EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
Understanding Resilient Red Hook and its community
To understand RRH’s digital presence, community perception, and engagement challenges, we ran four research streams in parallel: desk research, field research, stakeholder interviews, and a heuristic evaluation.
research stream #1
Desk research
We conducted two types of desk research: literature review and competitive audit.
For the literature review, we pulled from a wide net: peer-reviewed research on community-led organizing and climate communication, local news coverage of Red Hook and RRH’s projects, grant language and funder priorities in the climate resilience space, and RRH’s own internal Google Drive of plans, meeting notes, and reports.

Our sheet describing and categorizing the hundreds of files in RRH's internal drive
For the competitive audit, we reviewed 12 websites (community land trusts, climate justice coalitions, neighborhood resilience hubs) and identified four narrative patterns RRH could draw from.

Our FigJam board of notes based on an analysis of nonprofit websites
research stream #3
Stakeholder interviews
We conducted 8 semi-structured interviews with residents, RRH members, board members, and partner organizations. The conversations explored how people interpret RRH’s messaging, what information they seek, what they find when they look, and what would actually motivate them to take action through the website.
Notable quotes were:
“I would use it almost just like a repository instead of going to the Google Drive… it was just easier for me to go here and pull up something.”
“People who are involved with Resilient Red Hook, or who have been on the board, understand, but I don’t think that the general community in Red Hook understands.”
“The site needs to show we are engaging rather than just saying.”
research stream #4
Heuristic evaluation
Alongside the qualitative work, we ran a structured heuristic evaluation of the current site, mapping issues against established usability principles and noting where the site failed to support the audience segments we’d identified. The evaluation surfaced concrete usability problems such as broken links, dead-end pages, and navigation confusion.