E-Scooter Safety: Issues and Solutions (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

BTSCRP Web-Only Document 5 E-Scooter Safety Issues and Solutions Laura Sandt Regina Clewlow Dan Gelinne Stephanie Seki Alyson West Populus Katherine J. Harmon San Francisco, CA Kristin Blank Meg Bryson Charles T. Brown Tabitha Combs Equitable Cities Highway Safety Research Center, University of Somerset, NJ North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC Rebecca Sanders Safe Streets Research and Consulting Christopher R. Cherry California and Oregon Emma Sexton Nitesh Shah Yi Wen Mojdeh Azad Ashkan Neshagarian University of Tennessee, Knoxville Knoxville, TN Contractor’s Final Report for BTSCRP Project BTS-10 Submitted February 2023 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It was conducted through the Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program (BTSCRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB. 

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org. 

COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR BTSCRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 5 Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Richard Retting, Senior Program Officer Dajaih Bias-Johnson, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer J. Weeks, Publishing Projects Manager Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor BTSCRP PROJECT BTS-10 PANEL Michael J. Hanson, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, St. Paul, MN (Chair) Johanna Amaya, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, University Park, PA Brian D. Burk, Travis County, Austin, TX Staci Hoff, Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), Olympia, WA Kohinoor Kar, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ Ngani Salisha Ndimbie, High Street Consulting Group, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA Scott A. Parr, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL Randy Weissman, California Office of Traffic Safety, Elk Grove, CA Nazy Sobhi, FTA Liaison Kristie L. Johnson, NHTSA Liaison Ryan Grube, OST-R/Bureau of Transportation Statistics Liaison 

Contents List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... viii Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts .................................................................................................... x Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 9 Project Purpose, Scope, and Tasks............................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1: Study Methods and Data Sources...................................................................................... 11 1.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 11 1.2 Populus Survey Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 13 1.3 BTS-10 E-scooter Injury Surveillance Study ...................................................................................... 13 1.4 Practitioner Survey ............................................................................................................................ 14 1.5 Agency Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 16 1.6 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: E-scooter Context and Safety Issues .................................................................................. 18 2.1 What Services, Devices, and Components are E-scooter Riders Using? ........................................... 18 2.2 Who Rides E-Scooters? ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.3 How Often and for What Purposes Do People Ride E-scooters? ...................................................... 25 2.4 What Perceptions of Safety and Risk are Associated with E-scooters? ............................................ 30 Chapter 3: E-scooter Injuries and Crash Context ................................................................................. 35 3.1 How are Researchers Identifying E-scooter Injuries? ....................................................................... 35 3.2 Who is Getting Injured on E-scooters? ............................................................................................. 37 3.3 What Characteristics are Associated with E-scooter Injuries? ......................................................... 39 3.4 What E-Scooter Crash Characteristics, Types, and Scenarios are most Common? .......................... 41 3.5 What is the Role of Helmet Use in Injury Mitigation? ...................................................................... 45 3.6 What Role does Reported Impairment Play in E-scooter Injury Incidents? ..................................... 46 3.7 How are Injury Trends Changing Over Time? ................................................................................... 47 3.8 How Do E-scooter Injury Patterns Compare with Other Forms of Micromobility? .......................... 48 Chapter 4: E-Scooter Program Safety Management Practices ............................................................. 53 4.1 Infrastructure Planning and Delivery ................................................................................................ 54 4.2 Roadway Design and Operations ...................................................................................................... 56 4.3 Pavement Markings, Signage, and Maintenance .............................................................................. 57 4.4 Road User Rules, E-scooter Rider Restrictions, or Other Regulations .............................................. 58 4.5 Operator Permitting and Regulation ................................................................................................ 60 4.6 Other Micromobility Policy-Making .................................................................................................. 66 4.7 Public Engagement and Outreach Practices ..................................................................................... 68 4.8 Safety Communication and Messaging ............................................................................................. 70 4.9 Crash Recording and Injury Surveillance ........................................................................................... 72 4.10 Safety Program Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 74 4.11 Enforcement, Incident Management, and Emergency Response .................................................. 75 iv 

