This study describes the pathways by which prospective users of a website for natural hazard communication experienced agency as user-centered design (UCD) participants. Formative interviews with residents, community managers, and outreach professionals revealed two pathways for agency during the design process—by directly influencing design changes and by indirectly affecting developers’ understanding of user needs—and previewed users’ potential agency during real-world use. Findings reveal how agential opportunities were constrained by UCD structure and choices of the development team. The authors discuss how supporting user agency during UCD can improve design and support buy-in for humanistic methods in interdisciplinary research teams.
AbramsonD. M.GrattanL. M.MayerB.ColtenC. E.ArosemenaF. A.RungA.LichtveldM. (2015). The resilience activation framework: A conceptual model of how access to social resources promotes adaptation and rapid recovery in post-disaster settings. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 42(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9410-2
2.
AltamiranoA.StephensS. H. (2022). Experience report: Streamlining complex website design using a content audit selection heuristic. Communication Design Quarterly, 10(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507454.3507456
3.
ArchibaldM. M.AmbagtsheerR. C.CaseyM. G.LawlessM. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919874596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
4.
BagstadK. J.StapletonK.D’AgostinoJ. R. (2007). Taxes, subsidies, and insurance as drivers of United States coastal development. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.019
5.
CagleL. E. (2017). Becoming “forces of change”: Making a case for engaged rhetoric of science, technology, engineering, and medicine. Poroi, 12(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1260.
6.
CanigliaB. S.FrankB. (2016). Revealing the resilience infrastructure of cities: Preventing environmental injustices-in-waiting. In CanigliaB. S.ValléeM.FrankB. (Eds.), Resilience, environmental justice, and the city (pp. 65–84). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652054
7.
ClinkenbeardM. J. (2020). A posthuman approach to agency, disability, and technology in social interaction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 29(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1646319
8.
CutterS. L.BoruffB. J.ShirleyW. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
9.
CutterS. L.EmrichC. T. (2006). Moral hazard, social catastrophe: The changing face of vulnerability along the hurricane coasts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285515
10.
DeLormeD. E.KidwellD.HagenS. C.StephensS. H. (2016). Developing and managing transdisciplinary and transformative research on the coastal dynamics of sea level rise: Experiences and lessons learned. Earth’s Future, 4(5), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/https://doi.org/ 2015EF000346
11.
DruschkeC. G. (2014). With whom do we speak? Building transdisciplinary collaborations in rhetoric of science. Poroi, 10(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1175
12.
HendricksM. D.Van ZandtS. (2021). Unequal protection revisited: Planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environmental Justice, 14(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2020.0054
13.
HughesS.SchwarzK.CoffeeJ.LaMarr LeMeeG.DobieS.LaneM.GonzalezA. (2021). Centering racial justice in urban flood adaptation. University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute. https://graham.umich.edu/just-resilience-planning
14.
JayA.ReidmillerD. R.AveryC. W.BarrieD.DeAngeloB. J.DaveA.DzaugisM.KolianM.LewisK. L. M.ReevesK.WinnerD. (2018). Chapter 1: Overview. In ReidmillerD. R.AveryC. W.EasterlingD. R.KunkelK. E.LewisK. L. M.MaycockT. K.StewartB. C. (Eds.), Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: The fourth national climate assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 33–71). U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/
15.
JonesN. N. (2016). Narrative inquiry in human-centered design: Examining silence and voice to promote social justice in design scenarios. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653489
16.
LauerC. (2020). Implementing a transactional design model to ensure the mindful development of public-facing science communication projects. Communication Design Quarterly, 8(3), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410430.3410431
OpachT.RødJ. K. (2013). Cartographic visualization of vulnerability to natural hazards. Cartographica, 48(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.3138/carto.48.2.1840
19.
PailleM.ReamsM.ArgoteJ.LamN. S.-N.KirbyR. (2016). Influences on adaptive planning to reduce flood risks among parishes in south Louisiana. Water, 8(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8020057
20.
PatonD.McClureJ.BürgeltP. T. (2006). Natural hazards resilience: The role of individual and household preparedness. In PatonD.JohnstonD. (Eds.), Disaster resilience, an integrated approach (1st ed, pp. 105–127). Thomas.
21.
RawlinsR. D.WilsonG. D. (2014). Agency and interactive data displays: Internet graphics as co-created rhetorical spaces. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2014.942468
22.
RetchlessD.MobleyW.DavlasheridzeM.AtobaK.RossA. D.HighfielW. (2021). Mapping cross-scale economic impacts of storm surge events: Considerations for design and user testing. Journal of Maps, 17(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2021.1940325
23.
RichardsD. P.Knowles BallD. (2020) Facilitating flood fluency: The design and utility of a flood risk calculator based on FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. In SIGDOC ‘20: Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 1–8). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416775
24.
RodriguezE.OpelD. (2020). Addressing the social determinants of health: “Vulnerable” populations and the presentation of healthy people 2020. Poroi, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1297
25.
SantiagoL.FloresD.HongC.-Y. (2020). The impact of extreme weather events on community risk planning and management: The case of San Juan, Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria. urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana, 12, e20190062. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-3369.012.e20190062
26.
SimmsJ. R. Z. (2017). “Why would I live anyplace else?”: Resilience, sense of place and possibilities of migration in coastal Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research, 33(2), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00193.1
27.
SorapureM. (2023). User perceptions of actionability in data dashboards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 37(3), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519231161611
28.
StegerC.KleinJ. A.ReidR. S.LavorelS.TuckerC.HoppingK. A.MarchantR.TeelT.Cuni-SanchezA.DorjiT.GreenwoodG.HuberR.KassamK.-A.KreuerD.NolinA.RussellA.SharpJ. L.Šmid HribarM.ThornJ. P. R.GrantG.MahdiM.MorenoM.WaiswaD. (2021). Science with society: Evidence-based guidance for best practices in environmental transdisciplinary work. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102240
29.
StephensS. H.AltamiranoA. (2022). Supporting community resilience to environmental hazards through user-centered design. In SIGDOC ‘22: Proceedings of the 40th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 125–129). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3513130.3558989
30.
StephensS. H.DeLormeD. E. (2019). A framework for user agency during development of interactive risk visualization tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1618498
31.
StephensS. H.DeLormeD. E.HagenS. C. (2015). Evaluating the utility and communicative effectiveness of an interactive sea-level rise view through stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 29(3), 314–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915573963
32.
ThamJ. (2022). Pasts and futures of design thinking: Implications for technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 65(2), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3156226
33.
WachingerG.RennO.BeggC.KuhlickeC. (2013). The risk perception paradox: Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
34.
WrightD. J.DuncanS. L.LachD. (2009). Social power and GIS technology: A review and assessment of approaches for natural resource management. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(2), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600802686299
