies for GDOT to provide the public with concise, understandable messages in user-friendly formats early 5 in the project life cycle. The support requested from GDOT by the research team during this project is outlined below: Facilitation and introduction of the research team to VERG and support with exchange of information Assistance in the collaboration with GDOT Information Technology (IT) personnel for website enhancements and improvements suggested in this final report Assistance on obtaining cost records of current conventional practices for Public meetings/hearings and Open Houses Providing information about the current practices for Public meetings/hearings and Open Houses as well as information about what has been successful and what has been not been successful 1.3 General Literature Review (critical to the main tasks) Every state as well as the federal government has a department of transportation that oversees construction projects. The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) provides a guide regarding how to involve the public in planning and project development called Public Involvement Techniques (http://www.planning.dot.gov/publicinvolvement/pi_documents/toc-foreword.asp). The contents of this US DOT document provide guidelines for involving the public in projects, making individuals feel like they make a difference, and keeping the public's attention for the duration of the project. The communication ideas include informing the public through outreach and by partnering with existing community organizations. The document also provides guidelines on how to involve people, how to get feedback from 6 people for improving meetings, and the use of various techniques to enhance public participation. According to the Pew Research Center, an erosion of public trust in government is seen with only 24% of individuals polled in October 2014 believed that those in Washington "would do what is right" (Dimcock, 2014; Doherty, 2015). However, although public trust remains elusive for the Federal government, many state governments and agencies are more trusted. In a 2013 poll by Pew Research Center, 57% of those polled indicated that they trusted their state government (Gao, 2013). Mass Communication scholars have determined that trust remains paramount overall in message acceptance in that more the people trust the messenger, more likely the people will pay attention to the message (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997). However, trust is not the only issue to understand. Trust goes hand in hand with public knowledge of what government agencies do. When individuals understand what a government agency does, they have more trust. One way to determine the level of trust and knowledge of individuals about GDOT is to conduct a survey. Cappella and Jamieson have studied people's level of trust and level of knowledge for more than two decades, determining a way to survey individuals to gauge individuals' level of trust and knowledge in government organizations. In Mass Communication, scholars use agenda setting and agenda building to determine how the media impact public opinion formation. Agenda setting is the idea that when the media talk about certain issues, those issues become salient in individuals' minds (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Roger & Dearing, 1996; McCombs, 2004). Sei-Hill, Scheufele, and Shanahan (2002) have shown that when the news media discuss issues, 7 such as transportation, individuals will cite transportation as a major issue facing their community. Therefore, GDOT wants to determine what best management practices it needs to reach out to the news media in general, in order to reach out to individuals, specifically regarding public meetings and projects. Agenda building deals with this in terms of how policy makers could shape the media agendas by placing certain issues in the forefront of the minds of journalists. The Pew Research Center has shown that individuals still rely on local news, including television news and newspapers, to get local information. In 2015, the Pew Research Center studied three areas of the country, including Macon, and found that 9 in 10 people indicated that they followed their local news closely (Mitchell, 2015). So, if GDOT could successfully get on the media's agenda, the agency will reach the public. GDOT is competing for a limited amount of space in the media's agenda with other government agencies, as well as other issues. To understand how to better tailor messages to ensure that those messages make it into the media agenda, the team proposes surveying news media practitioners to determine why they choose to cover GDOT. According to the US DOT Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration (http://www.planning.dot.gov/publicinvolvement/pi_documents/tocforeword.asp), there are several techniques that can be used to promote greater participation and awareness of projects such as holding special events (i.e. transportation fairs), using new approaches in meetings (i.e. site visits and role playing), and finding new ways to communicate (i.e. visualization, teleconferencing, and interactive displays). In addition, the US DOT suggests getting more people involved through outreach and 8 involvement in community organizations. Greater interaction and participation will promote awareness and understanding. Better understanding will promote acceptance. 9 CHAPTER 2. BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION The US DOT has provided each state transportation agency with a guide of strategies to involve the public in planning and project development. The guide suggests methods of informing the public through outreach, involving people through meetings, receiving public feedback, and enhancing public participation. In this GDOT research project, other state transportation agencies were compared and examined to determine their best practices and strategies. 2.1 Survey to Other State Departments of Transportation Key employees from each state transportation agency were asked to participate in a survey to distinguish which public involvement practices worked best. The survey consisted of thirteen questions and was administered through an online analysis tool, called Qualtrics. The findings from this survey were used to recommend and improve the content of meetings, increase the public attendance at meetings, provide project information to the community through outreach, and inform the public about projects using the media. 2.2 Examination of Results The survey (see Appendix A) had a response rate of 84%, with 56 total responses that represented 42 different state transportation agencies. The survey questions and summary of responses are provided below. Where appropriate, respondents could choose more than one answer. In addition, all questions had an option for "Other" where respondents could write in a response if it did not exist in the list of choices. The open ended "Other" 10 responses were classified as "relevant," and "non-relevant." The results from this analysis can be found below by question; however, since more than one response can be chosen from available answers, the percentages will not equal 100% for each question. The response results are provided in tabular fashion as well as graphically with the category of highest percentages presented first for ease of interpretation. Q1. WHAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT TECHNIQUE FOR THE PUBLIC TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR STATE DOT? When asked about the most efficient technique for the public to find information, the most frequent response was online. The use of social media was also mentioned in the open-ended answers. A summary of these responses can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Efficient Techniques for Finding Information Efficient Techniques for Finding Information Online 88% In Person 7% Other 5% Hotlines 0% Figure 1 Efficient Techniques for finding information 11 Q2. WHAT PUBLIC AUDIENCES ARE MOST INVOLVED AND ACTIVE WITH YOUR DOT? When asked about the most active and involved, the most frequent response was older audiences. The open-ended responses noted for this question were business/property owners, affected parties, elected officials, motorists, bicycle advocates, and special interest groups. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 2. Table 2. Most Involved and Active Public Audiences Most Involved and Active Public Audiences Older Audiences 79% Other 32% Minority Groups 29% Younger Audiences 23% Ethnic Groups 21% Low Income Groups 18% Figure 2 Most Involved and Active Audiences Q3. WHAT TYPE OF "FACE-TO-FACE" PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES ARE EFFECTIVE FOR YOUR DOT? 12 When asked about effective involvement techniques, the most frequent response was public meetings. The open-ended responses noted for this question were business meetings, information tables, neighborhood events, project tours, one-on-one meetings, open houses, door-to-door interaction, district offices, social media, and online tools. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 3. Table 3. Effective "Face-to-Face" Techniques Effective "Face-to-Face" Techniques Public Meetings/Hearings 98% Other 25% Speaker Bureaus 23% Drop-in Centers 20% Figure 3 Effective "Face-to-Face" Techniques Q4. WHAT VENUES HAVE BEEN USED EFFECTIVELY FOR HOLDING PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS? When asked about effective venues, the most frequent response was schools. The openended responses noted for this question were churches, community centers, hotel 13 conference rooms, coffee shops, Fire/Legion Halls, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Approved Facilities. A summary of all responses can be found in Table 4. Table 4. Effective Venues for Public Meetings/Hearings Effective Venues for Public Meetings/Hearings Schools 87% Government Agency Space 76% Libraries 56% Other 33% Malls 15% Figure 4 Effective Venues for Public Meetings/Hearings Q5. WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF SOCIAL MEDIA OR ONLINE RESOURCE USED TO INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC AND PROMOTE YOUR DOT? When asked about effective forms of social media or online resources, the most frequent response was Twitter. The open-ended responses noted for this question were press 14 releases, Periscope, ISSUU (a free electronic publishing platform), Vimeo (a global video-sharing website), mysidewalk.com, YouTube, and state DOT homepages. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 5. Table 5. Effective Form of Social Media or Online Resource Effective Form of Social Media or Online Resource Twitter 87% Facebook 81% Email Subscriptions 63% Flickr 19% Instagram 11% Other 11% Blog 7% Figure 5 Effective Form of Social Media or Online Resource 15 Q6. WHAT TYPE OF CONTENT DOES YOUR DOT PROVIDE THAT IS MOST USED AND REQUESTED BY THE PUBLIC? When asked about useful types of content, the most frequent response was the project work schedule. There were no open-ended responses noted for this question because even though given the option, a respondent chose "other," and did not specify. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 6. Table 6. Most Requested Content by Public Most Requested Content by Public Project Work Schedule 77% DOT Contact Information for Each Project 61% Selected Online Project Plans 45% Selected Online Project Rationale 39% Selected Online Project Written Documents 38% Calendars of Related Public Meetings 36% Project Cost Bid Information 32% Other 13% 16 Figure 6 Most Requested Content by Public Q7. WHAT TIME OF DAY IS THE MOST CONVENIENT AND BENEFICIAL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/OUTREACH/INVOLVEMENT? When asked about the most convenient time of day, the most frequent response was evenings. There were no open-ended responses noted for this question because even though given the option, a respondent chose "other," and did not specify. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 7. Table 7. Most Convenient and Beneficial Times Most Convenient and Beneficial Times Evenings 93% Work/Business Days 48% Afternoons 27% Nights 16% Weekends 13% Others 13% Mornings 7% Lunch Time 5% Holidays 4% 17 Figure 7 Most Convenient and Beneficial Times Q8. WHAT TYPE OF ADVERTISEMENT ARE EFFECTIVE FOR YOUR DOT? When asked about effective advertisements, the most frequent response was websites. The open-ended responses noted for this question were radio, TV, billboards, trade shows/fairs, postcards, portable message boards on highways, direct mailings, classified advertisements, and front porch forums. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 8. Website Social Media Newspaper Newsletter Other Emails Table 8. Effective Advertisements Effective Advertisements 86% 82% 71% 39% 21% 13% 18 Figure 8 Effective Advertisements Q9. WHAT IS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR OBTAINING PUBLIC FEEDBACK? When asked about methods for obtaining feedback, the most frequent response was face- to-face. There were no open-ended responses noted for this question because even though given the option, a respondent chose "other," and did not specify. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 9. Table 9. Effective Method for Obtaining Feedback Effective Method for Obtaining Feedback Face-to-Face 82% Online Feedback Forms 68% Online Discussion Forums 32% Other 18% Hotlines 14% 19 Figure 9 Effective Method for Obtaining Feedback Q10. WHAT FORM OF FEEDBACK IS USED MOST FOR PUBLIC INPUT? When asked about the most effective form of feedback, the most frequent response was surveys. The open-ended responses noted for this question were emails, phone calls, online comments and/or written/verbal comments from public meetings/hearings. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 10. Table 10. Most Used Forms of Feedback Most Used Forms of Feedback Surveys 65% Comment Boxes 65% Other 33% Focus Groups 26% 20 Figure 10 Most Used Forms of Feedback Q11. WHEN DOES THE AGENCY ADDRESS THE PUBLIC'S FEEDBACK? When asked about addressing feedback, the most frequent response was within a week. The open-ended responses noted for this question were after or during the comment period, and/or when the project documents were final. