Introduction

Geospatial online participatory tools, or geo-OPTs, are used increasingly to engage publics in governance (e.g., Sieber et al. 2016; Haklay et al. 2018; Ertiö 2015; Afzalan and Muller 2018). Such tools are referred to by many names including public participation GIS (PPGIS), online crowdsourcing, internet communication technology (ICT), the Geoweb, and online volunteered geographic information (VGI). Geo-OPTs are adopted especially in environmental planning where geospatial specificity aids decision-making. McLain et al. (2017), for example, use a geospatial online survey to solicit public input to environmental planning in Washington, while Hjerpe et al. (2018) investigate the tool CityPlanner in Swedish cities. Other researchers study SeeFixClick in flooding-related planning in Florida (Dixon et al. 2021) and tools such as Maptionnaire in urban green infrastructure (Møller et al. 2019). Despite this growth in the adoption and use of geo-OPTs, and the growing scholarship to accompany it, our understanding of their ability to support public participation in environmental planning is still underdeveloped (Glaas et al. 2020; Afzalan and Muller 2018).

In this paper, we investigate the application of a geo-OPT by the United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a leading water agency in the US, in three contextually and geographically diverse cases. Through a mixed methods approach, we examine the processes and dynamics associated with the development and use of the geo-OPT Crowdsource Reporter (CSR). Our findings highlight the importance of managing geo-OPTs as part of a broader planning process that recognizes the complexity and significance of communications in geo-OPTs processes in environmental planning. We provide guidance on how researchers can better study geo-OPTs in environmental planning and how practitioners can be more attuned to important considerations in their application of geo-OPTs as public participation tools in environmental planning.

Dialogue in Geospatial Online Participatory Tools: Moving beyond the Suggestion Box

Mutual education between stakeholders, the opportunity to persuade, and heightened sense of legitimacy, cooperation, and empowerment are often cited benefits of public participation in environmental governance (e.g., Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Beierle 2010; Emerson et al. 2017). There is a growing body of scholarship that suggests that one type of public participation tool -- geo-OPTs -- may increase the reach of participation (e.g., Hjerpe et al. 2018), especially by marginalized and underrepresented people (e.g., Dixon et al. 2021). Other research suggests they may promote information sharing, transparency, and increase the inclusion of local knowledge (e.g., Afzalan and Muller 2018; McCall 2021). There is also evidence that these tools and methods can improve the efficiency of gathering, organizing, and sharing data (e.g., Kahila-Tani et al. 2019).

In the case of water resources planning and governance, inclusion of multiple perspectives and local knowledge is considered key for effective management of the problem. Positive outcomes include more equitable results, fostering shared understanding and co-creation of knowledge (e.g., Wehn et al. 2018; Huitema et al. 2009). Mindful inclusion of local knowledge is viewed as offering the type of creative, flexible, locale-appropriate input needed in water governance (e.g., Rinaudo and Garin 2005; Mostert 2003). Efforts that fail to engage stakeholders may prove ineffective in complex, interest-laden cases (Hassenforder et al. 2015; Von Korff et al. 2012).

Given the complex, variable, and uncertain nature of many water governance issues, social learning is critical for broadening knowledge, building shared understanding, creating appreciation for other perspectives, and developing collective skills among stakeholders (Wehn et al. 2018; Mostert 2003). Social learning is credited with better decisions and better acceptance of decisions (Von Korff et al. 2012). However, “such tools provide few opportunities for higher modes of discussion and deliberation and grant limited authority to participants to influence decision-making processes (Mukhtarov et al. 2018: 430). Mostert (2003: 181) asserts,

Public participation can also promote social learning, provided all parties – the different publics, government and experts – enter into a constructive dialogue. They can then learn how to manage collectively a complex natural resource such as a river basin and deal with conflicting views and interests. “Water awareness” may increase, stalemates may be overcome and real innovation can take place.

A diversity of tools is needed to support various purposes and planning stages (Kahila-Tani 2015; Lin and Benneker 2022). Ertiö (2015) notes a spectrum of tool functionality from collecting public information to promoting dialogue between citizen and government to supporting the planning process, but, along with other researchers, has also questioned these tools’ ability to provide substantive, enduring government-public dialogue (Ertiö 2015; Lin and Kant 2021). Researchers have voiced the need for better classification frameworks for online participatory tools to assist in more effective tool selection (e.g., Afzalan and Muller 2018; Kahila-Tani et al. 2016; Hjerpe et al. 2018), with communications-related factors, such as direction of information flow or type of interaction (e.g., Dixon et al. 2021; Ertiö 2015), of particular concern. Appropriate management of geo-OPTs is critical for producing the effective communications and relations critical in collaborative planning (Afzalan and Muller 2018; Møller et al. 2019). Planning-focused tools generally require more intensive management and organization to support better engagement and dialogue (Lin and Kant 2021; Hjerpe et al. 2018).

