Integrating Visualization into Structured Public Involvement: Case Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky

Abstract

Public involvement in transportation infrastructure decision making is frequently mandated and is regarded as increasingly essential by a wide variety of stakeholders. The integration of advanced technologies, such as visualization, into this process is increasingly desired. However, public involvement processes often are regarded as problematic by many stakeholders and the state highway agencies charged with implementing them. Structured public involvement (SPI) is posited. SPI takes a systems approach toward the integration of advanced technologies into public involvement forums. Because the goal of public involvement is to increase user satisfaction with both the process and the outcomes, the characteristics of advanced technologies and their capacities for gathering useful feedback in public forums must be evaluated. Visualization is put forth as an enabling technology within an SPI framework. The properties, capacities, and transportation-related uses of three visualization modes are evaluated, and their operational features are discussed. A case study dealing with highway improvement in central Kentucky reveals that three-dimensional renderings are significantly preferred to twodimensional and virtual reality modes; the case study also shows that visualization should complement, not replace, other performance information. The role of electronic scoring as an integral component of this SPI protocol is emphasized, resulting in fast assessment and free expression of views. Factors affecting the efficiency of visualization are analyzed, and recommendations are presented for implementing SPI protocols that rely on visualization. These include investigating participants' previous experience with visualization, incorporating iterative public involvement in finalizing design options, and ensuring that the technologies are compatible with the chosen public involvement process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/legis.htm. Accessed Oct. 22, 2001.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/istea.htm. Accessed July 30, 2001.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. How Do FHWA and FTA Define the “Public”? 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pub_inv/q7.htm. Accessed July 24, 2001.

Flexibility in Highway Design. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. Context Sensitive Design, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/kty.htm. Accessed July 22, 2001.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Pilot Program. 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/. Accessed July 21, 2001.

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation. Public Involvement, 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pubinv2.htm. Accessed July 24, 2001.

Arnstein

S. R.

A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1969, pp. 216–224.

10.

Brenneis

, and M’Gonigle

. Public Participation: Components of the Process. Environments, Vol. 21, 1992, pp. 5–11.

11.

McCoy

K. L.

, Krumpe

E. E.

, and Cowles

P. D.

. The Principles and Processes of Public Involvement. Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism, Moscow, Idaho, 1994. http://www.iap2.com/library/pipaper.htm. Accessed Oct. 28, 2001.

12.

Maier

Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder?

European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2001, pp. 707–719.

13.

Lidskog

, and Soneryd

. Transport Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden: Public Involvement or Exclusion? Environment and Planning A, Vol. 32, No. 8, 2000, pp. 1465–1479.

14.

North Central Texas Council of Governments. Community Involvement in Transportation Planning. Technical Report Series 37. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1984.

15.

Dorcey

, Doney

, and Rueggeberg

. Public Involvement in Government Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Vancouver, 1994.

16.

Unsworth

Redefining Public Involvement (Public-Involvement Requirements in Government Public-Works Projects). Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1994e, pp. 13–16.

17.

Rubin

, and Carbajal-Quintas

. Environmental Regulation and Public Participation in Project Planning. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 121, No. 3, 1995, pp. 183–187.

18.

Kane

Technology’s Role in Advancing Transportation Infrastructure in the 21st Century. Urban Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1990, pp. 119–139.

19.

Brumm

, Bailey

, and Grossardt

. Public Involvement in Highway Improvement: A Comparison of Three Different Visualization Modes for a Case Study in Central Kentucky. Proc., Environmental Systems Research Institute User Conference, San Diego, Calif., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Calif., 2001.

20.

Bailey

, Grossardt

, and Brumm

. Structured Public Involvement, 2001. cvoz.uky.edu/psa/TCSP/SPI.htm. Accessed Oct. 30, 2001.

21.

Landphair

, and Larsen

. Synthesis of Highway Practice 229: Applications of 3-D and 4-D Visualization Technology in Transportation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.

22.

Hughes

R. G.

Guidelines for Use of Visualization. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, 1998.

23.

MnDOT’s 3D Visualization Assessment and Development Project: Initial Report. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minneapolis, 1996.

24.

Misenti

3-D GIS System Throws Public Discourse in Relief. 1997. http://www.civic.com/civic/articles/1997/CIVIC-110197_80.asp. Accessed July 20, 2001.

25.

Landphair

, and Larsen

. Evaluation and Development of Visualization Technology for Highway Transportation. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1993.

26.

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc., and Parson Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making. 1996. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm.

27.

Visualization and Facilitation Guides for States, Consultants and Citizens. Kentucky Transportation Center, Lexington, 2001.

28.

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 1994. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1995.

29.

Bailey

, Brumm

, and Grossardt

. Towards Structured Public Involvement in Highway Design: A Comparative Study of Visualization Methods and Preference Modeling using CAVE (Casewise Visual Evaluation). Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis. publish.uwo.ca/~jmalczew/gida.htm.

30.

Murray-Wooley

, and Raitz

. Rock Fences of the Bluegrass (Perspective on Kentucky’s Past). University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 1992.

31.

Brumm

World Construction Set Artist of the Month. 2000. http://www.3dnature.com/imagesofthemonth.html. Accessed July 26, 2001.

32.

Whitmore

, Cook

, and Steiner

. Public Involvement in Visual Assessment: The Verde River Corridor Study. Landscape Journal, 1994, pp. 27–45.

33.

Rozelle

The Public Uses Technology to Analyze a Decision. Presented at First Annual Conference on Infrastructure Priorities, Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems, Washington, D.C., 2001.

34.

Grossardt

, Bailey

, and Brumm

. Community Visualization and Design of a Light Rail Transit Station. Transit-IDEA Proposal T-280. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.