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 11. Table 11. Addressing Public Feedback Addressing Public Feedback Within the Week 36% Other 30% Within the Month 18% Within the Day 14% Within the Year 2% Never 0% 21 Figure 11 Addressing Public Feedback Q12. WHAT "OTHER" ACTIVITIES HAS YOUR DOT USED TO INVOLVE THE PUBLIC? When asked about other activities, the most frequent response was transportation fairs. The open-ended responses noted for this question were social media, mobile applications, visualizations, presence at community events, virtual meetings, media appearances, charrettes, phone calls, door-to-door interaction, and/or incentives. A summary of the top three responses can be found in Table 12. Table 12. Other Activities for Involvement Other Activities for Involvement Transportation Fairs 64% Other 43% Games/Contests 31% 22 Figure 12 Other Activities for Involvement Q13. DO YOU PROVIDE ANY INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OPEN HOUSES FOR RECEIVING FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC? IF SO, PLEASE SPECIFY WHAT TYPE OF INCENTIVES ARE USED AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE. When asked if incentives are used to encourage participation, the most frequent response was none. The open-ended responses noted for this question were gift cards, refreshments, and/or safety related giveaways. A summary of the top responses can be found in Table 13. Table 13. Use of Incentives Use of Incentives No Incentives 87% Incentives 13% 23 Figure 13 Use of Incentives Summary of Findings Online is the most effective place for the public to find information Older audiences are the most involved and active in state DOTs Public open houses and hearings are the most effective type of "face-to-face" meeting Schools are the most effective venues for public meetings and hearings Twitter is the effective form of social media used to interact with the public and promote a DOT project Websites are the most effective advertisements Face-to-face is the most effective method for obtaining public feedback Transportation fairs are used the most as an "other" activity to involve the public No incentives are provided usually to encourage participation in public meetings and hearings 24 2.3 Recommendation of the Best Practices and Successful Strategies for Improving Content of Meetings State transportation agencies across the country were observed in accordance to GDOT's public involvement ideas and techniques. The findings of best practices and successful strategies for improving content of meetings were classified in the following categories: Online and Electronic Content; Face-to-Face Meetings, Tailoring Outreach Efforts; Communication, Feedback, and Concerns. These recommendations could potentially improve the content of public meetings and create more opportunities to attract a greater public participation. Each recommendation includes at least one state transportation agency in parenthesis using the referred strategy: Online and Electronic Content Obtain a slideshow or banner on transportation website that advertises the latest news. For example, the newest video on Vimeo, latest blog, feedback survey, road conditions, etc. (Arizona, Arkansas, California, and Maryland) Obtain a section on the transportation website for news, visuals, presentations, plans, videos, calendars, meeting minutes, news releases, and public meeting archives. (Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia) Obtain an interactive project map on the transportation website that provides alerts and updates. (Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa) Obtain a Public Outreach Planner on the transportation website for analyzing, quantifying, and tracking public outreach needs that leads to appropriate and 25 efficient project management. This tool allows the public to view information, ask questions, view budgets, take a quiz on project descriptions, etc. (Idaho) Obtain a section on the transportation website for the public to place informal requests of public records, transportation records, and publications. (Ohio) Obtain a layout for the transportation website that is simple, brightly colored, and not cluttered. (Colorado) Obtain a project hotline, website, or social media account that provides updates, contact information, location, specified details, etc. Mysidewalk, formerly called Mindmixer, is a site used by transportation agencies that gives the public and stakeholders convenient access to project information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A question can also be displayed on the project website to jumpstart the public's thought process (Alaska, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Carolina) Maintain an active blog that has at least ten articles a month on various transportation topics. (Arizona) Maintain an Issuu account to allow the public access to publications, magazines, etc. (Arkansas) Create a social media account for each district, or allow the public to navigate by district on the transportation website. (Alabama, California, and Nebraska) Create a "Stay Connected" page on a website that serves as an interactive hub to facilitate transportation news, events, video and photo galleries, and to promote information through social media platforms targeting all transportation stakeholders. (Illinois) 26 Create a "Study Website" that updates the public with ongoing study information and developments, and publicize public meetings and opportunities to comment. (Massachusetts) Create a public notice page on the website that provides documents in regard to the notice and the date. This webpage allows the public to access the notices by "Most Viewed," "Most Recent," and "Upcoming Events/Deadlines". This keeps the public educated on current updates and changes. (Alaska) Face-to-Face Meetings Host an informal public gathering, pop-up, or mobile meeting to promote an open exchange of information between department representatives, elected officials, interested citizens, and public interest groups on a project's development. This allows public input at the earliest stages of development by assessing issues and creating solutions without significantly extending the overall process. (District of Columbia, Missouri, and New Jersey) Host a speakers' bureau or community connections team that is available to attend neighborhood, business, and community organization meetings by request. An invitation can be sent to organizations and community groups to encourage requests for a speaker at their meetings. Trained officials can then speak knowledgeably about the project with community groups, listen to their feedback, answer questions, and relay information back to the project team. Also, this opportunity can be used to invite community/group leaders to serve on stakeholder committees, advisory groups, and project development teams. (Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and West Virginia) 27 Host a drive-thru project display or open house by setting up a tent in the project area and hand out project information about upcoming construction, lane closures, or detours. (Florida) Hold a press conference during a popular event that will draw high-profile participants like elected officials, entertainment stars, or athletes. The news media offers an important and powerful means of communicating messages to broad audiences (Kentucky) Host an online meeting or webinar for audiences who are unable to meet at scheduled events. This can provide an overview of the existing plan, an opportunity to discuss proposed steps, and general information/highlights. This also allows the option for live streaming video. (Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington) Tailoring Outreach Efforts Tailor outreach efforts to a variety of people by communicating in alternative languages and making information accessible in different formats. (Delaware, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) Tailor outreach efforts to younger audiences by engaging at schools. Engaging with students will educate and generate early involvement in transportation decision-making. By providing students with information, it is hoped that some of the materials will reach their parents. (Indiana, New Mexico, and Wisconsin) Form a focus group, task force, citizens advisory, or stakeholder committee to host meetings that capture representative and meaningful public input for project development. To identify these groups and/or stakeholders, the department can contact key community organizations and leaders that may be able to provide both 28 general and specific information about the makeup and concerns of the community. Gathering data about a community may help identify potential stakeholders. (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming) Host an event at a different or more convenient time for the public, and/or a nontraditional location. Some non-traditional locations could be on a bus route, at the mall, etc. (Rhode Island) Obtain a tight focus at events for the public because an audience's attention begins to lessen after 20 or 30 minutes. Covering too many complex topics at these events can lead to an information overload. Provide a handout, fact sheet, or summary to reinforce the key points and give the participants a place to record their observations as well. (Pennsylvania) Use brainstorming and/or small group techniques as a facilitator to start freethinking and generate fresh ideas as a solution to a problem. The small group techniques could include seminars, breakout groups, workshops, roundtables, and community juries. (Kentucky, Nebraska, and South Dakota) Create an approachable atmosphere that attracts the public to events by offering incentives, contests, playing transportation-related music, or dressing the staff in bright t-shirts. (District of Columbia, and Kentucky) Attend and have a booth at local events (fairs, conferences, etc.) to distribute information to the public. (Kansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Virginia) Campaign and advertise prior to events door-to-door, by posting flyers, phone calls, press/media releases, etc. (Florida) 29 Communication, Feedback, and Concerns Conduct a survey or poll to the public at events, by phone, or online to obtain methods of improvement. (Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Wisconsin) Obtain a toll-free, information, and comment line for the public to request information, provide comments, and discuss transportation issues with staff. (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia) Obtain an outreach office to provide a one-stop resource to answer customers' transportation questions, to link customers with the appropriate offices and individuals at the department, to listen to customers input, and to facilitate customer participation in the department's decision-making process. (Maine) Obtain tablets, computers, or kiosks for the public to participate in surveys and provide feedback. (District of Columbia) Offer incentives or giveaways to the public to encourage feedback and participation. (District of Columbia, and California) Offer an app that provides the public with updates, notifications, and accurate real time info on transportation. (Colorado) Offer an email or text message subscription service to the public that provides automatic updates and notifications on new or changed information from the transportation agency. This service also promotes community programs, raises awareness of road projects, and informs the public about other DOT initiatives. GovDelivery is an email subscription that various agencies are using. (Illinois, Nebraska, Maryland, and Michigan) 30 CHAPTER 3. INDIVIDUALS' TRUST AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GEORGIA DOT 3.1 Background Information on Public Trust and Political Knowledge Former Senator William Benton of Connecticut worried about the effect of political cynicism on society, adding "One of the gravest problems the American people face is the public cynicism about politics and government. We are paying a frightful cost for this unjustifiable criticism. Many descent including many prominent citizens shy away from assuming civic responsibilities because they mistakenly believe politics and government are generally corrupt and evil. Our entire society suffers," (as quoted by Agger et al.; 1961; p. 478). This comment was not made in recent years as individual's overall disdain has increased toward large institutions, such as the government, corporations, and the news media. Rather, this comment was made nearly 50 years ago, as scholars investigated the relationship among people's level of personal cynicism, their media use, and people's level of political efficacy and political cynicism. According to the Pew Research Center, we have seen an erosion of public trust in government, with only 24% of individuals polled in October 2014 believed those in Washington "would do what is right." However, although public trust remains elusive for the Federal government, many state governments and agencies are more trusted. In a 2013 poll by Pew Research Center, 57% of those polled indicated they trusted their state government, an increase of 5% from a year earlier. Mass Communication scholars have determined that trust remains paramount overall in message acceptance in that the more people trust the messenger; the more likely people will pay attention to the message (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997). However, trust is not the only issue to understand. Trust 31 goes hand in hand with public knowledge of what government agencies do. When individuals understand what a government agency does, they have more trust. One way to determine the level of trust and knowledge of individuals about GDOT is to conduct a survey. Cappella and Jamieson have studied people's level of trust and level of knowledge for more than two decades, determining a way to survey individuals to gauge individuals' level of trust and knowledge in government organizations. 3.2 Public Trust and Political Knowledge Considerations Trust has been viewed as the bedrock of cooperation in society that can help reduce transaction costs and brings about a multitude of collective benefits, ranging from economic development and prosperity (Hyun-soo, 2014). Hyun-soo (2014) divided trust into two categories when analyzing politics, generalized trust, and institutional trust. Previous research suggests, "social (generalized) trust and political (institutional) trust are associated with the likelihood of getting involved in both informal and formal political activities" (p. 699). The focus of the Hyun-soo's (2014) study was to examine the degree to which trust in others can affect people's tendencies to participate in political activities, both formal (voting) and informal (signing a petition, boycotting, and joining a lawful demonstration). Earlier studies showed individuals who are more trusting also tend to be more active participants in informal political activities, and those with higher trust scores show higher probabilities of supporting democratic institutions and processes (Hyun-soo, 2014). "People who believe that in general most other people in their society can be trusted are also more inclined to have a positive view of their democratic institutions, to participate more in politics, and to be more active in civic organizations" (p. 699). 32 Garen & Clark (2015) researched how the simultaneous growth in government and deterioration in trust in government presents something of a paradox and questioned how a mistrusted institution can grow to become so large. To answer this question, they utilized key findings in economics, psychology, and experimental literatures that illustrated the interrelationships among trust in government, productivity, and government growth. An outcome from Garen and Clark's (2015) modeling is the mutual dependence of the public's mistrust in government. "It seems straightforward that trust in government is a declining function of government actions that generate special interests" (p. 550). While trust is important for government to function, Garen and Clark (2015) note the trust of the public is earned by good performance of the government, and they model this simultaneous relationship of how trust enables government action, but government action affects the degree of trust, a mutual relationship. They found through their research that many public policy analysts have lacked the idea that "actions and nature of government are likely to be important in inducing cooperative attitudes and other aspects of social capital" (p. 575). Basically, many parts of the nature of government can be overlooked when comparing to specifics such as trust of the people. Otto & Maier (2016) look at the personalization of politics, a central feature of democratic politics in the twenty-first century. "The personalization hypothesis encompasses two propositions (1) The focus of attention is changing from parties, institutions and issues to people, that is, individual actors become more relevant when compared to political issues and political institutions and (2) non-political traits, private life of and personal information about political actors have become more relevant than their professional competence and performance; this shift has been called `privatization'" 33 (p. 22-23). Otto & Maier (2016) note that attitudes towards political institutions and the political system are seen to be more stable than trust in politicians. Trust towards political institutions is most associated with the broader political and economic situation in a country. Support of the political system or democratic principles is conceptualized as rather stable. "It is easy to think of somebody distrusting individual politicians or politicians in general, or even being dissatisfied with the functioning of certain political institutions, but still supporting and trusting fundamental principles of democracy and the political system" (p. 25). To summarize, Otto & Maier (2016) wanted to investigate how the relationship between the trustworthiness of the information and effects on trust in