Planning in the Time of COVID: Selected Resources for Virtual Engagement

by Melissa May, Senior Planner & Associate, SSFM International

September 18, 2020

In the era of COVID-19, keeping planning projects moving with meaningful community participation means finding new ways to engage with clients, stakeholders, and the community at large. Since the onset of COVID in March 2020, planners locally and nationwide have had to effectively pivot to virtual replacements for in-person gatherings. With clients and consultants alike on the same (often steep) learning curve, there has been a proliferation of information-sharing within the planning community about tools, tips, and methods for online community engagement.

Since March, SSFM’s planning staff have contributed to multiple webinars, white papers, and presentations about virtual engagement (including the APA Hawai‘i Chapter lunch presentation in July), as well as developed and executed virtual engagement plans for County and State agency clients. We have taken to documenting our experience and lessons learned in a regularly updated white paper that was initially made available internally, and later took on a life of its own as we shared it with clients and colleagues in the local planning community who were grappling with the same issues.

This article adapts the SSFM white paper for use by the broader community of planners, facilitators, and others who are seeking guidance on community engagement in the time of COVID. It has also been updated to include additional tools, examples, and findings based on our ever-growing body of experience and lessons learned in implementing virtual engagement.

In the spirit of building stronger and more resilient communities, we hope this can be a resource for planners and others looking to ensure that planning processes can continue forward demonstrating meaningful, equitable, and widespread community participation and support.

Finally, please note this is not meant as an exhaustive or rigorous review, but rather a collection of observations and best practices based on SSFM’s experience to date – we remain in constant learning and adaptation mode, and welcome any feedback, corrections, or additions. Feel free to e-mail me at mmay@ssfm.com with your own tools, tips, and takeaways. Happy hosting!

Elements of a Successful Online Engagement Program

The virtual engagement plans that have been embraced by SSFM’s clients to date have a few common elements:

• They include live virtual meetings as well as static ways of gathering online input
  
• They offer multiple ways for people to provide input online – through surveys, mapping tools, commenting on documents, and discussion forums
  
• They involve substantial promotions and outreach to advertise the online events
  
• They are tailored to the needs of the project and community
  

In addition, they are designed in accordance with the guidance that has been published for public participation during COVID-19, such as the following:

• Guidance for NEPA Projects (recommended for HRS 343 EA projects as well)
  
• Guidance for Neighborhood Board Coordination (for O‘ahu projects)
  

Of course, the most critical element of success is actual participation from the community. In SSFM’s experience, turnout for virtual public meetings can be much lower (on average 10-20%) of the typical in-person turnout. Given this, it is important to devote additional resources to promoting online meetings, as well as complementing live virtual meetings with other, verifiable methods of gathering input from a diversity of stakeholders. Promotions can be boosted through advertisements in community newsletters and publications, paid social media and online advertising, and distributing flyers through local food drives and events. Other means of collecting documentable input include online engagement (see next section for specific tools), pop-up events (where in person events are allowable with social distancing), mail surveys, polling (using phone, text, or web-based platforms), and e-mail campaigns.

Tools for Online Engagement

SSFM has been incorporating online engagement tools into its planning projects for several years. These include project websites, surveys, and interactive online mapping platforms. These should be seen as a supplement to (not a replacement for) in-person meetings. These tools have proven valuable in reaching wider audiences, especially younger demographics and people who may not otherwise participate or attend public meetings. Particularly during COVID, it is important to collect metrics on reach and participation in online engagement. This can be done using add-on tools such as Google Analytics to monitor web traffic, and in some cases analytics are provided through individual platforms. It is recommended that every project involving public input have an online presence and make use of one or more of these online engagement tools:

• ArcGIS Online Interactive Maps: These maps can be developed in-house, and are tools to allow the public to place comments directly on a map of a project site or area. These are useful where location-specific input is needed, such as the HDOT Farrington Highway Corridor Study.
  
• ArcGIS Story Maps:  Story Maps are free, easy to develop sites that can be created to showcase a project and gather input using multiple types of media including video, photos, text, and interactive maps.  See our Story Maps for the Honolulu Urban Core Complete Streets and Waimānalo Community Values and Priorities projects as examples. No website design experience is needed – familiarity with ArcGIS online is a plus for embedding maps.

• Online Open Houses: There are several companies that offer user-friendly interactive websites designed for collecting public input. SSFM’s currently preferred platform is Konveio, an online website development platform that can be used to create interactive project websites as well as online community events.  It is user-friendly, inexpensive (around $1,000 per site license), and does not require any web design experience.  Functions include 1) Create attractive project websites using drag-and-drop modules and customizable images/colors; 2) The ability to post PDF documents online, make them interactive and allow people to comment on them (comments can be made publicly viewable or admin-only). See example here;  3) Virtual online open houses where materials can be posted and commented on, such as recorded presentations and posters. See example from Konveio here. SSFM created an online open house for the DHHL Hanapēpē Homestead Project as well as complete streets projects for the County of Maui; 4) Password-protected pages that can only be accessed by certain users, such as a stakeholder advisory group.

• SurveyMonkey: SurveyMonkey is a popular tool for deploying online surveys, such as this one SSFM made for the Farrington Highway Corridor Study. Pros are that it is easy to use. Cons are that the functionality is limited with the free version, and it should not be considered a replacement for a statistically significant, professionally developed survey instrument.  

• 'Ōlelo Community Media: 'Ōlelo is Hawai‘i’s public access television station, and believe it or not, the largest in the country! Viewers can connect to it via TV or mobile app. Like other media, ‘Ōlelo is adapting to COVID by expanding its offerings to include live-streaming of public meetings for a fee. They also continue to offer free broadcast of recorded meetings, webinars, and other content that is submitted to the station, and on-site video recording of public meetings for government/non-profit organizations for a fee (first one is free). ‘Ōlelo is a good tool for broadening the reach of public engagement to kupuna, as well as people that do not regularly use internet or social media.