To address these and other insufficiently studied areas of geo-OPT use, researchers argue that we need more case study research, particularly to better understand social dynamics and processes (e.g., Afzalan and Muller 2018; Sieber 2006; Dixon et al. 2021), including issues of inclusivity (Ros-Tonen and Willemen 2021) and how these tools are used and integrated into formal planning processes (Ros-Tonen et al. 2021). Additionally, more holistic study of the tools’ implementation at the organizational level is recommended (Hjerpe et al. 2018; Kahila-Tani et al. 2016). Our three case studies offer needed insight into organizational implementation of a geo-OPT for environmental planning, as well as in-depth study of engagement between government and the public in geo-OPTs.

Approach and Methods

Background on Crowdsource Reporter and USACE

We studied USACE’s application of ArcGIS Crowdsource Reporter for public input in water-related projects. CSR is an ESRI application that can be used to crowdsource input on a map (ESRI ND). USACE adopted CSR in spring 2018 to gather input as part of public participation, such as for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-required public comment periods for environmental impact statements and master plan revisions. USACE officials in its Institute for Water Resources Conflict Resolution & Public Participation Expertise Center, or CPCX, learned about online crowdsourcing from another federal agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and they adopted the tool with the aim that CSR would reach more potential participants, as well as connect with people not typically accessed, such as those not able to attend public meetings (Interviewees #U1, U3).

Figures 1–3 illustrate how USACE developed its CSR application to support its plan update process for Youghiogheny River Lake in the Pennsylvania-Maryland area. Users were asked to provide comments related to one or more provided categories related to the plans. The tool could support either location-based or non-location-based comments. Entries were automatically parsed into the associated GIS database, which USACE can access alongside other sources of public-provided comments (e.g., comment cards, emails, mail).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Youghiogheny River Lake Master Plan Crowdsource Reporter application showing map interface and comment categories provided to the user

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

At a virtual public meeting USACE provides guidance on how to use their Crowdsource Reporter tool to input public comment regarding their Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan updates. Note that there is the flexibility to input a general, non-location-specific comment, as well as an option to tie a comment to a user-specified location on the map. Source: USACE, August 18, 2021, “Virtual Meeting [Public} on Proposed Updates for Youghiogheny River Lake’s Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan.”

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

At a virtual public meeting USACE provides guidance on how to use their Crowdsource Reporter tool to input public comment regarding their Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan updates. Note that there is the flexibility to input a general, non-location-specific comment, as well as an option to tie a comment to a user-specified location on the map. Source: USACE, August 18, 2021, “Virtual Meeting [Public} on Proposed Updates for Youghiogheny River Lake’s Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan.”

Full size image

Primarily a technically focused engineering organization situated under the U.S. Department of Defense, USACE is a leading national water agency that is geographically structured into division and district headquarters determined by watershed boundaries. USACE is responsible for operations such as building and maintaining infrastructure and military facilities, creating risk-reducing storm and flood damage infrastructure, managing water resources to support multiple activities from shipping to recreation, and protecting and restoring environmental cases (Semonite 2022). USACE is the primary federal agency responsible for river and coastal flood damage reduction and is also the largest hydroelectric energy provider in the U.S. (Cardwell et al. 2009).

USACE’s history of public engagement has developed substantially since the early 1970s, after the enactment of NEPA and following the 2005 US Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Management and Budget policy memorandum on environmental conflict resolution (DuPraw et al. 2012). Growth has manifested in ways such as increased consultation by outside advisors, training, and research efforts (e.g., Creighton 2005; Langton 1996), creation of the USACE CPCX in 2008, and increased emphasis on the importance of public engagement by USACE leadership (e.g., Priscoli 2004; Cardwell et al. 2009). Given its significant public engagement duties, including multi-stage public participation requirements across its projects, USACE retains a sizeable cadre of experts, including public involvement specialists, public affairs officers, outreach coordinators, and environmental justice community advisors.

Our Case Studies and Methods

We selected three case studies from among the twelve cases in which USACE has adopted CSR. These include: (1) a confined disposal facility location in the Calumet Harbor area in Chicago, Illinois; (2) three master plan projects for lakes and reservoirs in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania region; and (3) an environmental impact statement revision in Willamette Valley, Oregon. Our case selection method allowed for geographic diversity, types of stakeholders engaged, and multiple water management issues. The cases occur over a three-year period, representing USACE’s first use of the tool and then two subsequent uses in different districts. This case study approach aims to examine trends or patterns in the use of the tool across the cases over time. The three case studies are presented on the map in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The three case studies provide a representative but diverse snapshot of USACE Crowdsource Reporter use over the initial three-year period of application. Note that the Pittsburgh District case study, which focuses on USACE’s efforts to institutionalize CSR at the agency, includes the Berlin Lake, Kinzua Dam-Allegheny Reservoir, and Youghiogheny River Lake master plan revisions

Full size image

We followed a mixed methods approach (Johnson et al. 2007), to more fully understand USACE’s organizational utilization of CSR. First, we began by performing a preliminary document analysis, including CSR user interfaces, reports, meeting notes, case-related correspondence, and various products such as after-action reviews and presentations in order to trace the institutional knowledge and development of CSR within USACE, as well as their identified issues, challenges, and concerns. Online media research was used to provide case study context and identify potential stakeholders to interview. A list of documents is in Appendix A.

Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews in person and via Zoom, Teams, and phone using lists of representatives from USACE CPCX and from each of the district headquarters offices involved in the case studies based on duty position and involvement in the case study. This included key interviewees with project leads, public involvement specialists, public affairs officers, and geographic information systems (GIS) professionals within USACE. The interviews were intended to allow us to better understand processes, roles and responsibilities in USACE’s application of CSR. We asked slightly different questions based on the interviewees’ position and role. For example, we developed a unique set of questions for GIS specialists within the agency to further refine both relevant technical issues of the use of CSR, as well as to identify unique perspectives GIS specialists might have brought to the cases. Ultimately, the interview questions asked about the process and outcomes associated with use of CSR in the various case studies. Interviews lasted between 30 min to 1 h. Through these interviews, we uncovered unique perspectives based on the interviewee’s position (e.g., public involvement specialist versus GIS professional) as well as their involvement with the specific project. Ultimately, these interviews revealed a more nuanced view of agency perceptions of the tool’s success, issues and concerns, as well as their understanding of where and how CSR fits into USACE’s public participation efforts.

In addition to our interviews with USACE representatives, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals from the public and from stakeholder groups including nonprofit organizations, special interest groups, and local government officials who were associated with the project. To identify potential participants, we used sources of public information, such as public mailing lists, community websites, and publicly available USACE comment databases. We adopted the snowball method to lead to further interviews and engagements as appropriate (Naderifar et al. 2017). We sought interviewees who participated in the USACE project but also those who declined to engage. This is because non-use of the CSR tool was seen as important for understanding issues of equity, access, inclusion, as well as other factors involved in public participation using this online tool. Interviews were conducted in person and via telephone, Skype, or Zoom, and generally were kept to 30 min. All participants (USACE, public, stakeholder group) were informed of the research objectives and consented to having their input used anonymously for academic purposes. A list of interviewees and interview questions are in Appendix B.

Finally, while our case studies are retrospective, we had some opportunity to conduct participant observation, thereby adding further perspective to our understanding of USACE’s use of CSR for public participation. We observed an online Youghiogheny master plan town hall in August 2021, which allowed for a better grasp for how Pittsburgh District conducts public outreach. In addition, an internal USACE training on ArcGIS dashboards was attended in September 2021 to better understand how USACE personnel engage in learning about collaborative geospatial technology. Notes from these meetings capture information related to the research, such as interactions between USACE personnel and the public, context related to the case study, and insights related to the process of employing CSR.

Interviews, documents, and meeting notes for the case studies were analyzed for literature-informed themes and patterns of the public participation process; access and inclusion; and social dynamics, particularly related to issues of communications and trust (Starke 2013; Mossberger 2000). We qualitatively studied the CSR comment databases and related materials to provide information regarding comment content, as well as insight into public perceptions concerning the project, the CSR tool, and relations with USACE. We compared CSR comments with other available comment types for each case where available (e.g., comment cards, meeting minutes) to evaluate discourse and content (Afzalan and Muller 2018; Glaas et al. 2020), and to better situate the online comment process in the larger body of public participation. A frequent obstacle to systematic comparison was that USACE commonly condenses what they perceive to be similar comments into paraphrased summaries that are made publicly available instead of separately listing multiple individual comments. We present our results for each case study by first describing the background and context before diving into the findings associated with the use of the tool.

Results

Case Study #1: Chicago District: Calumet Harbor and River Confined Disposal Facility

USACE has a federally mandated mission to dredge the waterways in and around Chicago’s Calumet Harbor to facilitate commercial shipping. Due to legacy contamination from steel industry, dredged materials must be stored in a Confined Disposal Facility (USACE 2020). The existing facility, constructed in the 1980s, is located in Ward 10, an area that brought historic, near-term prosperity but long-term hardship to this largely blue-collar, immigrant, and Latinx community (Interviewee #C8). The steel industry left an environmental legacy, including association with significantly high cancer rates by the 1980s (Bukro 1986). Designated an environmental justice community, this neighborhood has witnessed – and fought – multiple environmentally problematic ventures unwanted in more affluent areas (Interviewee #C2, C3, C5, C7; Fears and Amer 2021; Mannion and Wetli 2020; Black 2020).

USACE’s Chicago District anticipated an especially contentious atmosphere for its Dredged Materials Management Plan for location of a new CDF in 2018 (Interviewee #C1). A previously planned new location had fallen through due to external forces, meaning planning had to be reinitiated and timelines shortened (USACE 2019a; USACE 2018). Due to anticipated public pushback, USACE changed its plan from an environmental assessment to an environmental impact statement (Interviewee #C1). Chicago District approached USACE CPCX for assistance with its public engagement efforts, leading to USACE’s pilot use of the tool (Interviewee #U1, U2, C1, C4, C6). Intended to augment, not replace, other means of public involvement, CRS joined the existing set of engagement methods e.g., public meetings, comment cards, email, and conversation by phone (Interviewee #C1).