politicians is structured. Otto & Maier (2016) found that general trust had a significant impact on trust in politicians. An interesting discovery was the fact that participants with low levels of general trust were not affected by personalized news exposure regardless of the form of treatment. Meaning that they had their opinion and media did not change it in anyway. Information about politicians through the media did not affect these people because they predispositioned to not feel connected to the government. The trust in politicians of those with higher levels of general trust came to be more interested by information through media. These people also tend to have a higher sense of trust in that they trust their government knows what it's doing, unlike the latter, who can be described as having political cynicism. Political cynicism, as used by Dancey (2012), is conceptualized as one component of political trust, which can be defined as a global affective orientation toward government that is an evaluation of whether government outputs meet citizens' 34 expectations. Dancey (2012) describes these broad definitions of political trust to encapsulate attitudes toward the numerous component parts of government, including institutions and incumbent authorities, as well as the different criteria individuals use to evaluate government's component parts, such as responsiveness, competence, and integrity. The study contributes to the literature on the importance of citizens' dissatisfaction with government. Cynicism towards an elected official drives the main questions behind Dancey's (2012) research, which was tested by asking a group of participants' questions about Watergate scandal and House Bank scandal. The analyses of participants' reactions to both scandals indicate that a citizen's impressions of politicians' integrity carry political consequences. "Although there is no evidence that more cynical individuals seek out more information about scandals, cynics do appear more likely to interpret ambiguous information in a way that negatively reflects on the actors involved" (p. 421). The media is believed to be strongly connected to an individual's trust in government. The implications of media commercialization for political culture have long captured the attention of scholars and media commentators (Ariely, 2015). The news media's focus on intrigues, personal details and scandals in order to increase ratings is regarded by many people as a major contributor to political cynicism. Exposure to dramatic entertainment rather than hard news facts leads citizens to view politics via the lens of entertainment. Like Otto & Maier, Ariely (2015) noticed that in addition to differences in news content, studies have also shown that the effect of media environments on a citizen's political knowledge differs across countries. People who watch news on public channels are more politically involved, effective, attentive, and 35 knowledgeable than those who watch news on commercial channels. Citizens typically form opinions and make voting choices in the absence of important policy-relevant information (Reedy, Wells, & Gastil, 2014). Ariely (2015) looked into countries like Britain, Denmark and Spain and their mix of news coverage, both dramatic and facts. "While exposure to privatized news focusing on scandals and the personal details of politicians' lives increases political cynicism, exposure to personalized news - i.e., human interest stories and emotionalization - decreases political cynicism" (p. 442-443). Hanson, Haridakis, Cunningham, Sharma, & Ponder (2010) noted similar findings when other platforms like television and social networks Myspace, YouTube, and Facebook are used to collect and gain information pertaining to government officials and functionality. "The media's relationship to political cynicism has been well documented. As one might expect, much of the research has focused on television, particularly on the effects of news and negative political advertising" (p. 588). Ariely (2015) concluded the research finding that this study supports the validity of such worries in the sphere of political trust. "While political trust is not a critical attitude towards politics it is not in and of itself problematic, the findings imply that media commercialization is related to this aspect of political culture across contexts. Media environments afford exposure to information and frames that shape citizen orientations towards politics. If the commercialization of media political coverage reduces political trust, we must ponder the consequences of this fact for political culture in the long run" (p. 451). Velasquez & LaRose (2015) research similar methods of social media use and how generations differ by how they get their information, affecting their political 36 efficacy. As much as the concerns about newspaper decline, new media brings new opportunities for connectivity (Gaddie, R., & Gaddie, K., 2014). For many members of student activist groups social media have become central to coordinate political actions, express political views, and for issue-oriented advocacy (Velasquez & LaRose, 2015). Again, Reichert (2016) notes that people who are more knowledgeable in the political realm and who feel more efficacious to influence political decisions are more politically active. "Although political knowledge may be considered a significant quality of politically active and involved citizens, most people's knowledge about politics appears insufficient to meet the standards of a `competent citizen'" (p. 221). Reichert (2016) defines the concept of efficacy in that self-efficacy relies on the distinction between "outcome expectations"--"a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes"--and "efficacy expectations"--"the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes" (p. 221). Reichert (2016) notes that it is obvious that political knowledge, internal political efficacy and political participation must be correlated with each other, and that research suggests political knowledge and efficacy are of greater predictive value for explaining political participation than vice versa. Political knowledge "promotes political participation" and the same applies to internal political efficacy, as many studies report a positive impact of political efficacy on a range of political activities (Reichert, 2016). Reichert (2016) found that "a citizen's internal political efficacy seemed to be more important with regard to conventional political participation compared with their willingness to participate" (p. 233, direct quote). This was also found to be true from research by Osborne, Yogeeswaran, & Sibley (2015) in that perception of political 37 efficacy had countervailing relationships with participants' support for the political mobilization of their group. In the research process itself, believing that one can change the system was positively associated with participants' support for the political mobilization of Maori. On the other hand, political efficacy was indirectly associated with a decrease in participants' political mobilization support because they felt society was not just; therefore, they felt their political mobilization would not have any effect on making society better (Osborne, Yogeeswaran, & Sibley, 2015). The research by Reichert (2016) specifically shows that political knowledge is rather subsidiary compared with perceived behavioral control, meaning that internal political efficacy is more important in the prediction of political behavior. "Political knowledge affected political participation through internal political efficacy, and it primarily affected behavioral intentions. Although accurate political knowledge may not always be necessary, nor is it sufficient, to predict behavior it contributes to decisions that conform with an individual's preferences and political attitudes" (p.233, direct quote). We see knowledge as a resource that an individual draws on when making the decision to participate in politics (Ondercin, H. L., & Jones-White, 2011). One interpretation of prior political knowledge research is that many, if not most, citizens are not politically competent, and that this is especially true of women, minorities, and nonelites (Shaker, 2012). Competition and conflict lead young men to become more politically informed. This does not hold true for young women, who gain the greatest political knowledge in realms where political consensus is more common than conflict. Talking with parents about politics is more likely to lead to information gains among young women than young men (Wolak & McDevitt, 2011). Bell (2016) notes that there 38 are decades-old and growing bodies of scholarship that show a legal cynicism, or distrust of the law and legal authorities, among African Americans. Individuals need political information on which to base their various participatory decisions and acts, and knowledge can also reflect a psychological orientation when it comes to politics. If an individual lacks a positive psychological orientation toward politics that in turn lowers his or her political knowledge, the individual will be less likely to participate in politics (Ondercin, H. L., & Jones-White, 2011). "Political knowledge not only influences the likelihood of participating in politics, but also influences an individual's attitudes and ability to participate effectively" (p. 690). Hollander (2014) noted that recall and recognition are best understood as analogous to school exams. Recognition resembles a multiple-choice question in which a student is cued by several response alternatives. Recall resembles the traditional short-answer question, what a respondent is able to ``summon to mind'' based on limited help from the question itself (Hollander, 2014). 3.3 Survey to Determine Public Involvement Because of the integral work GDOT does in the state of Georgia, officials would like to get residents of Georgia invested in projects being done by GDOT. Officials at GDOT wished to determine what factors made individuals interested in attending public meetings offered by GDOT related to planned projects. More importantly, GDOT officials wanted to know why individuals failed to attend public meetings. Scholars have found that Public Trust and Political Knowledge are often related to an individual's level of participation in any political process. Therefore, we hypothesize that Public Trust and Political Knowledge influence individuals' level of participation in public meetings. To 39 test our hypothesis, we developed a survey for residents in Georgia to determine their level of Public Trust using the constructs of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy (see Appendix B). The survey also tests the public's Political Knowledge about GDOT. We compared their levels of Trust and Knowledge with their feelings toward public meetings offered by GDOT, as well as asked individuals directly what GDOT can do to make individuals more likely to participate in the political process, namely attend public meetings and comment on projects being done by the state agency. The next sections discuss the constructs of Political Trust and Public Knowledge in more detail and relate these constructs to the development of the survey instrument. This is followed by a discussion of the development of the Political Knowledge and demographic questions on the survey. Finally, the results and key findings are presented in the last sections. Public Trust Scholars have gauged the concept of Public Trust using the constructs of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. Since we are looking at participation in the political process namely through public meetings, we decided to look at how individuals felt about GDOT in terms of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. In order to compare GDOT to other government entities, we decided to gauge individuals' Public Trust of a federal agency similar to GDOT, the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT). Scholars have shown that individuals have increased Public Trust in state agencies as compared to federal agencies, so we decided to compare the similar agencies to see if we had similar results. If we have similar results, our findings follow what other scholars have found that individuals have decreased Public Trust in federal agencies as compared 40 to state agencies. However, if our findings indicate that individuals have less Public Trust in GDOT as compared to US DOT, our findings could indicate that the GDOT might have issues with Public Trust, which could be impacting participation in public meetings. Scholars have determined Public Trust often is created by constructs such as Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. Political Cynicism is how cynical someone might feel toward a government entity or big business. Political Efficacy is how much people feel they have a say in how their government is run. We used statements in our survey instrument used by other scholars that test the constructs of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. These statements have been pre-tested by other scholars, and used in other surveys, including surveys by the Pew Research Center and American National Election Studies. We had participants gauge their agreement to statements based on a 5point scale from 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree." We had seven statements to gauge Political Cynicism and three statements related to Political Efficacy. Participants were asked to assess their overall agreement or disagreement with all statements on the 5-point scale for both US DOT and GDOT. Statements for Political Cynicism were: (1) The US DOT/GDOT is trustworthy; (2) The US DOT/GDOT is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves; (3) When something is run by the US DOT/GDOT, it is usually inefficient and wasteful; (4) I think that the US DOT/GDOT does not listen to people like me; (5) The US DOT/GDOT has lost touch with people; (6) The US DOT/GDOT is really run for the benefit of all the people; and 41 (7) The US DOT/GDOT is too powerful. Statements for Political Efficacy were: (1) At times, the US DOT/GDOT can be so complex that people like me don't understand what is going on; (2) People like me don't have a say in what the US DOT/GDOT does; and (3) I think that I am better informed about the US DOT/GDOT than others. Political Knowledge Scholars have shown that Political Knowledge often influences individuals' level of political participation in that the less individuals know about government, the less likely they are to involve themselves in the political process. In GDOT's case, we thought that the less individuals knew about GDOT's responsibilities, the less likely individuals would be to get involved in the political process, specifically being involved in public meetings that GDOT has for projects. To assess Political Knowledge, we asked participants seven close-ended questions to assess individuals' knowledge regarding GDOT. The seven questions were: (1) The Georgia Department of Transportation oversees other modes of transportation besides roads, including providing planning and financial support for other modes of transportation such as rail transit, airports and air safety planning. (2) Although we do not have a lot of snow, we do have snowstorms every once in a while. What agency oversees snow removal on city roads? (3) Although we do not have a lot of snow, we do have snowstorms every once in a while. What agency oversees snow removal on county roads? 