Airport Sustainability Practices (2008)

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.

6 tors do not tell the whole story. Quantitative indicators tend to reflect past performance, whereas management practices can predict future performance. Robust, proactive, consis- tently well-funded management practices for sustainability issues reduce the risk of unexpected developments or unde- sirable effects associated with those issues. The management performance scale was developed to assess the extent to which sustainability management prac- tices are fully integrated into standard business processes at airports. The scale covers a wide range of classic manage- ment issues (such as staff awareness, formal policies, and accountability), with 1 representing little or no awareness of the issue and no policies or programs in place, and 5 repre- senting high awareness, accountability and long-term plan- ning, and incentives aligned with performance. Following the management performance rating, the sur- vey contains a series of multiple choice questions for each sustainability subtopic. The user was requested to rate the implementation performance for each subtopic by selecting one of the answers (see Figure 1). Examples are provided within the survey questions to help respondents choose an answer. In Place Planned Not Applicable There are initia- tives being actively imple- mented and managed for the sub-topic. No sustainability initia- tives in place for the sub-topic at present; however, there are plans for initiatives to be imple- mented in the future. The sub-topic does not apply to the respon- dents’ particular airport. FigURE 1 implementation performance scale. Format To ensure easy access to the survey within and outside the United States, it was translated into an online format. This program also allowed the survey to be password protected for each user and to be circulated to more than one person at each airport. Target audience The survey was administered to 52 persons working in air- ports within and outside the United States. To obtain infor- LiTeraTUre reVieW A literature review was conducted to identify concepts of sustainability that could be specialized to an airport sustain- ability program. These concepts were translated into content and questions for the survey. The literature review also iden- tified examples of airport sustainability practices to support the results of the survey. A variety of sources are cited, including aviation indus- try reports, annual reports, transportation journal articles, and airport authority websites. The results of the literature review appear throughout the report as we highlight current airport practices for environmental, economic, and social performance. Information from the literature review is cited and sources are listed in the References. sUrVeY A survey was developed to obtain information on the imple- mentation of sustainability practices at airports. It was struc- tured around a range of triple-bottom-line issues developed by the research team. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions. To capture additional information on sustainability practices at their airports, survey participants were encouraged to write in blank text boxes. See Appendix A for a copy of the survey. self-assessment Using performance scales The survey was designed to allow users to undertake a self- assessment of their airport’s performance across a range of issues. Under the triple-bottom-line framework, users were prompted to assess environmental, economic, and social sus- tainability performance using a management performance scale of 1 to 5 developed by the research team. For a copy of this scale, see Appendix B. The scale was designed to measure the extent to which airport operators manage sustainability issues. Management is considered a proxy for performance. Financial analysts look at management practices to assess a company’s expo- sure to financial risk, recognizing that quantitative indica- CHAPTER TWO MeThod

7 The 21 non-U.S. airports were from the following regions: Continental Europe (7)• United Kingdom (6)• Asia (3)• Canada (2)• Middle East (2)• Australia (1).• airport size US Code Title 49 § 47102 categorizes airports into large hub, medium hub, small hub, and non-hub, according to passen- ger boardings. The categories are defined as follows: Large hub airport—a commercial service airport that • has at least 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings (in 2005, this was more than 7.4 million passengers). Medium hub airport—a commercial service airport • that has at least 0.25% but less than 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings (in 2005, this was more than 1.8 million and less than 7.4 million passengers). Small hub airport—a commercial service airport that • has at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of total U.S. pas- senger boardings (in 2005, this was more than 368,101 and less than 1.8 million passengers). Non-hub airport—a commercial service airport that • has less than 0.05% of total U.S. passenger boardings (in 2005, this was less than 368,101 passengers) (US Code 2004). The following sizes are represented by the 31 U.S. air- ports in our survey: 16 large hub• 8 medium hub• 4 small hub• 3 non-hub.• In this report, we do not specify sizes for the 21 non-U.S. airports. mation from a cross-section of airports, the researchers targeted airports of different sizes and geographic locations. The TRB Panel provided a list of airport names and key con- tacts. The research team added other airports to supplement the list. The final target list is not an objective random sample of airports and may not present an unbiased representation of airport sustainability performance. For example, some of the survey respondents are also members of the TRB Panel. Geographic Location To capture a wide range of sustainability practices, 31 U.S. and 21 non-U.S. airports were targeted for participation in the survey. The 31 U.S. airports were from the following states: California (5)• Florida (2)• Illinois (2)• Pennsylvania (2)• Texas (2)• Arizona (1)• Colorado (1)• Georgia (1)• Louisiana (1)• Massachusetts (1)• Michigan (1)• Missouri (1)• Mississippi (1)• New Mexico (1)• Nevada (1)• New York (1)• Ohio (1)• Oregon (1)• Tennessee (1)• Utah (1)• Virginia (1)• Washington (1)• Wisconsin (1).•