Adoption of the geo-OPT tool in the Calumet Harbor and River case included basic instructions, a map of nine site locations that USACE had under consideration, and comment categories for each site. USACE had already internally scoped and limited potential facility locations to the nine sites. Therefore, the public comment period was more directed than customary for the scoping public comment period of a project.

We identified 332 comments entered into CSR. This compares with individual public comments obtained through workshop posters (100), comment cards (15), and spoken comments (25) in the broader public participation effort (Interviewee #C1). We found that a large number of comments were either copied/pasted or otherwise repetitively inputted across many or all the proposed site categories. Of the 332 comments, only 68, or 20%, could be considered unduplicated original comments. The tone of the comments was overwhelmingly negative, mostly rejecting the prospect of any new facility in Ward 10 (CSR database).

Generally, research participants expressed frustration that they were just given these options and told to provide input on them. Any confined disposal facility in Ward 10 was a bad option from many users’ perspectives (Interviewee #C2, C3, C5, C7). Neighborhood activists saw no choice other than either to boycott the tool or to participate in it just to get their comments in the public record (Interviewee #C2, C3, C5, C7). “We knew about the app, but it was a choice not to use the app because the app that the US Army Corps of Engineers is like basically forcing you to pick your poison. So, in other words, instead of asking where we wanted it, or even if we wanted it, it just said ‘pick, pick your poison, pick’.” (Interviewee #C2).

USACE officials expressed concern that the tool was used more for “voting” against a facility in Ward 10 (Interviewee #C1, C4, C6, C8) than providing useful information and insights on proposed locations. As one USACE representative noted,

“This isn’t, like, a voting tool. I think a lot of people thought that the more comments, the more powerful they are. But if your comment isn’t germaine or true or relevant to our planning process, you can say it a million times; it doesn’t change that veracity or applicability. So, we got a lot of that: people piling on with the same comment 10 times in a row.” (Interviewee #C1)

Aside from the CSR and other comments noted above, USACE also received multiple emails, which were dominated by (but not exclusively) form letters (Interviewee #C1). Although there was also a sense of “voting” in such comments, there did not appear to be as much of the virulent tone found in the CSR comments (Interviewee #C1).

Case Study #2: Pittsburgh District Master Plans

USACE conducts periodic master plan reviews for its various managed water bodies to support its mission of flood control and water quality (USACE NDa; Ferry 2019). These reviews focus on land classification and resource objectives for government owned and leased lands around reservoirs (Interviewee #P3). However, a common concern voiced by various stakeholders (e.g., homeowners, recreators, supporting businesses) relates to USACE’s summertime water release practices, which they feel degrade recreation, property values, and livelihoods (Sess 2018; Interviewees #P3, P2, P1, P6, P7, P12, P15, P19). Moreover, in the case of Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, the Seneca Nation of Indians have contested the dam since its origin (Diaz-Gonzalez 2020; Miller 2019). Therefore, USACE Pittsburgh District decided to incorporate the public participation practices normally reserved for an environmental impact statement per NEPA into its master plan review process for select master plan cases (Interviewee #P3).

As with the Chicago District case, CPCX engaged with Pittsburgh District regarding CSR. A plan was made not to construct a “one-and-done” CSR application, but to develop a template-style version that could be used for master plans and similar plans across USACE districts. This situation carried the added opportunity to monitor and improve tool use over several iterations.

Pittsburgh District integrated CSR into its public outreach plans for the scoping phase of select master plan reviews. This study looked at three of those reviews: Berlin Lake (public comment period October 2018), Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir (August 2019), and Youghiogheny River Lake (July 2020).

Modifications to CSR applications were made over time and through use. Specific change included increased USACE guidance regarding input solicited from the public (Interviewee #3, 4, 2, 1). Similar to Chicago District’s experience, Pittsburgh District officials were concerned that commenters were “voting” or inputting information that was not related to the master plan, such as water level management (Interviewees #P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6). Refined direction included more specific splash page instructions, an instructional YouTube video, adjusted comment categories, and prompts to categorize comments into ideas, concerns, or questions. There were also design changes intended to better support inclusion of supporting materials for participants’ reference.

While ensuring proper input for the sake of public representation was important to Pittsburgh District, their motivation for improving input quality was also of practical concern. Pittsburgh District recognized that the tool held potential to manage public comments more efficiently than other means. Instead of gathering and inputting dozens of comment cards and mapped sticky notes (the norm at public meetings), USACE could instead direct participants to CSR stations at meetings, thereby significantly streamlining the process (Interviewee #P3, P6, P2). As one USACE representative noted, “So, if you’re collecting tons of comments, keeping them all in paper comment form, or even emails…you have to organize it. CSR reduces the amount of work we have to do to make sure that we’re adequately incorporating all the comments collected.” (Interviewee #P3).

Total scoping period CSR comments included 23 for Berlin Lake, 78 for Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, and 21 for Youghiogheny River Lake. Lower response numbers are commonly attributed to lack of significant public concern; higher input is commonly tied to criticism. Yet, according to a Pittsburgh District official, improvement over time cannot effectively be measured by number of responses (Interviewee #P3). Moreover, the tool was not advertised evenly across the case studies (Interviewee #P2), nor was its use executed precisely the same in each case due to case-specific considerations (Interviewee #P3, P4, P6).