42 (4) Although we do not have a lot of snow, we do have snowstorms every once in a while. What agency oversees snow removal on state roads? (5) Although we do not have a lot of snow, we do have snowstorms every once in a while. What agency oversees snow removal on the interstates? (6) The toll road in Georgia is _________. (7) The Georgia Department of Transportation has a cell number for motorists to call to get up to the minute road conditions. Do you know what the number for this service is? (Answers: True; City; County; GDOT; GDOT; I-85; 511). We coded each response as either correct or incorrect based on individuals' answers. We then added the number of correct responses and divided by the total number of questions to get one measure of Political Knowledge, the percent of questions that an individual respondent answered correctly. Public Meetings GDOT is integral to everyday life of residents in Georgia. The state agency does many construction projects throughout the state to improve our roadways for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. GDOT hosts public meetings to explain these projects to the public, as well as to receive feedback on the projects. However, according to GDOT, some of the public meetings have not been well-attended. As GDOT cares a great deal about public opinion and feedback, it charged this research team with helping GDOT improve attendance at these meetings. To understand public perceptions about these meetings, we asked residents several open-ended and close-ended questions about their overall interest in attending public meetings being held by GDOT. We used the responses 43 to determine why individuals might have attended meetings, and more importantly, why they failed to attend meetings. We asked individuals specifically if they had attended a public meeting held by GDOT regarding one of the many important projects the state agency does across the region. We also asked individuals which meeting they attended, as well as if they would be willing to go online to post comments or give feedback regarding potential projects being done by GDOT. If individuals indicated they had not attended a meeting held by GDOT, we asked them specifically why they chose not to attend. We also asked them (1) What could the Georgia Department of Transportation do to make you want to attend its Open Houses on important projects in your area?; and (2) Is there any other things that the Georgia Department of Transportation can do to get you interested in attending Open Houses? Sampling Method and Demographic Results For the survey, we used a snowballing sample of individuals to reach residents in the state of Georgia. Since we are on a college campus, we used organizations and classes at Georgia Southern University to reach out to residents that were also students. We then asked our students to reach out to their parents and ask them to respond to reach a demographic other than students and because older participants often are more involved in the political process than younger individuals. The method worked as our average age for respondents was 48 years old. We had one issue though with the sample. We attempted to get different races to take the survey by asking students of different races to reach out to their church groups and communities. However, most of the respondents, 88 44 percent, listed themselves as Caucasian, with 5 percent listing themselves as African American. Normally, survey respondents have a tendency to be more female. In fact, scholars attempt to over sample male participants because of this issue. We did not have this problem. In fact, more men took the survey than women. We had 54 percent of the respondents indicating they are male versus 45 percent of the respondents listing they are female. Our respondents had higher socioeconomic status as measured by the level of education and income versus the state average; however, our survey was done online and more individuals who complete surveys online do have higher socioeconomic status. We had more respondents that were college educated or had completed graduate work. We had 37 percent of the respondents complete some college and 40 percent complete graduate work. Our respondents also had a higher income level, with 32 percent of the respondents indicating they made $100,000 to $200,000 a year, versus 28 percent who indicated they made less than $100,000 a year. Tables 14, 15 and 16 provide a summary of the ethnicity, income and education level of respondents. Table 14. Ethnicity of Respondents Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian Caucasian Hispanic Other Frequency 16 1 3 285 5 10 Percent 4.9 0.3 0.9 88 1.5 3.1 45 Table 15. Income of Respondents Income <30K 30K-75K 75K-100K 100K-200K >200K Frequency 35 46 45 105 70 Percent 10.8 14.2 13.9 32.4 21.6 Table 16. Education Level of Respondents Education High School Some College College Grad Graduate Work Frequency 7 66 121 130 Percent 2.2 20.4 37.3 40.1 The largest percentage of respondents (41%) considered themselves Republican. Of the remaining respondents, 24% considered themselves Independent, and 20% considered themselves Democrats. We feel this is consistent with the political affiliation of the state of Georgia. Table 17 summarizes the political affiliation of respondents. Table 17. Political Affiliation of Respondents Political Affiliation Republican Independent Democrat Liberal Green Other Frequency 132 78 67 7 3 24 Percent 40.7 24.1 20.7 2.2 0.9 7.4 We also asked several questions regarding media use to determine where individuals get their information. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated they turned to news online, with 51% of the respondents using the Internet as a news source. Respondents also indicated that they turned to their local news organizations and national 46 news organizations through the Internet, rather than typical sources. Twenty percent of respondents indicated that they watch TV for news, while only 13% indicated they read a newspaper. Survey respondents also indicated that they used the Internet 1 to 3 hours per day (31%). Internet use is a method that GDOT could use to reach the public. Tables 18 and 19 summarize news sources and internet usage of respondents. Table 18. News Sources of Respondents News Source Internet Television Newspapers Radio Magazines Other Frequency 165 64 41 32 2 18 Percent 50.9 19.8 12.7 9.9 0.6 5.6 Table 19. Respondents' Internet Usage (hours per day) Internet Usage (hrs. per day) <1 hour 1-3 hours 3-7 hours >7 hours Frequency 27 149 110 32 Percent 8.3 46.0 34.0 9.9 3.4 Public Trust Findings Analysis Plan We asked 10 questions regarding the concept of Public Trust by focusing on two constructs of the concept, Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. We asked the questions for both GDOT and US DOT because research has shown that state agencies often are more trusted than federal agencies. We wanted to see if the same could be said for GDOT, a state agency that works hard to help the residents of Georgia. The questions along with the construct to which they belong can be found in Table 20. We first 47 analyzed each of the ten questions separately to determine if there was a difference between how individuals viewed GDOT versus the US DOT. We then created the constructs of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy by combining the 7 questions that created the construct of cynicism and the 3 questions that created the construct of efficacy (see Table 20). We compared the US DOT and GDOT on the transformed constructs. We then compared GDOT to the hypothetical mean (3 on a scale of 1 to 5) that we should have seen if individuals felt both positive and negative toward the government agency. Prior to analysis, all of the statements of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy were recoded so the higher number meant participants were more positive toward the federal and state agency. Table 20. Survey Questions on Public Trust Question 1. At times, the US DOT/GDOT can be so complex that people like me don't understand what is going on. 2. The US DOT/GDOT is trustworthy. 3. People like me don't have a say in what the US DOT/GDOT does. 4. I think that I am better informed about the US DOT/GDOT than others. 5. The US DOT/GDOT is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves. 6. When something is run by the US DOT/GDOT, it is usually inefficient and wasteful. 7. I think that the US DOT/GDOT does not listen to people like me. 8. The US DOT/GDOT has lost touch with people. 9. The US DOT/GDOT is really run for the benefit of all the people. 10. The US DOT/GDOT is too powerful. Construct Political Efficacy Political Cynicism Political Efficacy Political Efficacy Political Cynicism Political Cynicism Political Cynicism Political Cynicism Political Cynicism Political Cynicism Abbreviation Q1 complex Q2 trustworthy Q3 no say Q4 informed Q5 doesn't listen Q6 big interests Q7 lost touch Q8 inefficient Q9 all people Q10 powerful 48 Results When looking at the individual measures of Public Trust (Table 21), we found that individuals were more positive toward GDOT than the US DOT on all measures that were statistically significant (questions 1 5) except for our trustworthiness measure (Q2 trustworthy). When we asked individuals whether they felt the government agencies were trustworthy, we found that the US DOT was considered more trustworthy (M = 3.00, SD = .86) than GDOT, M = 3.00, SD = .89, t (329) = -2.14, p < .05, as the t-statistic was negative. We thought about why that might be the case. GDOT is more visible than the US DOT. The findings might relate to the fact that GDOT is more visible than its federal counterpart. When individuals are out on the roadways and see road construction, they often think of the state agency rather than the federal government. Individuals also might be confused about what the US DOT does in that US DOT is not as visible as GDOT; therefore, individuals have more trust because they do not "see" the US DOT. US DOT is not a federal agency that individuals often think about when considering the federal government. They might not understand what the federal agency does; therefore, they feel they can trust it more as compared to the state agency. However, this was the only measure where we saw individuals feel more positive toward the federal government as compared to the state government. With all the remaining 4 measures that were significant, individuals felt more positive toward GDOT than the US DOT (see Table 21) as the t-statistic was positive. Of those that were significant, individuals felt that the US DOT (M = 2.19, SD = .98) was more complex overall than GDOT (Q1 complex), M = 2.31, SD = 1.05, t (323) = 2.94, p < .01. In other words, individuals felt that GDOT was less complex of a government 49 agency than the US DOT. The findings were also significant in that Individuals felt that they had no say (Q3 no say) in what the US DOT (M = 2.15, SD = 1.027) did as compared to GDOT, M = 2.38, SD = 1.08, t (323) = 5.03, p < 0.001. In other words, GDOT is seen as reaching out to individuals more to get feedback on projects; therefore, individuals feel they have a say in how the state organization is run. Significant findings also indicated that individuals felt they were better informed (Q4 informed) on what GDOT (M = 3.05, SD = 1.02) was doing as compared to the US DOT, M = 2.90, SD = 1.01, t (320) = 4.25, p < 0.001. In other words, individuals felt that GDOT informed them better about projects. There were significant findings for individuals' feeling that GDOT (M = 2.55, SD = 1.08) listened to them more (Q5 doesn't listen) as compared to the US DOT, M = 2.39, SD = 1.00, t (323) = 3.19, p < .01. In other words, GDOT is seen as listening to individuals more. This is most likely due to the great effort GDOT takes to reach out to individuals as compared to the US DOT. Additionally, one measure was trending toward significance (p < 0.10), in that individuals felt the US DOT (M = 2.56, SD = 1.04) was more inefficient and wasteful than GDOT (Q8 inefficient), M = 2.64, SD = 1.3, t (323) = 1.74, p = .082. Therefore, GDOT is seen as being more efficient than the federal agency. Since the questions related specifically to the constructs of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy, we combined the 7 questions into the construct of Political Cynicism and the 3 questions into the construct of Political Efficacy (see Table 20). We then compared the state agency with the federal agency. When we analyzed the findings (Table 22), we found that we had significant findings related to Political Efficacy, but not for the Political Cynicism construct. Our significant findings indicated that individuals 50 felt they understood GDOT (M = 2.58, SD = .72) more than the US DOT, M = 2.41, SD = .69, t (323) = 5.89, p < 0.001. In other words, individuals feel they understand and feel connected more to the GDOT as compared to the federal agency. Although it was not significant, the findings for the Political Cynicism construct were important from the standpoint that individuals felt just as cynical toward the US DOT as compared to the GDOT. We should have seen GDOT having less cynicism from the public based on what previous scholars have found. Table 21. t-tests Comparing Public Trust for GDOT versus US DOT Question Construct t-statistic p-value Q1 complex Political Efficacy 2.936 **.004 Q2 trustworthy Political Cynicism -2.144 *.033 Q3 no say Political Efficacy 5.030 **.000 Q4 informed Political Efficacy 4.246 **.000 Q5 doesn't listen Political Cynicism 3.189 **.002 Q6 big interests Political Cynicism -0.939 .348 Q7 lost touch Political Cynicism 0.372 .710 Q8 inefficient Political Cynicism 1.744 .082 Q9 all people Political Cynicism -1.336 .183 Q10 powerful Political Cynicism -0.257 .798 *Significance at 5%, ** Significance at 1% Table 22. t-tests Comparing Political Efficacy and Political Cynicism for GDOT versus US DOT t- p- Construct statistic value Political Efficacy 5.892 **.000 Political Cynicism 0.140 .889 *Significance at 5%, ** Significance at 1% 51 We then chose the hypothetical mean of 3, as it is the mean of our scale of 1 to 5, in order to test whether individuals felt more negative toward GDOT (negative t-statistic) as compared to what we should have seen if individuals felt both positive and negative toward the state agency (hypothetical mean of 3). Our significant findings, shown in Table 23, indicated that individuals were more negative on both the construct of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. In other words, individuals felt more cynical toward GDOT as compared to the hypothetical mean of 3, which represents both positive and negative feelings toward the state agency, M = 2.64, SD = .71, t (323) = -9.07, p < 0.001. We also found that even though individuals felt they might have understood the state agency more than the federal agency, they still felt like their voice counted less with GDOT as compared to the hypothetical mean, M = 2.56, SD = .72, t (323) = -10.55, p < 0.001. Table 23. t-tests Comparing Political Efficacy and Political Cynicism for GDOT versus Hypothetical Mean of 3 Discussion t- p- Construct statistic value Political Efficacy -10.548 **.000 Political Cynicism -9.069 **.000 * Significance at 5%, ** Significance at 1% Individuals might be more positive toward the state agency than the federal agency overall. However, individuals still feel cynical about the state agency. They also indicated they might understand and feel they can get more involved with the state agency than the federal agency. However, individuals feel they don't have as much efficacy about the state agency overall. 