Chapter 5: Agency Practices, Gaps, and Safety Issues Identified ......................................................... 77 5.1 Survey Participants and Program Types ........................................................................................... 77 5.2 Established Practices, Non-Practices, and Practices of Interest ....................................................... 83 5.3 Frequency of Reported Safety Management Practices .................................................................... 89 5.4 Stakeholder Input on E-Scooter Safety Issues ................................................................................ 101 Chapter 6: Agency Interviews........................................................................................................... 103 6.1 Community Engagement................................................................................................................. 103 6.2 Coordination with State Highway Safety Office Staff ..................................................................... 106 6.3 Planning and Operations ................................................................................................................. 108 6.4 Data and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 111 6.5 Interview Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 115 Chapter 7: Field Data Collection Tool Development and Pilot Testing ............................................... 117 7.1 Key Research Questions/Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 117 7.2 Research Methods .......................................................................................................................... 118 7.3 Pilot Test Insights ............................................................................................................................ 128 Chapter 8: Community Case Studies ................................................................................................. 143 8.1 Chicago, IL ....................................................................................................................................... 145 8.2 Denver, CO ...................................................................................................................................... 150 8.3 Nashville, TN ................................................................................................................................... 154 8.4 Portland, OR .................................................................................................................................... 158 8.5 Washington, D.C.............................................................................................................................. 167 Chapter 9: Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 172 9.1 Products Developed ........................................................................................................................ 172 9.2 Additional Research Needs ............................................................................................................. 172 Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 178 Appendix A: E-scooter Safety Management Practices....................................................................... 191 Appendix B: Additional Stakeholder Survey Responses .................................................................... 210 Innovations in Micromobility ................................................................................................................ 210 Existing and Needed Resources ............................................................................................................ 212 Needed Research .................................................................................................................................. 215 Appendix C: Interview Guide............................................................................................................ 218 Appendix D: Site Visit Information Data Collection Form.................................................................. 220 BTSCRP Web-Only Document 5 contains the conduct of research report for BTSRP Project BTS-10 and accompanies BTSCRP Research Report 9: E-Scooter Safety Toolbox. Readers can read or purchase BTSRP Research Report 9 on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org). v 

List of Tables Table 1. Three main types of epidemiologic e-scooter studies identified in literature review. ................. 35 Table 2. Age and sex of adult patients with e-scooter injuries by study. ................................................... 38 Table 3. Helmet use in e-scooter injury studies.......................................................................................... 46 Table 4. Selected sociodemographic characteristics of injured e-scooter riders and bicyclists from five North Carolina cities: May 2018 - December 2019 [n (column %) or median (IQR)]. ................................ 49 Table 5. Selected sociodemographic characteristics of injured e-scooter riders and pedestrians from five North Carolina cities: May 2018 - December 2019 [n (column %) or median (IQR)]. ................................ 50 Table 6. Selected emergency department presentation characteristics of injured e-scooter riders and bicyclists from five North Carolina cities: May 2018 - December 2019 [n (column %)]. ............................ 51 Table 7. Selected emergency department presentation characteristics of injured e-scooter riders and pedestrians from five North Carolina cities: May 2018 - December 2019 [n (column %)]......................... 52 Table 8. Geographic distribution of survey respondents (n=142). ............................................................. 79 Table 9. Responses received per question group. ...................................................................................... 82 Table 10. Twenty most reported e-scooter safety management practices in survey. ............................... 84 Table 11. Twenty least reported e-scooter safety management practices in survey................................. 86 Table 12. Twenty safety management practices of reported interest by survey respondents. ................. 88 Table 13. City level characteristics for control variables. ......................................................................... 119 Table 14. City level characteristics for exposure variables. ...................................................................... 119 Table 15. Categorized data table for riding location, road infrastructure, and traffic volume. ............... 132 Table 16. Categorized data table for riding behavior observations in Nashville and Portland by mode . 133 Table 17. Factors contributing to study e-scooter (E) or bike (B) riders with possible limitations (L) or challenges (C). ........................................................................................................................................... 137 Table 18. Population data on selected case study cities (Source: Census Quick Facts). .......................... 144 Table 19. Approaches to discounted pricing for Portland E-scooter riders (City of Portland 2022b). ..... 164 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of cities where attention was focused in identifying pilot program reports and other e- scooter material and publication. ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2. Public perception of e-scooters by income (Source: Populus Technologies, Inc. 2018). ............ 24 Figure 3. Percent of e-scooter trips that replace other travel modes in seven cities (Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation and Alta Planning & Design 2020). .................................................................... 29 Figure 4. How safe do e-scooter riders feel in bike lanes? (Source: Populus Technologies, Inc. 2019). .... 31 Figure 5. Where do e-scooter riders usually ride? (Source: Populus Technologies, Inc., 2019). ............... 32 Figure 6. Frequency of helmet use by shared e-scooter and shared bike riders (Source: Populus Technologies, Inc., 2019). ........................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 7. Survey responses to “Have you ever been in an accident while riding an e-scooter?” (n=16,173) (Source: Populus Technologies, Inc., 2019). ............................................................................................... 41 Figure 8. Survey responses to “If yes, what would you characterize at the main cause of the accident (or near accident)?” (n=3,379) (Populus Technologies, Inc., 2019). ................................................................ 41 Figure 9. Income and expenses for Portland’s 2018 e-scooter pilot program (Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2019a). .............................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 10. Example e-scooter sign in Arlington County, VA. ...................................................................... 58 vi 