Despite this, Pittsburgh District felt its use of the tool evolved in the span of these master plan reviews (Interviewee #P3). By 2021, Pittsburgh District used CSR for both scoping and draft public comment periods for all master plans and shoreline development plans (Interviewee #P4). While guidance to the public had become more verbally and geospatially explicit and precise, receipt of comments deemed by USACE to be irrelevant to the project was still endemic. Furthermore, use of CSR at public meetings proved to be more complex than expected. One lesson learned by USACE district personnel was that “people really like to talk to us,” even at stations set up for individual comment input (Interviewee #P3, P6). Another USACE representative described CSR at public meetings as a unique means of collecting valuable input from multiple generations in families,

“…crowdsourcing…they can take that home with them [from a public meeting]. They can ask family members about that. And a lot of the links that we manage…generational people are very attached and committed to those areas, to those regions. We see a lot of generational residents here that they’ve been there for four generations, for five generations. So, it’s always good to promote just not engagement at the meetings, but engagements within the different generations of the user groups.” (Interviewee #P6).

We found that a variety of participants, including business owners, academics, and USACE representatives, felt the tool was convenient, allowed users to take their time, provided a way to view others’ comments, and offered an important geographic perspective (Interviewee #P6, P16, P17). Some recreational organizations and activists did not use CSR because they wanted to reach certain USACE officials more directly, either because they felt they would more likely be heard or because they were already used to other input means, such as comment cards, emails, or phone calls (Interviewee #P11, P13, P18). Some local recreation organization representatives noted a lack of supporting information for cases (Interviewee #P14, P19), yet one also perceived improvement over two sequential CSR applications (Interviewee #P19). There were several comments that referenced Seneca Nation of Indians’ concerns; however, those comments could not be tied to citizens of the nation themselves based on the commenter information provided. Overall, it appears that Seneca Nation of Indians preferred to reserve feedback to USACE via official government-to-government channels and not through CSR (e.g., Armstrong 2019).

Case Study #3: Portland District: Willamette Valley System Operations and Maintenance EIS

In 2019, USACE Portland District initiated an environmental impact statement for its 13-dam Willamette Valley project in response to new laws and new information, both regarding system-wide impact resulting from considerable operational modifications and structural improvements, and on new impacts to species protected by the Endangered Species Act (USACE NDb; USACE 2019b; Interviewee #W4, W10, W12). The project involves multiple, diverse stakeholders (Interviewee #W4, W7), including indigenous groups and Tribes, agriculture interests, industry, urban communities, hydropower companies, water councils, environmentalists, and recreators. Multiple cases of litigation involving various groups have been endemic to the project (Glick et al. 2021; Mehaffey 2021; Parks 2021; Poehler 2021). A USACE representative noted, “We’re basically getting it from all angles, which is understandable considering we touch pretty much everything in people’s lives.” (Interviewee #W10).

The scoping public comment period occurred in June 2019. Portland District learned of the tool through technical channels (Interviewee #W5), and the idea to use CSR was reinforced in consulting with CPCX over engagement strategy (Interviewee #W17). Given the significant area of the Willamette basin (approximately 150 miles in length), USACE anticipated the tool could increase coverage and offer an additional public comment method (Interviewee #W4, W5, W10, W12, W17).

The CSR “Public Comment Portal” allowed users to select sites within the Willamette Valley and input their comments directly on those locations. Portland District did not allow users to comment on others’ comments to avoid trolling, although participants could address others’ comments in their own comments. As one USACE representative noted, “We wanted to at least try to keep it a respectful space.” (Interviewee #W17).

Portland District found its portal to be easier than expected to create and use (Interviewee #W4, W5). Local staff expertise appears particularly helpful in understanding the stakeholder environment and ensuring inclusion of relevant information. CSR comments were thought to be more diverse than those acquired through traditional means, which was attributed to the appeal and convenience of the tool for groups such as kayakers and farmers (Interviewee #W17).

Some public commenters thought the comment portal was straightforward to use (Interviewee #W9, #P11). One water council representative noted, “As someone who has to use a bunch of different government platforms, this one seemed pretty intuitive” (Interviewee #W1). However, that same individual self-trained on the tool in anticipation of questions from their constituents about how to use it. Other community leaders also assisted their members, either by answering questions or inputting comments on their behalf (Interviewee #W9). Interest was expressed in USACE enabling the ability to engage with other commenters, as well as providing a comment summary at the public comment period closure (Interviewee #W3) to serve as both an immediate public record as well as to capture the various perspectives in one document. One active recreation group leader with a science background felt there was not enough information provided on relevant issues (e.g., drivers behind potential endangered species extinction) to help the public understand before commenting (Interviewee #W3). They noted that although such materials were also largely absent from public meetings, well-informed USACE representatives were commonly in attendance and could address questions. Concern was expressed over lack of timely response to comments, something noted in other case studies (Interviewee #W15, W11).