52 Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy are related constructs because when individuals are more cynical, the less efficacy they have toward the government. GDOT has to deal with very complex information that individuals might not feel they understand completely; therefore, individuals have less efficacy overall in the state agency because they feel they do not understand the state agency. Since GDOT oversees engineering information, individuals might feel like they cannot understand the information GDOT has given to them. Because they do not understand the information, individuals might feel more cynical toward GDOT. The state agency oversees very complex information that might be harder for individuals to understand. Because individuals have issues understanding the information, they feel less efficacy toward the agency overall and have more negative feelings toward the state organization. To combat this, GDOT might have to do a better job in explaining the complex projects it is working on across the state. GDOT is integral to the public, but the public does not seem to understand what the state organization does. Besides the issue of efficacy, the agency might have an issue of cynicism related to when it does hold Public Meetings. Often, individuals have strong feelings about projects in their area. They might have suggestions, which are not feasible. Therefore, because GDOT has not taken into account their ideas, they might feel cynical about the state agency. Although this is not fair to GDOT and its personnel, who try hard to take into account individuals' feelings toward projects, GDOT might need to do a better job in explaining projects and explaining why they cannot accommodate certain individuals. This might help in decreasing Political Cynicism in GDOT. 53 The findings are important for this study since GDOT is hoping to get the public involved more in Public Meetings/Open Houses. When individuals have less efficacy and more cynicism, they often fail to get involved in the political process. If GDOT were to work at increasing efficacy and decreasing cynicism, individuals might get more involved in Public Meetings. GDOT is integral in the everyday life of Georgia residents. However, individuals might dismiss the job GDOT does because they are cynical toward the state agency and feel their voice will not count. Public Trust is not an issue with GDOT alone though. We have seen individuals becoming more cynical and having less efficacy in their government over the past 5 decades. However, GDOT might be able to combat the Public Trust issue by focusing on decreasing cynicism and increasing efficacy. One way that might help would be to focus on Political Knowledge. Oftentimes, when the government focuses on educating individuals on what the government does, it can help increase Public Trust. We will look at Political Knowledge in our next section, while discussing some specific ways to increase public knowledge in GDOT specifically. 3.5 Political Knowledge Findings Scholars have found that when individuals lack Political Knowledge, they often are less likely to get involved in the political process. When individuals fail to understand what government entities do, they often feel they should not get involved in the political process. That has led to apathy among the population because people fail to realize that they have a say in how their government functions. GDOT does integral work for the residents of Georgia. The state organization is extremely important, not only does it help individuals travel from one location to the next, but it also oversees ports and airports. We wondered if issues could be similar with GDOT. The organization does such 54 important work around the state; however, individuals lack Political Knowledge in how important the government entity is in their daily lives. Individuals might not know what GDOT does; therefore, they don't get involved in the public meetings and they don't understand the work GDOT is doing in their area. We asked seven Political Knowledge questions related to GDOT to determine if that had any impact on Public Trust in the state entity, as well as in the political process. To test individuals' level of public knowledge, we asked them several multiple choice and one true/false question. The questions and percent that responded correctly can be found in Table 24. We asked what government entity oversaw roadways during snowstorms to determine if individuals understood what GDOT oversaw versus other government entities. More than 67% of people knew city officials took care of city roads during snowstorms. Nearly 77% of the individuals knew county officials took care of county roads during a snowstorm. When asked who oversees states roads, nearly 95% of the participants knew that GDOT maintains those roadways during snowstorms. GDOT also assists with interstates, with 68% of the individuals indicating the state agency helps maintain interstates during snowstorms. However, 32 % of individuals did not know that GDOT oversees interstates, indicating some might not understand what GDOT oversees in the state. Besides overseeing roadways, the GDOT does so much more in the state, like overseeing ports and airports. We asked individuals if GDOT oversees these other important modes of transportation. Nearly 69 % of the respondents knew that GDOT oversees ports and airports, but 30 % of respondents failed to understand everything GDOT oversees. Respondents apparently did not know what the toll road was in the 55 state, with only 40 % of the respondents answering correctly that I-85 was a toll road, with nearly 60 % getting the question wrong. However, GDOT has done an excellent job in getting information out about its phone number, 511. Nearly 84 % of the respondents knew that GDOT had a phone number for cell phones when you are driving on the highway. Table 24. Political Knowledge Questions and Percent of Respondents Who Answered Correctly Question What agency oversees snow removal on city roads? What agency oversees snow removal on county roads? What agency oversees snow removal on state roads? What agency oversees snow removal on the interstates? The Georgia Department of Transportation oversees other modes of transportation besides roads, including providing planning and financial support for other modes of transportation such as rail, transit, airports and air safety planning. (T/F) The toll road in Georgia is ______. % Correct 67.59% 76.85% 94.75% 67.90% 68.83% 40.43% The Georgia Department of Transportation has a cell number for motorists to call to get up to the minute road conditions. Do you know what the number for this service is? 84.26% We then examined the number of correct responses and overall average score to determine individuals' overall knowledge. The overall average score on the 7 knowledge questions was 72.2%. A frequency and relative frequency chart for the number of correct responses is provided in Table 25. An interesting pattern emerged in that individuals actually answered the Political Knowledge questions correctly more than what we have seen in national surveys. Fourteen percent of the respondents answered all 7 questions correctly, and 55% of the respondents answered 5 or 6 of the questions correctly. The 56 results are somewhat surprising. A possible explanation is that more of the respondents for our survey had higher levels of socioeconomic status. The respondents were educated and might have understood the government entity more than the average individual. We also asked only close-ended questions, where individuals could pick the right answer, which is more difficult than open-ended questions where one must recall the answer. Table 25. Political Knowledge Frequencies and Relative Frequencies Number of correct responses 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Frequency 39 77 82 47 32 7 2 Percent 13.59% 26.83% 28.57% 16.38% 11.15% 2.44% 0.70% To determine the relationship between Political Knowledge and Political Trust, we ran two simple linear regressions, corresponding to the two constructs of Public Trust. The first was Political Knowledge, as measured by the percent correct on the knowledge questions, as the independent variable and Political Cynicism as the dependent. The second used Political Efficacy as the dependent variable. We found a significant relationship between Political Efficacy and Political Knowledge, Adjusted R2 = .03 (F (1,322) = 9.13, p < .01), but failed to find the same significant relationship between Political Cynicism and Public Knowledge. The statistics for both regressions can be found in Table 26. The findings indicated that the more individuals know about GDOT (Public Knowledge) the more that they will feel they have a say in what GDOT does (Political Efficacy). Although Public Knowledge only explains less than 3% of the variance in Public Efficacy (R2=.028), the variance that is explained is significant (F- 57 statistic p-value < .01). The findings are consistent with other research, in that Political Efficacy has a stronger relationship with Political Knowledge than Political Cynicism. Table 26. Statistics for Regressions of Public Knowledge versus Public Efficacy and Public Cynicism Construct Political Efficacy Political Cynicism R2 .028 Fstatistic p-value 9.123 **.003 t-statistic (% correct) 13.588 .014 0.086 .798 -0.257 * Significance at 5%, ** Significance at 1% pvalue **.000 .798 Overall, educating individuals on what GDOT does might help people see how integral this government agency is to their everyday lives. Georgia residents drive, walk, bike, fly on planes and ride on trains as means of transportation. They use products shipped to Georgia ports. GDOT oversees each of these different modes of transportation that impact every facet of residents' lives. From driving to work, to getting groceries, individuals need to understand how integral and important GDOT is to their lives. Without education about GDOT, residents of Georgia might not realize all that GDOT does to help improve their lives. 3.6 Public Meetings and Open Houses Findings GDOT holds Public Meetings to get the public involved in its projects. Although the meetings are important, residents in the state of Georgia often do not participate in these important events. We asked individuals directly about their involvement in Public Meetings/Open Houses that GDOT holds across the state. The questions were both closeended and open-ended. We found only a small percentage, 28%, indicated they had 58 attended a meeting held by GDOT, with 72% indicating they had never attended a meeting. The open-ended question responses were analyzed using a standard method of qualitative analysis. Two of the scholars working on the study examined the responses to determine overall themes found in individuals' comments and the results for both scholars are compared for consistency. Based on a close-ended question where we asked individuals specifically why they did not attend these important events, individuals responded overwhelmingly, 44%, that they felt GDOT needed to do a better job overall in explaining projects. After examining the open ended questions as well, one theme that emerged was that not only did they want GDOT to do a better job of explaining the projects, but they wanted that explanation prior to the meeting. We also asked individuals in open-ended measures to explain what GDOT could do to make them more willing to attend a meeting. Again, a major theme that appeared was individuals felt that GDOT needed to do a better job in telling individuals about these potential projects going on in their area. For example, one respondent indicated that GDOT needed to "Give an overview of everything GDOT does; explain how the current issue fits in; explain what the options are and invite attendance." Individuals felt GDOT needed to explain projects in easier to understand terms. GDOT has many talented engineers designing roads, and making them safer. However, most individuals aren't engineers. They might not comprehend the impact these projects will have on their overall safety and security. Even 3-D modeling has some limitations if individuals still don't understand the basics of projects. One respondent 59 indicated this in his/her response that adding the images really did not help him/her to understand the project completely. The respondent also indicated an issue explained in the next paragraph that we noticed when attending a Public Meeting/Open House ourselves. When we attended the Open House in Savannah for the I-95/I-16 interchange project in June, we noticed that GDOT answered individuals' questions about the project. However, GDOT did not explain the project fully to the individuals in attendance. Unless residents asked questions, they would not understand the importance of the project and why GDOT was doing this redesign of the major interchange. The respondent indicated this in his/her response, adding that having a presentation might help individuals in attendance understand the project, rather than a reliance on the graphics and images. Instead of having an Open House where individuals stop in to ask questions, GDOT might utilize other methods, such as a meeting where it might spend 30 minutes explaining a project, then giving time for questions and answers (Q&A). GDOT might consider a follow-up study where it has both types of meetings, and we could test which meeting type had a better response overall from individuals in attendance. These types of meetings could mean GDOT has less GDOT personnel in attendance, with only a few needed to explain the project, and having a Q&A session afterward; therefore, GDOT could save money on the cost of the meetings. Since scholars have shown there is a positive relationship between Political Knowledge and Public Trust, we propose that by explaining projects in a clear manner GDOT itself might increase Political Knowledge about these projects. By increasing Political Knowledge about the projects itself, GDOT might see an increase in Public 60 Trust. More trust in government often leads to increased political participation. Therefore, by being clear to the residents of Georgia about potential projects, GDOT might see more participation in Public Meetings/Open Houses that it holds. Another theme that appeared in our open-ended measures discovered that many individuals did not know about the Public Meetings/Open Houses. Often, individuals questioned how to find out when meetings are scheduled, or where meetings are located. GDOT does a great job in ensuring that it informs neighbors and businesses directly impacted by the projects, however there are individuals in the area impacted by the GDOT projects because they frequently drive in the area. These individuals do not receive notification from the GDOT. Therefore, advertising the meetings via signage or billboards in a location where frequent drivers of the areas affected can see would be helpful. The signage needs to be legible by drivers (e.g. using billboards as opposed to low signs with too much information for a driver to read). Individuals questioned how the GDOT advertised public meetings and open houses. Often, these meetings are advertised in the legal notices in local newspapers. However, as indicated in our survey results, not many individuals use their local newspaper. Even less individuals read the legal notices. Therefore, the GDOT might consider using other types of advertising, such as billboards in the area, as well as local media, newsletters, and social media, to reach people who might not live in the area, but who might be impacted by the project. Respondents indicated that other forms of advertising might be necessary including reaching out to community groups and the local chambers of commerce for spreading the word about meetings. Projects do not just impact those who live in that area. Projects impact those in a region. GDOT might 61 consider not only mailing to those directly impacted by a project, but emailing out information to those in a specific region. For example, instead of just informing individuals along a specific corridor about a proposed project and Public Meeting/Open House, GDOT might have to consider mailing or emailing out information to all the individuals in the city, or county, to let everyone know about the project. Respondents indicated that they would like more information on projects not only directly near them, but in their region because they might be invested in projects even though they are not directly living in the area. Based on respondents' feedback, we suggest that using alternative methods to reach out to individuals is integral. Not only did respondents indicate that the state organization could use the Internet, individuals also indicated GDOT could use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to let individuals know about projects, as well as ask questions. Facebook allows for a "live" update online. GDOT might consider this tool to have a Q & A session regarding certain projects. Individuals could ask questions and give feedback on Facebook, with GDOT personnel responding. News Media have started using this as a tool to inform individuals about certain events. GDOT could utilize this tool as well to reach out to individuals about projects, while getting feedback. Another major theme that came from our open-ended measures indicated that individuals found the meeting times and locations were not convenient to the general public. Although GDOT attempts to have meetings at times when people can attend, residents indicated that the time and locations were not convenient. Some respondents discussed how having meetings from 4 to 6 p.m., when most individuals are heading home from work, might seem convenient. However, when it came to working in Atlanta, 62 respondents indicated they could not get to the meetings by 6 p.m., especially when meetings are held in downtown Atlanta. Respondents indicated that either having meetings later in the evening might help them attend, or having meetings on weekends, when individuals have more time to attend meetings. Many government entities hold meetings in the evening, around 7 p.m., to give residents a chance to attend after work. GDOT might consider doing this as well to ensure individuals have the ability to attend the Public Meetings/Open Houses. Respondents also indicated the location of meetings can be problematic, especially if they are held in downtown Atlanta or in a downtown area of a major city. Respondents wondered if GDOT could move meetings to the locations closest to the actual construction projects; therefore, individuals in the region, mostly impacted by the projects, could attend. We received quite a few responses from individuals who indicated they did not like the locations of meetings, especially when meetings are held in downtown Atlanta. We do understand the issue is some individuals might find the current time and location convenient for them, while others find it not convenient. We wondered if GDOT might consider doing a small survey when it sends out notification about projects asking individuals specifically about the time and location they would like to see the state agency schedule the Public Meetings/Open Houses at. Different communities might have different ideas regarding when GDOT should hold these meetings. Therefore, by doing the survey, GDOT might get a good idea of when and where individuals in the region would like to meet to discuss these important projects as these results may vary by community. 