Virtual Live Meetings

Tips for Successful Virtual Meetings

Live virtual meetings need the following at minimum to be successful:

• A detailed plan and agenda for how the meeting will be facilitated, who will speak and present when, how questions/comments will be heard and recorded, and contingency plans for technical difficulties, connectivity issues, and disruptive participants. 
  
• Instructions for accessing the meeting sent to all speakers and participants, with a dry run scheduled for the team and all presenters in advance.
  
• An in-house production team with assigned roles, including: Facilitator (multiple if there will be breakouts), Speakers, Technical support person for people who have trouble with audio/video or other issues, Recorder/note-taker, and Enforcer (someone to police to make sure all participants stay muted, that the chat function is being used properly, to refer participants to IT, and to remove disruptive participants as needed).
  
• Clear ground rules posted for all participants to see that are explained at the outset, with reminders throughout the meeting (this enables them to be enforced).
  

See also, What it Takes to Run a Great Virtual Meeting, Harvard Business Review (March 2020).

In addition, the following factors are important when choosing the platform for hosting the meeting:

• Audience: The number and type of participants. Is it a small or large group? Are these stakeholders you have experience with or the general public?
  
• Security: The ability to protect against disruptive or unauthorized users through password-protected meetings, waiting rooms where participants must be approved by the host, and other means.
  
• Control: The ability to assign exclusive control to the host/speakers to mute all users, open/close the meeting, etc. The ability for the host/speakers to chat privately with each other or individual participants.
  
• Accessibility: It’s important to minimize barriers for public participation by making platforms free, easy to use, and offering a call-in option when possible.
  
• Customizability: The ability to use blurred or custom backgrounds behind speakers; the ability to incorporate features such as live-polling, interactive white boards, and breakout groups.
  
• Bandwidth: Some platforms with heavy usage may experience bandwidth issues that disrupt the meeting. Turning off video for all participants may help with this, as can scheduling meetings during off-peak usage hours.
  

Platforms for Virtual Meetings

Below is a selective list of platforms for virtual meetings that SSFM has direct and indirect experience with. All of them have pros and cons, and may not be suitable for every type of meeting.  

Microsoft Teams: SSFM has used this platform successfully for both in-house and public meetings. However, it may not be the best choice for large public events, especially those that may be contentious or are taking place within an unfamiliar community.  It is designed as an internal collaboration tool, and its success depends on the cooperation and kokua of everyone in the meeting to follow the rules. If that doesn’t happen, a meeting could easily be de-railed. 

• Pros: Easy to use, reliable, can have up to 250 participants, different background options available. 
• Cons: No call-in option; vulnerable to hijacking (all participants have the ability to mute/unmute themselves and others, share screens, anyone can start/end the meeting); the chat is visible to everyone, and there is no option to chat with only one person or for speakers/hosts to chat with each other; there is no live polling capability; no breakout room capability. Only 9 user images are visible at once – can’t choose to see everyone in a grid.

Microsoft Teams Live: This tool is suitable for webinars or presentations where there is one or a small number of speakers and no interaction with attendees.  While this tool is less vulnerable to disruption, it also severely limits the ability of attendees to participate, and it does not permit users outside of the organization to be speakers. It is not recommended for public events for these reasons, although it would be well-suited for webinars where the speakers are from one company. 

• Pros: Easy to use, reliable, can have up to 250 participants, speakers/hosts have complete control, offers different background options. Easy to schedule meetings, no limit on licenses. 
• Cons: No one outside the organization can be a speaker. Only speakers can talk – attendees can only participate through chat. No call-in option. No live polling option.

Adobe Connect: This platform is designed for meetings and group conferencing and has more functionality and features than MS Teams. However, several test runs by SSFM have found that this platform is vulnerable to bandwidth issues, severely impacting audio and video quality to the extent that the meetings were unable to continue. SSFM cannot recommend this tool for public meetings until the bandwidth issues are resolved. 

• Pros: Easy and intuitive to use. Lots of options for host control and customization (live polling, private chatting, breakout groups, Q&A modules, etc.). Offers a call-in option, but costs $0.01/minute per participant outside the licensed organization. Approved for DoD projects. 
• Cons: Significant bandwidth issues that affect sound/video quality.

Zoom: The most common virtual meeting platform currently in use, and also the most highly recommended based on our experience to date. We have participated in meetings with close to 200 people using this platform with little to no issue. We have also used it to conduct stakeholder advisory group meetings for a DOE project using the Breakout Rooms function with no technical issues. Initially the platform experienced some security issues, however those have largely been resolved with recent updates. 

• Pros: Tried and tested for large and small meetings. Can choose views to see participants in a grid (up to 49 at once), or active speaker mode; fully customizable backgrounds; breakout room functionality; widely used and accepted. Can enable password-protected meetings, waiting rooms. Whiteboard function for live mark-ups. Chat function allows private chats and sharing of photos/videos/files. 
• Cons: Plans get more expensive for larger groups/breakout rooms. Some bandwidth concerns at peak hours. No live polling capability. Not approved for DoD projects.

Other Tools: Here’s a few others that we’ve heard about or seen in action, but haven’t used extensively:

• Webex: Seems to be widely used and trusted by large organizations, now used for Honolulu City Council meetings.
  
• Poll Everywhere: Frequently used for large town-hall meetings and large scale polling.  Participants can submit input via smartphone, internet browser, text, Twitter.
  
• Mentimeter: Interactive polling tool that can be used in combination with any of the above platforms to poll participants and share results in real time.  They can participate via smartphone or web browser.