CSR produced 32 of approximately 400 comments overall gathered during the broader public participation process, which was fewer than Portland District expected (Interviewee #W4). One likely reason for lower response is the typically sparse internet connectivity in rural areas, and USACE representatives further noted that “people here are pretty tuned in to how to provide comments” (Interviewee #W4, W10). Local environmental nonprofits, recreation groups, and watershed councils are known to be well-informed on local issues (as well as on the public comment process), active, and vocal (Interviewee #W4, W12). Many stakeholders who had already been commenting, sometimes intensively for years, stuck with what they were accustomed to rather than switch to a new method (Interviewee #W6, W15).

Indeed, several nonprofit and water council representatives stated that they themselves would probably not use a tool like CSR for providing input because they would feel artificially and arbitrarily constricted. One nonprofit representative (Interviewee #W2) comments about their conditions for using an app like CSR,

“It would depend on the tool, and it would depend on the nature of my interest. You know, something like this, my interest would be pretty broad. And so I doubt about a tool that says, ‘make a comment here if you’re interested in this issue, and make a comment here if you’re interested in that issue,’ or ‘make a comment at this specific location.’ I wouldn’t use that because I would have wanted to comment on the bigger picture, you know. I’m definitely comfortable with computers. And an online comment form, I’m fine with. Most of them have some kind of confirmation of your comments, so you get some kind of a record back that you made the comment. So, I think that’s a generally fine way to do things, assuming the commenter has enough discretion to say what they want to say. I wouldn’t want to have to confine my comments in the pre-assigned boxes.”

Moreover, as they were more likely to focus on the bigger picture or on more abstract topics, some environmental representatives felt their commenting would be more effectively conveyed through other means, such as written letters (sometimes several dozen pages long) emailed to USACE directly (Interviewee #W2, W6, W1, W13), which they felt also carried more gravitas (Interviewee #W17, W14). Additionally, as one water council representative noted that “general comments like ‘Protect the fish!’ are not helpful from a regulatory perspective. … They [USACE] will accept that comment, but will it have any meaningful impact on the process? Probably not.” (Interviewee #W11). However, several of the same community leaders acknowledged value in the tool for their members or constituents for addressing local-scale, geographically specific, tangible issues (Interviewee #W13).

Examining the Deeper Context of Geo-OPTs for Environmental Planning

Taken together, our three case studies reveal how seemingly straightforward, simple tools often become complex when applied in environmental planning contexts. Our research uncovered nuances and perceptions that dispel the metaphor of a discrete tool, like a hammer, that is retrieved, used, then put away after something is built or repaired. Instead, we argue that the geospatial tool Crowdsource Reporter is more like a gear, one component of the workings of public engagement in the broader governance system. While the technical installation of this geo-OPT might not be particularly difficult or demanding, its effective use requires considerable thought and effort. We draw attention to two key areas that highlight this notion of gears: (1) managing geo-OPTs as part of broader planning processes, and (2) recognizing the complexity and significance of communications in geo-OPTs. In highlighting these challenges, we provide recommendations for better use of these tools to help guide practice and policy.

Managing Geo-OPTs as Part of Broader Planning Processes

Geo-OPTs like CSR are not standalone solutions; they are best employed within a broader engagement plan (e.g., Haworth 2018; Falco and Kleinhans 2018; McCall and Dunn 2012). Previous studies recommend that geo-OPTs be combined with other approaches to ensure equitable representation as well as good communication (Afzalan and Muller 2018; Glaas et al. 2020), including for those who prefer not to engage in public meetings, e.g., due to personality or concerns about controversy (e.g., Haklay et al. 2018; Evers et al. 2016).

Several USACE personnel at district and higher levels noted that they did not consider CSR to be a standalone tool, but rather that it was one of several means used to engage the public (Interviewee #P3). However, some USACE personnel strongly encouraged broader CSR use due to information management benefits like those discussed by researchers (Kahila-Tani et al. 2019). Indeed, faced with limited resources to develop layered participation projects (Kahila-Tani et al. 2019; Falco and Kleinhans 2018), geo-OPTs can sometimes be touted as a public engagement “fix,” without the same degree of attention dedicated to social considerations, such as effective communications, as might occur with more traditional methods.

In its public participation process, USACE acknowledged and anticipated differential use of CSR based on user preferences and other factors (Interviewee # P4, C6, W12). With experience over time, USACE appeared to refine its stakeholder analysis regarding actual and anticipated participant use of various methods (Interviewee #U1). Extensively relaying the various types of participation methods to stakeholders both helps individuals select best possible participation methods, as well as provides needed feedback to government on accuracy of the stakeholder analysis. Such feedback is particularly valuable for newer engagement methods like CSR.

We found widespread support from interviewed stakeholders to integrate CSR early in the public engagement process, something also encouraged in the scholarship (Glaas et al. 2020). This opinion, expressed by local leaders, members of nonprofits, and water councils engaged in both formal and informal public engagement processes (e.g., public comment periods vs. “off season” communications), largely fits with what USACE officials expressed in terms of how public input is most impactful during the scoping phase. However, stakeholders interviewed representing NGOs particularly noted that early involvement was beneficial for improved trust between USACE and stakeholders. This aligns with research that warns about problems with distrust (Best et al. 2021) and suggests trust among partners is improved with introducing geo-OPTs earlier in planning (Kahila-Tani et al. 2019).