63 Besides doing Public Meetings/Open Houses in different locations, GDOT might consider other methods to get individual participation in meetings. Many respondents indicated that GDOT might consider having "virtual meetings" online, where individuals could go at a certain time to get more information, as well as get their questions answered, regarding projects in their area. Virtual meetings might be a low-cost alternative to having large meetings in a location. Virtual meetings would allow individuals the ability to reach out to the state organization with increased participation in these types of meetings. Also, respondents suggested GDOT might consider recording these meetings, if GDOT does a presentation and Q&A session, and might place those recordings online to help residents who could not attend to see what happened and feel invested in the overall projects. However, GDOT is already publishing the recordings online. Therefore, this suggestion by the respondents may indicate a communication problem as the public is unaware of this GDOT practice. Although we already tested Public Trust with our close-ended measures, we noticed a small percentage of those respondents who indicated extreme cynicism in GDOT and projects that GDOT was planning. Several individuals felt the meetings were a waste of time, according to some respondents, because GDOT has already planned the projects. Individuals felt since GDOT was already in the design phase, the state agency did not care about their overall opinion on the project. Although we know this is not true as GDOT involves the public very early in the planning phase, perception often can be an issue. Individuals asked if GDOT might allow a public comment phase during the actual planning of a project. Individuals indicated they might be willing to comment on ongoing projects using technology such as web forms, Facebook, or discussion boards instead of 64 just coming to a meeting after they perceive the design phase to be complete. Although individuals can solicit comments during the planning phase, there is a perception that their comments are not solicited until the design phase, as multiple individuals mentioned in the surveys. If they believe that they are participating in the planning phase, individuals might feel more invested in the projects themselves. GDOT might consider having more frequent communication via face-to-face meetings, social media and email about when updates will appear and push notifications when updates are available on projects. Having communication and notification about updates on projects will let individuals know about when information regarding important projects in their area is available. Also, having information online and communicating early and often about the availability of that information will help GDOT with transparency. GDOT will be seen by individuals as being transparent, and providing valuable information, which would actually help the state organization with Public Trust. Individuals who see government entities as being transparent often see the government entity as being more trustworthy. Individuals might also feel as though GDOT does not care about their opinion, which was a theme that appeared in our open-ended measures. Individuals indicated they felt GDOT did not take their opinion seriously. Several respondents discussed how they made suggestions at meetings, but felt their suggestions were ignored. We understand that GDOT cannot take into account everyone's opinions. Some ideas that individuals have might not be feasible. GDOT might consider better explanation regarding projects and why GDOT has designed projects in such a manner. The state agency will never make everyone happy, but having a clearer explanation regarding the projects might help. 65 We already discussed the issue that individuals felt the projects were not clear. GDOT might consider having information on the design, as well as the modeling, online before meetings, with an explanation of why the projects have been planned in such a matter. GDOT might consider having something online with the "most asked questions" or explanations to help individuals understand why projects are designed the way they are designed. The issue we saw with GDOT's Public Meetings/Open Houses was when the government agency held the meetings in reference to when the projects were being finalized. Although the Public Meetings/Open Houses might allow residents to comment, and cause GDOT to make alterations to plans, individuals failed to recognize that this occurred. They see designs and believe that GDOT has finished the project and will not take into account their own ideas or opinions. GDOT might consider this when it begins to elicit responses from the residents of Georgia. Perhaps having meetings even earlier in the project cycle or soliciting comments when the project is in its infancy might help with public perception and being perceived as transparent. Allowing the public to comment as early as possible will help individuals trust GDOT more, meaning individuals might be more likely to be involved in the political process. This would be a low-cost method to get individuals to participate in Public Meetings/Open Houses, as well as increase the overall Public Trust individuals have in GDOT. 3.7 Recommendations to Improve Public Participation Based on Survey Findings The construct of Public Trust is created with combining the two concepts of Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. In this study, the findings indicated that individuals had less Political Cynicism and less Political Efficacy overall as compared to 66 the mean, which would indicate a neutral feeling toward Political Cynicism and Political Efficacy. Therefore, the findings suggested that individuals in this study had less Public Trust overall in GDOT. However, all government entities and large businesses have issues with Public Trust. We have seen Public Trust erode for the past 50 years, with less people trusting the government, according to polls like Pew Research Center for People & the Press. This is not an issue with GDOT, but with government as a whole. Open, transparent communication that appears early and often, can improve the perception of transparency, which leads to increased trust. Increased trust leads to better political participation. GDOT might have concerns regarding Political Knowledge. GDOT is integral to our daily lives, yet residents obviously don't understand everything GDOT does. GDOT does not just oversee roadways. The state agency oversees all transportation into and out of the state of Georgia. GDOT has an impact on our economy and our daily lives. Individuals seem to lack an understanding of what the state agency does, as well as how much impact it has on their lives. This is not evident in the Political Knowledge questions on the survey, but is clearly evident in the public's comments suggesting that GDOT do some of the activities it already does (e.g. putting items online and getting the public involved early in the planning process). GDOT helps Georgia residents get to work and home from work. The state organization oversees ports that bring in goods to the state of Georgia. The state agency assists in overseeing Georgia's airports, so travel is integral to what the organization does. GDOT needs to educate the residents of Georgia about how important the agency is as well as what information is available as well as where it is available, because Political Knowledge often influences political participation in that 67 when knowledge decreases, individuals are less likely to get involved in the political process. Table 27 provides a summary of the themes identified in this task and our recommendations for addressing the issues as well as any theoretical support provided from the academic literature related to the issue and recommendation. All themes listed in Table 27 were mentioned by a number of participants in the open ended comments and are further supported by the answers to the questions related to Public Trust and Public Knowledge. Table 27. Summary of Themes Identified and Recommendations Theme & Source The public wants GDOT to do a better job of explaining the projects and the public wants that explanation prior to the meeting. Source: Close and open ended questions and our observations while attending meeting in Savannah for I-95 Cynicism: People think that meetings are a waste of time, as they do not feel that their input is valued or they feel that the project is already planned. Source: Open ended questions and our observations while attending meeting in Savannah for I-95 People asked GDOT to post information about meetings online and to post agendas and any other information Recommendation Communicate earlier, provide documents earlier, explain in easier terms (not technical like an engineer), do a presentation (don't just answer questions), have a Q&A after the presentation. Communication about what phase of the project GDOT is in is key. According to our first GDOT meeting, public input is solicited early in planning. However, if all of the renderings are complete, people may feel that the project is already in the late design phase, which gives the perception public comment is futile. Allow the public to comment as early as possible, maybe even before the first public meeting and open house. This will lead to increased trust and participation. During face-to-face meetings, repeatedly let people know where on the web site information about a project will be available and when. Theoretical Support Political Knowledge leads to Public Trust. Making the public knowledgeable makes the public more inclined to trust and making things transparent makes the project easier to understand which makes the public feel more knowledgeable. Public Cynicism is a construct of Public Trust. If the public is more cynical, the public will have less trust. Reducing cynicism and improving transparency will lead to increased trust. Increased trust leads to more participation. Increases transparency, which improves Public Trust. 68 Theme & Source being shared at the meeting prior to the meeting. Source: Open ended questions People don't know about meetings. Requested that GDOT advertise more. Source: Open ended questions Recommendation Use social media and push email notifications when new information is posted. Put the agenda and any other related materials online prior to the meeting. Send the information to affected residents via email (or a link to them) and post it on social media sites as well. Advertise more with billboards to reach people impacted but do not live in the right of way, social media, media, and community groups. Use signage in the area where the construction project will occur and that is easy for a driver to read if it is a driving related project. Theoretical Support People requested alternative forms of participation in meetings. Source: Open ended questions Meeting times and locations not convenient. Source: Open ended questions Use virtual meetings. Publicize the use of Facebook and web site for Q&A. Can have meetings later or on weekends and closer to the site affected (not downtown ATL when it is a construction project in outskirts). Survey community for individual projects about convenient times and location as these might vary by region. Use community groups to help with venues for meetings. GDOT's main focus for this project is how to get people more involved in Public Meetings/Open Houses. By getting people to trust the agency, as well as by getting them educated about the work GDOT does, the agency should see an increase of political participation, namely attendance at public meetings. 69 CHAPTER 4. PROJECT VISUALIZATION STRATEGIES 4.1 Investigation of User-Friendly Formats for Visuals - Other State DOTs This section considers the different visualization techniques employed by state DOTs to improve their strategies on public involvement. The information acquired to develop this section was obtained via online Internet explorations. For that purpose, all state DOTs' websites were visited and explored as regular users of those sites will do it. However, additional efforts were made to deepen those explorations to minimize missing pertinent links. The corresponding findings were collected in a table, herein referred to as the Technology Formats for Visuals (TFFV) Matrix (see Appendix G). It lists the various visualization techniques state DOTs are employing to enhance their outreach efforts while presenting current/future projects to their public. Even though considerable data were acquired, several state DOTs were not clearly listing this information on their websites and some others did not list anything in this regard. Therefore, even though the presented findings are the results of extensive searches, they cannot be considered exhaustive. The percent number of other state DOTs using each visualization technique is presented in Figure 14. The following paragraphs describe the meaning of each column in the related TFFV Matrix. Each column considers a particular technique. Three Dimensional (3D) presentations: Undoubtedly, three dimensional presentations facilitate the visualization of relatively large spatial objects, such as roadways, bridges, intersections, and other civil structures. In this regard, 3D presentations are preferred over 2D ones. State DOTs have been using various different software packages to prepare these type of presentations in their public meetings or to post them in social media. The completed Internet searches indicated that 47% of the state DOTs are using some sort of 70 three dimensional presentation for public meetings or for the projects displayed on their websites. GIS Maps: Geographic information system (GIS) software is designed to capture, store, manage, analyze, and present all types of spatial or geographical data. A Geographic Information System helps visualize, question, analyze, and interpret data to understand relationships, patterns, and trends. One of the most popular GIS software packages is developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), headquartered in Redlands, California. GIS-based maps and visualizations greatly assist in understanding situations