Figure 11. Example communications messages around e-scooters: a handout on Chicago user rules, a screenshot of an app describing sidewalk riding rules in Milwaukee, and sandwich boards and billboards in Santa Monica indicating where e-scooters are permitted to ride. ......................................................... 71 Figure 12. Professional background of survey respondents (n=141). ........................................................ 77 Figure 13. Organizational type of survey respondents (n=145). ................................................................ 78 Figure 14. Survey responses by type of micromobility programs (n=287). ................................................ 81 Figure 15. Selected practice areas most familiar to survey respondents (n=650). .................................... 82 Figure 16. Infrastructure planning and delivery practices reported by survey respondents (n=39). ......... 90 Figure 17. Roadway design and operation practices reported by survey respondents (n=34). ................. 91 Figure 18. Pavement marking, signage, and maintenance practices reported by survey respondents (n=41). ......................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 19. Rider rules, restrictions, and regulatory practices reported by survey respondents (n=56 or 57). .............................................................................................................................................................. 93 Figure 20. Operator permitting and regulatory practices reported by survey respondents (n=51). ......... 94 Figure 21. Micromobility policymaking practices reported by survey respondents (n=51 or 52). ............ 95 Figure 22. Public engagement practices reported by survey respondents (n=39 or 40). .......................... 96 Figure 23. Safety messaging practices reported by survey respondents (n=43). ....................................... 97 Figure 24. Crash recording and injury surveillance practices reported by survey respondents (n=33 or 34). .............................................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 25. Safety program evaluation practices reported by survey respondents (n=32). ........................ 99 Figure 26. Enforcement and incident management practices reported by survey respondents (n=15). 100 Figure 27. Conceptual model of factors affecting e-scooter riding behaviors. ........................................ 118 Figure 28. Video data collection perspective of Nashville sites................................................................ 120 Figure 29. Video data collection perspective of Portland sites. ............................................................... 121 Figure 30. Epicollect5 data collection user interface (Source: EpiCollect5). ............................................ 123 Figure 31. Experimental data collection test setup and typical camera view. ......................................... 125 Figure 32. Map of five selected case study cities and numbered NHTSA regions. ................................... 144 Figure 33. City of Chicago flier on “do’s and don’ts” of e-scooter riding. ................................................ 149 Figure 34. Map showing e-scooter trips from 2018-2022 in Denver (Source: Ride Report https://public.ridereport.com/ 2022a). .................................................................................................... 153 Figure 35. Map showing all e-scooter trips from 2020-2022 in Portland (Source: Ride Report https://public.ridereport.com/ 2022b)..................................................................................................... 167 Figure 36. Washington, D.C., parking hub (Source: District Department of Transportation (n.d.)). ........ 169 Figure 37. Example outreach materials produced in Washington, D.C. (Source: District Department of Transportation (n.d.))................................................................................................................................ 170 vii 

List of Acronyms AASHTO American Association of State Highway Traffic Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADTSEA American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale APBP Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals API Application Programming Interface ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials (an international standards organization) BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and People of Color BTSCRP Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program DOT Department of Transportation DUI Driving Under the Influence EMR Electronic Medical Record ESSENCE Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System GBFS General Bikeshare Feed Specification GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association GPS Global Positioning System HIA Health Impact Assessment ICD-10-CM International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ISS Injury Severity Score ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers ITF International Transport Forum km/h Kilometers Per Hour MCEO Micromobility Code Enforcement Officer MDS Mobility Data Specification (see definition in glossary) mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NABSA North American Bike Share Association NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials NC DETECT North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures viii 

NEISS National Electronic Injury Surveillance System NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PTD Personal Transportation Device (see definition in glossary) RFID Radio frequency Identification RUI Riding Under the Influence SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration TRB Transportation Research Board ix 

Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts This glossary defines or clarifies selected terms considered central to this document. These terms may differ from definitions used by other agencies or in other contexts, though widely accepted definitions are used where possible. Crash type — A classification of the events and maneuvers of involved parties that led up to a crash. The crash type often describes relative maneuvers of the parties or angle of impact and may include location relative to an intersection or other roadway feature. E-scooter — An electric scooter or e-scooter is a form of micromobility. While legal definitions vary in different regions, this report defines an “e-scooter” as a two- or three- wheeled device powered by an electric motor, consisting of a platform between the front and rear wheels that the rider stands on (and in some cases a seat that the rider sits on) and a steering column with handlebars that allow the rider to steer, accelerate, and brake. In contrast with electric bicycles and mopeds, e-scooters do not have pedals. Exposure — Adapting the Safe States Alliance “Consensus Recommendations for Pedestrian Injury Surveillance” definition, exposure is an observable period or point during which a road user experiences the possibility of suffering an injury related to the act of traveling (Injury Surveillance Workgroup 8 (ISW8) 2017). Several constructs—such as counts of e-scooter riders at crossings, e-scooter miles traveled, e-scooter trips made, or e-scooter rental time—can be used to quantify e-scooter rider exposure to the risk of a fall, crash, or injury. In theory, not all e-scooter trips or activity result in exposure to a vehicle crash. Geofencing — The practice of using global positioning system (GPS) or radio frequency identification (RFID) to create geographic boundaries that can be applied to shared micromobility devices. Geofencing may be used to send notifications to riders when they cross a boundary (such as entering a designated “no ride” zone) or, in some cases, to automatically slow the micromobility device’s speed or stop it altogether. Geofencing can also be used to enforce parking requirements for micromobility devices. Micromobility — A class of small transportation devices used for personal transport or goods delivery. They are typically low speed (max speed of 30 mph/48 km/h or less), light weight (100 lbs/45.4 kg or less), and partially or fully motorized (usually by an electric motor). They can be part of a shared fleet or rideshare program or can be individually owned. They may also be referred to as personal transportation devices or PTDs. Mobility Data Specification (MDS) — A set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) developed to share anonymized data about micromobility trips and vehicles between micromobility operators (also referred to as providers) and the public agencies that manage micromobility programs. These data are used for day-to-day fleet management, emergency events, program analysis, and policy implementation. The MDS ensures that data are transmitted in a standard format, making comparison across different markets and service areas possible. Network — The complete network of streets and street-adjacent transportation facilities (such as sidewalks and connectors such as curb ramps) within a defined area or jurisdiction. x 

Operator — The terms operators, vendors, providers, and micromobility companies are used interchangeably in this report to describe the industry/firms providing e-scooter and shared micromobility-related services, including the devices, apps, maintenance and distribution services, and other required reporting or other customer service components. The term operator does not refer to the user or rider of the micromobility devices. Personal transportation device — see “Micromobility” definition. Risk — The probability of an incident, injury, or other negative outcome at a specific location within a defined time period. While true risks are rarely known, the transportation field creates estimates of injury risk by identifying attributes of locations on a roadway network that are associated with high crash or incident frequencies or severities (see crash predictor definition). Safe Systems — The Safe System approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users through a holistic view of the road system that anticipates human needs and performance limitations and manages kinetic energy transfer to levels that the human body can tolerate (Federal Highway Administration 2020). Safety — While many in the transportation profession look to crash data as a primary measure of safety, safety is more than the absence of crashes. Safety is a sense of well-being, belonging, comfort, and protection from any form of risk, harm, or injury. In this report, the project team aims to differentiate safety from crashes and injuries and to acknowledge the social factors affecting safety, beyond traffic- based risks. Shared risk and protective factors — Using the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) definition, “Risk factors are characteristics at the biological, psychological, family, community, or cultural level that precede and are associated with a higher likelihood of negative outcomes,” which in this report focuses on e-scooter injuries or perceptions of danger. “Protective factors are characteristics associated with a lower likelihood of negative outcomes or that reduce a risk factor’s impact. Protective factors may be seen as positive countering events” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2019). A shared risk and protective factor approach refers to prioritizing risk and protective factors linked to multiple forms of injury in prevention planning, partnership, and programmatic efforts, as opposed to focusing on different injury outcomes separately (e.g., e-scooter vs. pedestrian vs. bicyclist vs. driver). Shared micromobility — According to the National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO), shared micromobility is “Shared-use fleets of small, fully or partially human-powered vehicles such as bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. These vehicles are generally rented through a mobile app or kiosk, are picked up and dropped off in the public right-of-way, and are meant for short point-to-point trips” (NACTO 2019). Social-ecological framework — The social-ecological framework is a tool for helping understand the range of factors that affect safety, health, and injury outcomes. It acknowledges that individual behaviors form and emerge from within broader social, environmental, and cultural contexts. It can be used alongside a shared risk and protective factor approach (see definition) to identify and cluster intervention opportunities. xi 

Syndromic surveillance — A syndromic surveillance system is an electronic data system that utilizes real (or near-real) time health data (e.g., emergency department, laboratory, emergency medical services) to assist with early event detection and public health investigation. Transportation equity — Transportation equity involves eliminating racial, economic, and social inequities in who benefits from, pays for, and decides on transportation investment decisions, and ensuring safe, sustainable, and convenient transportation options for all. According to PolicyLink, four principles of equitable transportation policy are: “1. Increasing access to economic opportunity and employment for all; 2. Improving access to jobs and fairly distributing the work of building and fixing critical infrastructure in local communities; 3. Creating healthier, more sustainable communities by supporting safe, smart, affordable alternatives to highway dominated metropolitan sprawl; and 4. Including local residents in all stages of the decision-making process” (Rubin 2009). xii