Interviewed stakeholders also perceived that USACE maintained remote control over communications and information exchange. This “top-down” participation, similar to that described by Arnstein (1969), was sensed in cases where USACE was felt to overly control public participation through CSR, including project framing, provided information, and limited input options. Perceptions of meaningless participation (Halvorsen 2003) were noted where participants believed their input would not be usefully utilized, largely because they felt the public engagement process was done to “check the box.” Regardless, multiple participants said they engaged in the process to ensure their information was at least documented in public record.

More effective integration of geo-OPTs into broader public participation processes extends beyond the essential task of offering the geo-OPT as part of an integrated outreach effort. Also important for geo-OPT integration is the effective and appropriate incorporation of comments gathered through this means with comments gathered through other methods of public input. Especially as USACE found CSR comments to be easier to manage, understand, and process than many other types of comments, it would be reasonable to assume that there might be inadvertent preferential treatment for CSR comments, thereby potentially jeopardizing equity and inclusion, a concern recognized by researchers (Kahila-Tani et al. 2019).

We recommend using geo-OPTs consistently and in combination with other tools to intentionally stimulate dialogue and learning (Ros-Tonen et al. 2021; Best et al. 2021). The combination and integration into the planning process of individual and group participatory activities (e.g., online tools and public meetings) has been cited as critical to effective, inclusive planning efforts (e.g., Staffans et al. 2020; Lin and Kant 2021; Hjerpe et al. 2018). Although early public participation builds trust, we noted how frustration developed with longer wait times between comment submission and government response. It might also be helpful to include information sections for new users, as Schmidthuber et al. (2021: 14) found that first-time geo-OPT use had a significant effect on future use of such tools and noted that it is important to educate users about the scope of the government agency’s responsibility --identifying the “locus of causality” – particularly for problematic issues.

Recognizing the Complexity and Significance of Communication in Geo-OPTs

An important consideration for using geo-OPTs for public participation in planning revolves around the ability to support relevant dialogue. This demands extensive and multimodal communication about geo-OPT processes and timelines for purposes of education and expectation management. Ertio (2015: 316) asserts that “the more apps tap into citizens’ tacit local knowledge, the more dialogue is needed to understand those opinions and the more strategic power they entail.” Communications, along with related factors such as political and social contexts, are important contributors to effective geo-OPT use in planning (Lin and Benneker 2022; Afzalan and Muller 2018). Researchers cite the need for communications managers, online facilitators, mediators, and generalists who can broadly support the integration and use of civic technologies into planning efforts and facilitate communication processes (Lin and Benneker 2022; Afzalan and Muller 2018).

There are multiple communications requirements for effective geo-OPT use in planning, including appropriate leveraging of government-public relations, mindful management of power dynamics, connecting with users of various types and with various ways of knowing, elicitation of needed information, and consensus building and shared learning in a community. However, geo-OPTs, as commonly simply structured apps, appear to offer only modest means of communications. Our findings suggest that geo-OPTs in planning may ask too much of participants without adequate dialogue to support robust engagement.

Our research found that USACE commonly requests, within a single CSR question for a project, public input spanning from complaints and problems to preferences and values to ideas for the future. Such questions cut across major types of information collection (i.e., requests for factual information vs. solicitation of preferences and values) (Brabham 2013). Researchers find elicitation of such a broad spectrum of information and value-based responses may be problematic (McCall 2021; Haklay et al. 2018). Without appropriate communication, attempts to solicit so much varied and personal information can contribute to a sense of confusion over what is being asked, concern over government power regarding the information, and impressions of knowledge extraction rather than collection.

The instructions and context provided in a geo-OPT offer an important introduction to the conversation, and we found that instructions had a significant impact on user participation. For example, the Pittsburgh District project team noted improvement in public input based on refinement to user guidance over several iterations of application (Interviewee #P3). However, we also found in the Pittsburgh and Willamette cases that some respondents continued to provide input not relevant to the project, seemingly because they either did not know the appropriate communications processes or used CSR for expediency’s sake, particularly in getting their comments included in public record. The context included, e.g., planning documents, maps, other ancillary materials, also were found to impact participant input. Some users felt the context was one-sided and wanted more voices to frame the discussion (Interviewee #C3). Whether other perspectives can or should be included by the government agency in their geo-OPT design (or, indeed, belong in another forum) could be considered.

Moreover, we perceived a unique gap significantly contributed to the problem USACE experienced in attempting to solicit certain types of input. Where USACE and the public seemed in at least relative agreement over what information should be shared in the geo-OPT, public comments were more relevant and valuable to both parties. For example, in the Pittsburgh District master plan cases, in which the public was interested in providing suggestions or concerns about certain potential improvements or issues (e.g., location of boat docks), the quality of information was more universally valued, including appreciation of local knowledge (Interviewee #P3, P18). In contrast, where there was divergence in understanding or agreement over what information should be shared, there frequently were mismatches in perceived value of information provided (if information was provided at all). For example, in the Chicago District case, the Ward 10 local community categorically rejected any new CDF in their community. Some felt the CSR constituted an inappropriate, premature discussion (Interviewee #C2). Their responses, commonly objections, while viewed by USACE as “voting,” could alternatively be viewed as attempts to have the conversation Ward 10 preferred to have.