and explaining projects. Currently, most state DOTs, about 65% of them, are using GIS maps to assist their presentations in public meetings. Interactive Map Displays: Interactive maps are a web-based technique that employs maps with clickable points. Each of those points shows a box containing information about the point and/or the area near the point. The information box can store text, images, videos as well as links to external sites. Additionally, the information box may contain social media icons linking to a specific social media page. Many organizations use interactive online maps via the ArcGIS software, an ESRI product. State DOTs use interactive maps for displaying project zones, affected areas and related information. People using these maps could acquire a clear idea about the projects, their related construction areas and possible rerouting directions, and other pertinent information. Internet searches indicated that about 53% state DOTs are using interactive maps. Information Kiosks: Typically, a modern information kiosk is a stand-alone, electronic, device providing information and services, on computer screens, to one or more simultaneous users. Older kiosks did not have electronic components and were run by 71 assigned personnel. KIOSK is the name of a company that has led the industry in designing and manufacturing this type of electronic, self-service solutions since 1993. In 2010, Idaho DOT, IDT, partnered with the Boise Municipal Airport to design and build a video kiosk that informed travelers on several construction projects on nearby I-84 and the Vista Overpass. The kiosk was located on the first floor arrivals lobby, near the rental car counters. Similarly, in May 2013, IDT set up a staffed informational kiosk on the campus of Boise State University to inform students on the Broadway Bridge Replacement Project, obtain their input on design, and discuss with them about construction impacts. Still, it appears that the use of electronic information kiosks by state DOTs is not common. The Internet searches completed for this study reported that only about 2% of state DOTs have been employing electronic kiosks for informing public about their construction projects. Project websites: Internet searches indicate that approximately 61% of state DOTs list ongoing or upcoming projects on dedicated web pages, linked to their official main websites. These web pages are created to inform the public about details of those projects and how taxpayers' money has been utilized in the proposed new construction and improvements. Posted information includes past, current and future schedule of the respective projects. Images: Definitely, the utilization of images for any public presentation or for visual display on websites is a very effective means to transfer visual information. Internet searches showed that 67% of DOTs are using images as part of their visualization techniques. These images could be as simple as pictures of the sites in question or more 72 complex products produced by classical long-range or modern close-range photogrammetry. Blogs: Blogs are webpages where one or more writer presents information in separate entries, typically in reverse chronological order, and their readers are able to interact, via comments, with the authors. The word blog is short for weblog (which at one point was splitted into we blog and later reduced to just blog). Some state DOTs have their own blogs where DOT personnel write on construction related projects involving roads, highways, bridges, overpasses, etc. Usually, in these blogs, the comment section is open to the public so they can participate and present their own thoughts, opinions and concerns. After exploring websites of all state DOTs, it was found that approximately 22% of them present transportation-related blogs. Animations: Animations are generated by employing multiple images (single frames), temporally related to each other, and displaying them in sequential order, one after another. Animations could be employed to assist in the study and interpretation of phenomena involving motion, such as vehicular trajectories, pedestrian footpaths, development of vehicular queues and traffic in general. Additionally, as scientific knowledge increases and technology develops, more data could be acquired and more complex phenomena could be analyzed. However, at the same time, it becomes more challenging to process and interpret the continuously growing massive sets of acquired data during experimental and computational work. It is in this area that animation can also assist in the graphical visualization of time-dependent input and output parameters associated with large varying systems. The completed online searches showed that 45% of state DOTs are using animation as one of their visualization techniques. 73 Social Media: They are web-based tools that allow people and/or organizations to exchange information. Social media is an effective way to reach out to the public. Nowadays, when a news story breaks, it typically happens on microblogging sites such as Twitter. Similarly, social networking services, such as Facebook, have become an important means of communication these days. Additionally, people often use webbased, video-sharing services such as those provided by YouTube where users can freely upload, watch, rate, share and comment on videos. YouTube presents the potential to reach a large number of viewers and convey selected information which could include propagandistic purposes. The general public watches YouTube videos for different purposes, ranging from just simple entertainment or daily information to learning intricate technical and scientific subjects. The completed Internet searches indicated that 69% of state DOTs employ one or more forms of social media as a mode to reach out to their public. Figure 14 Percent of Other State DOTs Using Each Particular Visualization Technique 74 4.2 Visualization Techniques to Drive Individuals to GDOT Website (recommendations for VERG) This section presents visualization techniques and/or software packages or other formats to convey information by other state DOTs to their public. They could be considered by GDOT to potentially expand its current visualization/information efforts. Each technique or software is listed under a respective subtitle and its corresponding narrative may refer to web address with related information. If that were the case, a number between parentheses, (#), is used to identify that address in the list at the end of each subsection. Narrated Videos and Drive-Through Simulations of Projects on Social Media YouTube is a popular web-based, video-sharing social medium. In general, individuals may visit YouTube for different purposes, including information, learning and entertainment. YouTube videos of a state DOT project, with clear narrative, explanations and realistic drive-through simulations, may not only properly inform the public, but they may also increase public interests in becoming more involved and interactive with DOTs, catalyzing the generation of needed feedback. As an example, in 2013, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) published a series of videos for the Verona Road Project. This is a multi-year, multi-stage, major road reconstruction project, including road width expansion and reconstructions of bridges and intersections. The associated work was expected to be completed in six years, by 2019. A brief description of those videos is provided in the following paragraphs, including associated web addresses. The first video is the longest with a duration of 8 minutes and 41 seconds (8:41). It is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project Overview. It can be found at the below web 75 address, designated as (#1). It describes the full project, including location, purpose, improvements and what will happen next for the project. At the same time, it indicates quarterly public outreach meetings (open houses), where stakeholders and other individuals could provide feedback during the design stage. Additionally, it informs the public that a project website (#2) and a Facebook page (#3) present additional and updated information. (#1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia99nVH0F-o (#2) http://www.veronaroadproject.wi.gov/ (#3) www.facebook.com/WIVeronaRoadProject The second video (length 6:35) is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project Stage 1 and is at the below web address, designated as (#4). It describes the two phases included in Stage 1 of the main project and informs on three major items: (i) improvements on local intersections anticipated to be used as diversion roads during construction; (ii) reconstruction and expansion of a portion of the Beltline; and (iii) reconstruction of a portion of Verona Road (US 18/151). The video also refers to the above mentioned website for the project (#2) and its Facebook page (#3). (#4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm6LiXp563w The third video (length 3:51) is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project Stage 2 and can be found at the below web address, designated as (#5). This video informs on four major items: (i) reconstruction of a second portion of Verona Road and its expansion to three lanes; (ii) reconstruction of a portion of McKee Road; (iii) reconstruction of the intersection of Verona Road with McKee Road into a diamond interchange; and (iv) 76 reconstruction of the intersection of Verona Road with Williamsburg Way, where two alternatives are presented. Additionally, the video explains the location of several noise walls to be constructed. As it was the case in the previously described videos, this one also directs viewers to obtain additional and updated information on the website for the project (#2) and on its Facebook page (#3). (#5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW84Uh7SSNI Two additional videos present drive-through simulations along the work areas corresponding to stages 1 and 2. Both show well-designed, well-narrated, very descriptive, realistic drive-through animations, including numerous details, such as the new sound barriers (noise walls). The first simulation video (length 3:57) is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project, Stage 1 Drive Through Animation and its web address is indicated below as (#6). The second simulation video (length 4:50) is entitled WisDOT Verona Road Project, Stage 2 Drive Through Animation and its web address is indicated below as (#7). (#6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKH8DYaMK0k (#7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig9M0yBjlDU Two more related videos present time-lapses of selected construction activities. One of them (length 2:00) is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project, Beam Delivery TimeLapse and its web address is indicated below as (#8). This video presents the delivery and placement of a 100-foot long, 14-foot wide, and approximately 270,000-pound steel beam. It also includes information on construction schedule and traffic diversion. The other video (length 1:04) is entitled WisDOT - Verona Road Project, Madison Beltline 77 Bridge Demolition Time-Lapse and its web address is indicated below as (#9). This video only presents time-lapse images without narration. These two videos play a more illustrative than informative role. In that regard, they may serve the public in a lesser capacity than the previously mentioned four videos. (#8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDTwSCNugtE (#9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qdOvjgrYY8 All mentioned seven videos can also be found at the following single web address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia99nVH0Fo&list=PLoGzf6P7PsQ9DQ3iblQGp1G9PX8f0Y6dN Documentary Videos on DOT Web Pages Relatively short documentaries informing on the history of existing DOT civil structures and/or explaining their modifications, reconstructions, demolitions and new projects could serve as an effective means to reach out to people that will be affected by those works. Additionally, it is possible that when taxpayers are properly informed on the needs, conditions and problems that projects will address, their trust on the agencies and interactions to provide feedback could be catalyzed. Due to the natural development of emotional public ties to iconic old structures, maintenance, modifications or even demolitions of historically significant bridges are becoming a challenge for different DOTs. Usually, it is not easy for the general public to understand the challenges leading to adopt a final decision. This task could be assisted by properly explaining those challenges and the reasons for discarding potential alternative solutions. 78 An example on the referred type of documentaries is presented by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. It posted a video gallery listing different projects. One of them is on the White River Bridge at DeValls Bluff (#10). The video is about 27 minutes long and explains the reasons leading to decide on the demolition of an old historical bridge. The documentary explains why the historic bridge could not be saved and how the state funded money is used in this project. In this particular case, the public is informed that there were three choices: Preserve the bridge in place (either in vehicular or pedestrian use) Move it to a new location and maintain it Thoroughly document the bridge and demolish it Due to U.S Coast Guard regulations, preserving the bridge could not be considered as a viable choice. An in depth investigation revealed that the river had changed its course in decades, since the bridge was built, and now peers are in the main channel. This constituted a severe hazard to barge traffic on the river. Preserving is not always feasible due to the cost, age, stability and safety. Relocating the bridge was not a cost effective option either. This lead them to make a final decision, the bridge would be documented and demolished. (#10) http://www.arkansashighways.com/movies/devalls_bluff_documentary.aspx Webpages Concentrating Public Information Information concentrated and published in dedicated web pages, within the main websites of DOTs, could facilitate the finding of public information and, in turn, assist in developing people's interest and interaction with DOTs. The Public Information Office of 79 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) concentrates information in its Newsroom page (#11). There, it is first indicated that "Providing timely responses to inquiries from the press, government officials, and the public is a crucial function of the Florida Department of Transportation." At its top section, the FDOT Newsroom page presents links to Images, News Releases, Public Notices and Videos. The section on Images contains a link to FDOT photo archives with approximately 2,500 prints, mainly from 1955 to 1960, housed at the Florida State Library. It also links to SeeFloridaGo which is a relatively large, searchable, web-based, photo collection showcasing modern transportation in Florida. All pictures are free to be downloaded from the site. The section on News Releases presents links to chronologically ordered news releases from the Central and all Regional offices. They include announcements on public hearings. The section on Public Notices lists different meetings by district, such as public hearings, open houses, workshops, etc. The section on Videos presents links to YouTube videos containing information on FDOT events, training and more. One of those videos was recently uploaded by FDOT District 7 (#12) and shows an excellent animation of the planned Gateway Expressway project at Tampa Bay. It presents flyover views of traffic animations along the new sections, including toll roads, intersections, express lanes, etc. Its narration explains the general aspects and some details of the project. Undoubtedly, this video represents a powerful visualization technique to inform on the advantages and services this project will provide to its users. Additionally, the middle section of the Newsroom page lists the names, telephone numbers and email addresses of media contacts for 12 different districts/zones. The 80 bottom and last section of the Newsroom page contains links to Facebook, SeeFloridaGo, Twitter, YouTube, and WordPress (an online tool hosting FDOT Newsletter). (#11) http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/newsroom.shtm (#12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvDM_aKextg Access to Materials/Information Provided in Past Community Presentations Posters, graphical displays, videos and presentations offered to the community during open houses and public hearings, could be made available in DOTs' websites for those citizens who were unable to physically attend the meetings, but still wish to find out about the projects planned in their areas. In this regard, Hawaii DOT presents a web page (#13) containing links to those type of posters and presentations. It allows the public to review past presentations. It suggests that users bookmark the main page to easily revisit it for future presentations. An example of an available poster is presented in (#14) below in PDF format. Additionally, feedback capabilities could easily be added to these types of online pages so the visiting individuals could still provide feedback, within certain time limitations. (#13) http://hidot.hawaii.gov/presentations/ (#14) http://hidot.hawaii.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Pahoa_Roundabout_Brochure_2016-05-17.pdf Information on Individuals' Tax Dollars at Work Taxpayers are naturally curious about how their contributions are spent by government agencies, including DOTs. In order to increase transparency and earn trust from their 81 public, DOT websites could provide this type of information. In this regard, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) presents web pages with the following content: (1) Your CDOT Dollar (#15): This page tracks CDOT performance and transportation expenditures. (2) How CDOT Spends (#16): This page presents a tool (Your CDOT Calculator) that allows individuals to estimate their contribution to Colorado's transportation system funding the previous year. The only required information is the type of fuel consumed, the amount of miles driven that year and the average miles per gallon attained by the user's vehicle. It estimates the total annual amount of taxes and fees drivers contributed to CDOT. Additionally, it shows how CDOT spent individuals' contributions in maintaining and expanding the system, among other expenditures. (3) Where CDOT Spends (#17): This page uses an interactive map (powered by Esri) to track all CDOT projects statewide. Projects can be filtered by major funding sources. By clicking a green dot on the map, more information about a project will be shown in a popup window. Blue circles represent multiple projects and their individual locations can be visualized by zooming in. When available, a Show Road Segment link will present the road segment affected by the project. (#15) http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/ycd (#16) http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/How (#17) http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/YCD/Where 82 The Do-Nothing Option Explorations of the results from the do-nothing alternative, may actually make individuals and agencies react and do something to avoid reaching negative conditions. Thus, presentations involving simulations associated to the do-nothing option could be an effective means to justify do-something alternatives. In this regard, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) presents a simulation video (#18) for the Hampton - North Hampton 15678 project. As explained by NHDOT, "It shows a computer generated simulation of how traffic would back up in the year 2020 during the peak Sunday traffic volume period if nothing is changed at the existing Toll Plaza." (#18) https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/operations/turnpikes/ort/video/15678_vid_nobuild2020.htm Broadcasting on Television or Radio Broadcasting on local television or radio channels could be an effective way to briefly inform road users on the main aspects and/or potential traffic disruptions of selected projects. It benefits the general public who use the affected roads/bridges and those who cannot attend public meetings or are not familiar with Internet and/or social media interactions. However, this format mainly delivers information in one way, precluding most real-time interactions with viewers. An example of a relatively short (length 0:50) TV broadcast of an Arizona DOT project can be found at the below link (#19). It is entitled Updates Coming to Busy Surprise Intersection. The involved News agency is ABC15 Arizona. The recorded broadcast presents brief information on the reconstruction of the intersection at Bell Road and Grand Avenue, in the City of Surprise, Maricopa 83 County, Arizona. It involves the construction of a bridge over Grand Avenue to carry Bell Road. Information on closure times and general project schedule is provided to warn users of upcoming delays in that area. (#19) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzMa0Ora-M8 Information Translated into Foreign Languages In areas with diverse population, people from different countries, backgrounds and ethnicities may represent a significant part of the local economy. Initially, language barriers may discourage some members of these groups from participating in public meetings or hearings or even from providing feedback to DOTs to assist in DOTs' decision making processes. DOT websites are often informative, but people without proper English skills may find discouraging to reach to those websites to obtain information or to provide feedback. In this regard, the Connecticut DOT website (#20) presents a capability for selecting languages. It lists 94 different options. Navigation buttons and some pages are translated into those languages. Similarly, the Florida DOT (FDOT) offers translation services, free of charge, at the web page (#21) dedicated to public meetings. Partial and selective language translation could be employed to guide the referred populations to pages where they could communicate and/or provide feedback on proposed DOT projects. (#20) http://www.ct.gov/dot/site/default.asp (#21) http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/publicsyndication/PublicMeetings.aspx/publicmeetings_distri ct 84 Visualization techniques/software used by GDOT Currently, the GDOT Visual Engineering Resource Group (VERG) employs highly trained personnel who use state-of-the-art, diverse visualization software packages and techniques to assist design tasks and enhance public information. VERG was established in the summer of 2013 and currently provides needed visualization services to GDOT. The continuation and growth of this group is highly recommended. Some of the software packages available to VERG are listed and briefly described below. Most of them are produced by Bentley Systems, Inc., and according to Bentley, are currently used by 45 US DOTs and 7 Canadian Ministries of Transportation. MicroStation: It is the main engineering and architectural software platform produced by Bentley Systems Inc. It presents the typical capabilities of traditional computer aided design (CAD) software with the ability to generate detailed 2D drawings, vector graphics and 3D objects and elements. Additionally, renderings and animations can be produced by MicroStation. Bentley Systems was founded in 1984 and MicroStation 1 was first released in 1985. Today, 31 years later, its latest version is V8i. Currently, MicroStation is being employed by numerous state DOTs, including GDOT. InRoads: It is a comprehensive roadway design and analysis software developed and sold by Bentley Systems, Inc. It runs on top of the MicroStation CAD platform and allows for the automation of numerous road design and analysis tasks. Its listed main capabilities are: generation of horizontal and vertical road alignments; generation of road longitudinal profiles and cross sections; design and analysis of corridors; generation of civil project deliverables; incorporation of third-party models in civil designs; incorporation of topography and aerial imagery; analysis and design of complete storm water and sanitary 85 sewer networks; modeling and analysis of terrain; ability to reuse common design layouts; simulation of vehicle path movements; and visualization of designs. The latter capability allows for the generation of 3D models of the projects that are being designed. It has the ability to perform preliminary analyses and design associated visualizations in real time. Its information-rich models can be integrated with mapping, GIS, and other tools such as PDFs and i-models (containers for conveying architectural, engineering, construction and operation information). GDOT has been using InRoads in the past and is now employing OpenRoads. As indicated in the next paragraph, OpenRoads Designer supersedes most of InRoads capabilities. OpenRoads: It is a relatively newer software package, also produced by Bentley Systems, Inc. OpenRoads is an information modeling software with powerful, information-rich, 3D modeling capabilities for the design, construction and operation of roadways and other related civil structures. It allows the generation of dynamic 3D models from the initial design stages and assists in the exploration of design alternatives as the 3D models dynamically update with the incorporation of any modification. OpenRoads accepts any type of data available for the design, including classical total-station survey data, GPS data, photogrammetric data and point clouds (LiDAR data) of any size to generate terrain models. Information can be stored in the objects that are part of the design. It allows the use of Bentley Navigator for automated clash detection to avoid costly design errors. Regarding its visualization capability, it allows the generation of real-time animation of driving along the designed roads and associated corridor. Bentley's website (#22) provides the following descriptions of the three OpenRoads products: 86 OpenRoads ConceptStation is an innovative, new application to enable rapid and iterative conceptual and preliminary design, leveraging contextual information obtained through point clouds, reality meshes, GIS, and other sources. OpenRoads Designer is a comprehensive and fully functioned detailed design application for surveying, drainage, subsurface utilities, and roadway design that supersedes all capabilities previously delivered through InRoads, GEOPAK, MX, and PowerCivil. OpenRoads Navigator enables 3D design visualization and design review and progresses approvals and issues resolution, at the office, in the field, or at the site. (#22) https://www.bentley.com/en/products/brands/openroads LumenRT: This is another product by Bentley capable of producing high-quality visualizations and high-definition videos of simulated project designs. It allows for the rapid generation of images, videos and real-time presentations of architecture, landscape, urban and infrastructure design. Bentley's website (#23) presents the following description of LumenRT capabilities: Animation of infrastructure models with elements in motion such as simulated traffic using vehicles of all types, moving people, wind-swept plants, breezeanimated and seasonal trees, rolling clouds, rippling water and much more. Easy generation of attention-grabbing, cinematic-quality images and videos. Sharing of interactive, immersive 3D presentations with any stakeholder using Bentley LumenRTLiveCubes. Creation of Bentley LumenRT scenes directly from inside MicroStation, including V8i SELECT series and CONNECT Edition, Autodesk Revit, Esri CityEngine, 87 Graphisoft ArchiCAD, Trimble Sketchup and also import from many leading 3D exchange formats. (#23) https://www.bentley.com/en/products/product-line/reality-modelingsoftware/lumenrt Selected Visualization Software Packages Used by Other DOTs RDV Systems: RDV stands for Rapid Design Visualization. The software was first introduced in 2005 and was developed to be employed with Autodesk's Civil 3D. Actually, RDV developers worked in coordination with the Civil 3D Development Team to produce RDV. The software allows designers to easily generate a 3D interactive, virtual environment containing the designed project. Several simulation activities for roadways and land development projects, of any complexity, can be developed. Examples of those activities are drive-through simulations, flyovers and interactive simulations to improve and optimize designs. RDV interactive visualizations allow the user to freely move around the model and virtually take the audience (clients or citizens in public meetings) to the project site to observe it from different points of view, along different directions. The models can be viewed on a personal computer or online, via an Internet browser, or on a smartphone with the assistance of a related application. The LinkedIn home page for RDV systems (#24) provides the following information: "RDV Systems produces visualization software technology as well as provides models as a service for civil engineering professionals, using proprietary, state-of-the-art technology to bring your proposals and designs to life. We deliver an interactive 3-D model that lets you freely navigate the project site, look at any point from any position, and produce still shots and animations on-the-fly, all in an easy-to-operate Viewer. Most importantly, 88 RDV's technology platform and expertise lets us produce these models with significant savings in time and costs. RDV's services have been used worldwide by engineering companies, public agencies, airport authorities, and mining companies. Many examples of our work can be found on www.youtube.com/rdviz or on our website at www.rdvsystems.com. In addition, RDV provides state-of-the-art software tools for visualization and simulation for civil and infrastructure projects. These products make it fast and easy for design professionals to create realistic 3D models that enable them to effectively communicate and collaborate with project stakeholders, assess the impact of proposed projects on their environment, and quickly evaluate alternative designs. RDV also provides advanced tools and services for analysis of sight distance, camera placement, field-of-view, and noise impact based on the project site model, and has specialized tools for aviation engineering for airspace analysis." Alabama DOT website lists RDV Systems as its software for visualization purposes. According to RDV Systems, the following state DOTs are using its software as well: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. (#24) https://www.linkedin.com/company/rdv-systems GEOPAK, Civil Engineering Design Suit: This is another software product by Bentley and is currently employed by several state DOTs. However, Bentley indicates that OpenRoads Designer (mentioned above) supersedes all capabilities previously delivered through InRoads, GEOPACK, MX and PowerCivil. Therefore, no additional information on GEOPACK is provided here. Traffic Simulation: Regarding software for traffic simulation, a recent presentation (#25) by Anita S. Johari, from ASJ Engineering Consultants, LLC, at the 2016 ITE/IMSA 89 Spring Conference, in Arizona, compares modern traffic simulation software for macro and microscopic traffic models. For the project development stage, Anita Johari listed the following software as possible packages to use: aaSIDRA, HCS (Highway Capacity Software), Synchro/Sim Traffic, VISTRO, PASSER, TRANSYT-7F, and AIMSUN2. Similarly, for the project design and operations stages, Anita Johari listed the following software packages, CORSIM/TSIS, PARAMICS, VISSIM, TransModeler, and Synchro/Sim Traffic. Regarding general model comparison, she indicated: TransModeler and VISSIM allow for the most flexibility in creating an innovative design Parkways, Continuous Flow Intersections, Complete Streets, Transit facilities. Vistro still has some bugs Software needs fixes. Vistro signal timing optimization more flexible than Synchro and TransModeler seems to provide results with improved delay & line of sight (LOS). Time required to code / ease of coding Innovative intersections/Corridors: TransModeler