Beyond dialogue between participant and government, the facilitation of dialogue between participants via the geo-OPT may be an important consideration. Theoretically, such interaction can lead to social learning and consensus building (Hjerpe et al. 2018; Afzalan et al. 2017) and establishing “meaningful interactions among citizens” (Falco and Kleinhans 2018: 18). Social learning, particularly regarding interdependencies among diverse actors and resources, is found to be important for successful natural resource management, such as water (Gerlak et al. 2021; Ravnborg and Westermann 2002; Evers et al. 2016). Across cases, while respondents were not able to directly comment in each other’s comment threads, they were able to review and discuss others’ comments within their own comments. However, we encountered public interest in having coherent conversations within the CSR app, not just disparate individual comments (Interviewee #C3, W3).

Overall, we find that the conventional geo-OPT approach of providing context and instructions and then collecting input from participants may not be adequate for geo-OPTs used for more complicated activities such as planning (Dixon et al. 2021, Kahila-Tani et al. 2019). More engagement within the app, or at least more opportunity for engagement, may be required to assure participants that they have more control or buy-in in the communication exchange and that the structure is not so rigid as to jeopardize the meaning – or their ownership – of their information. Thus, we recommend deeper investigation of the components of communication within geo-OPTs, such as the format (i.e. UI/UX), instructions, context, pop-up boxes, and notifications of comment receipt. Ethical questions, especially regarding who determines what is mapped, and by whom must be considered (Aggrey et al. 2021; Somuah et al. 2021).

In addition, other spaces for enhancing deeper, more interactive engagement could be explored. For example, in-app real-time communication is viewed as important for transparency, as well as trust in the process (Kahila-Tani 2016), as seen in our participants’ wish for timely feedback, even if only via automated receipt notification (Interviewee #C5). Some researchers recommend including an in-app chat function to facilitate transparency and learning (Hjerpe et al. 2018). In cases where a government agency does not intend to engage in more than limited communication (e.g., due to resource shortages), expectations should be managed so that participants better understand where they can reasonably expect to engage with government interactively online. It is important to communicate more where there are aspects of the project or proposed plan that are more complicated, might be misunderstood or understood very differently by different users, and/or are contentious.

Conclusions

In this paper, we examined the processes and dynamics associated with the development and use of a geo-OPT by a government agency for public participation in environmental planning. Our findings highlight the importance of managing geo-OPTs not in isolation or as a panacea but rather as part of a broader planning process that recognizes the complexity of communications in geo-OPTs. Although it may be tempting and seemingly simple to create and launch these online tools, our research reveals how a lack of intention early on may lead to underuse or misapplication of the tool. More significantly, real damage can be done, like increased public frustration and alienation, resulting in breakdown in communications or even worsening public relations for federal agencies.

The seemingly simple, straightforward nature of geo-OPTs belies what can be significant requirements for effective communications in planning (O’Donnell et al. 2018), potentially even more so in contentious cases. We attribute – at least partly – what we perceive as a distancing effect in some geo-OPTs to inadequate ability to facilitate effective and meaningful dialogue between government and the public. This constitutes a gap that must be addressed to improve the value of these tools, particularly regarding level and quality of participation and input, as well as to support broader goals such as cultivation of relationships and trust, key benefits associated with public engagement processes writ large. Much can be communicated through geo-OPTs. However, without mindful planning, there can be negative effects such as participation perceived as meaningless or degraded. More significantly, increased frustration and alienation may result, which can lead to potential breakdown in communications or even relations. This poses a real risk in adopting geo-OPTs for environmental planning, especially in highly conflictual or environmental justice environments.

We would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge some challenges with conducting this research project. COVID-19 impeded the ability to locate and contact study participants. This was mostly experienced where contact information for potential subjects consisted of office phone numbers. Field work uncovered a common practice among nonprofits, watershed councils, and local government offices of posting home phone numbers on office doors instead of updating the information on websites or voice messages. This situation likely reduced the number and types of participants for the project. It also possibly blocked or channeled focus to certain participants, which may have had an impact on the analysis and understanding of one or more case studies.

Finally, there are several important areas future research might address. Further analysis should be conducted on public input provided through geo-OPTs, including comparison with input gathered through other means (e.g., comment cards), as well as across different cases to evaluate impact of the tool on social phenomena such as discourse, power relations, and consensus building. In addition, further research is needed to better understand the overall impact of public participation via geo-OPTs relative to other tools used in a planning process. This would entail a deeper analysis of impacts than provided by our research and would involve the challenging tasks of drawing causal pathways between tools and impacts. Ultimately, with the heightened adoption of geo-OPTs, examining outcomes associated with geo-OPT use is vital to really understand what these tools mean for public participation in environmental planning.