Practices to Develop Effective Stakeholder Relationships at Smaller Airports (2015)

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.

8 chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW This Synthesis study includes an extensive review of the literature related to stakeholder engage- ment and the development of stakeholder relationships. This chapter summarizes the evolution of the stakeholder concept from its inception in 1963 as a managerial tool for corporations, to its cur- rent use in the private sector, as well as in government, non-profit agencies, and non-government organizations. The goal for this literature review is to provide the reader with a broad understanding of the genesis of the stakeholder concept and the tools to enable formulation of simple but usable stakeholder engagement plans. Sources for this literature review were found through extensive Internet searches using various search engines, on-line book vendors, professional journals, and the Transportation Research Infor- mation Database search engine (TRID) available through TRB. Sources reviewed also included other industries (e.g., health, energy, education, and other transportation modes), other applicable ACRP reports and their bibliographies, and city and county resources. Resources suggested by the study topic panel in the final scope for this project were also reviewed. All literature in this report is fully cited in the References section of this study. This literature review first identifies those works that formed and refined current stakeholder theory, stakeholder analysis, and stakeholder engagement techniques. Beyond consideration of these core concepts, an overview of current stakeholder engagement practices in non-airport settings is discussed, followed by consideration of airport-specific literature and practices. STAKEHOLDER THEORY Stockholders and Stakeholders Much of the early literature on this topic explored the concept that there are more legitimate influences on how a corporation should be managed than just those stockholders with a direct financial stake in that corporation. By definition, corporations have always had responsibility to their stockholders; any action taken by such an entity must ultimately benefit the stockholder (Mitchell et al. 1997). The original use of the term stakeholder in reference to managerial practices can be traced back to an internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute in 1963, which defines stakeholders as “ . . . those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” (cited in Freeman and Reed 1983). In 1984, Freeman’s Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objec- tives.” Freeman further argued that for firms to successfully engage stakeholders they must first understand the legitimacy of the stakeholder and provide for routine interaction to understand their concerns (Elias et al. 2000). Although researchers differed in their opinions of stakeholder concepts, most are in agreement that Freeman’s definition, and his methods for stakeholder analysis, formed the basis for most current stakeholder theory. For the purpose of this Synthesis study, an airport stakeholder is defined as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the airport’s objectives.

9 Stakeholder Attributes Much of the literature since 1984 has addressed the need to better define stakeholder attributes, deter- mine appropriate stakeholder groups, and develop most effective practices for stakeholder involvement and engagement. Although Freeman offered a basic framework by which corporations could identify and engage stake- holders, the stakeholder approach was very much viewed from a business and profitability perspective. Stakeholders were to be managed or “dealt with” (Frooman citing Freeman 1999) to the greatest extent possible, all in pursuit of the corporation reaching its goals. The firm’s relationship with stakeholders was unidirectional with “relationships viewed from the firm’s vantage point” (Frooman 1999). Goodpaster (1991) began weaving social responsibility into the mix as he explored ethically responsible management. He asserted that there are two broad categories of stakeholders: (1) those that can affect the firm, and (2) those that can be affected by the firm (Frooman 1999). Goodpaster holds that those affected by the decisions of a firm are “moral stakeholders.” He concludes that cor- porations have a moral obligation to look past just their fiduciary responsibility toward profits and account for certain moral criteria in their business practices (Goodpaster 1991). STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS Putting stakeholder theory to practical use requires an understanding of what a stakeholder is and using that knowledge to determine who the stakeholders would be for a particular initiative. In “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts” Mitchell et al. (1997) offered a practical model that could be implemented to determine who the stakeholders would be for a particular initiative and to rank their possible influ- ence in the process. They expanded on Freeman’s recognition that stakeholders will change over time and their “investment” or ownership in a particular outcome changes depending on the strategic initiative under consideration. Their model is based on the assumption that stakeholders possess or are attributed to possess one, two, or three of the following attributes: 1. The stakeholder’s power to influence the firm; 2. The legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the firm; and 3. The urgency of the stakeholder’s claim on the firm, with urgency based on the following two attributes: • Time sensitivity—the degree to which managerial delay in attending to the claim or relation- ship is unacceptable to the stakeholder, and • Criticality—the importance of the claim or relationship to the stakeholder. By including urgency as an attribute, a dynamic component was introduced into the process whereby stakeholders attain or lose importance in the minds of managers (Elias et al. 2000). As observed by Mitchell, managers determine the importance and prominence of stakeholders based on their per- ception of the relative power, legitimacy, and urgency of a stakeholder. Their stakeholder typology (Figure 2) provided a means for corporations to determine which stakeholders would require the most resources to manage, while taking into account situational uniqueness. The authors concluded that groups or individuals possessing just one stakeholder attribute (areas 1, 2, and 3) retain low importance and relevance; therefore, they warrant little or no attention by the firm. As individuals and groups begin to possess two attributes (areas 4, 5, and 6) they depict tendencies toward moderate importance and expect responsiveness from the firm. Because of these expectations, these individuals or groups require more engagement. Highly engaged stakeholders (area 7) possess or are perceived to possess all three stakeholder attributes. The combination of power, legitimacy, and urgency make such stakeholders the highest priority for a given initiative. Figure 3 ranks the relevance for the stakeholder attributes as depicted in the stakeholder typology model. 1. Dormant stakeholders: These stakeholders have the power to impose their will on others, but they lack legitimacy and urgency; therefore, their power remains dormant.

10 2. Discretionary stakeholders possess legitimate claims, but have no power to influence the orga- nization or present urgent claims. 3. Demanding stakeholders: These stakeholders have urgent claims, but neither the power nor the legitimacy to enforce them. 4. Dominant stakeholders have both the power and legitimate claims in the organization giving them significant influence in the project. 5. Dangerous stakeholders have power and urgency, but lack legitimacy. They are seen as dan- gerous as they may gain legitimacy or urgency if circumstances change. 6. Dependent stakeholders lack power, but have urgent and legitimate claims. 7. Definitive stakeholders have power, legitimacy, and urgency and therefore are to be engaged. 8. Non-stakeholders have no power, legitimacy, or urgency. Determining where a particular stakeholder falls in relation to others on the typology model helps one determine the level of attention that a particular stakeholder would receive. The identification of what the term stakeholder means, and how private-sector organizations have sought to engage such groups and individuals, has been a source of research for more than 50 years. It FIGURE 2 Stakeholder typology. Source: “Stakeholder Analysis for Systems Thinking and Modeling” (Elias et al. 2000). FIGURE 3 Stakeholder attributes—Ranking. Source: “Stakeholder Analysis for Systems Thinking and Modeling” (Elias et al. 2000).

11 is clear that the concept of stakeholder engagement has evolved from a managerial tool and doctrine to a vital and vibrant aspect of decision-making models for many organizations. With the advent of social media, a more informed and involved citizenry, and the transparency in which many organiza- tions evaluate and make policy and business decisions, the concept of stakeholder engagement will likely remain a key business tool and practice. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (GOVERNMENT/NON-PROFIT) The previous section of this chapter summarized literature about the general aspects of stakeholder theory, stakeholder identification, and stakeholder analysis related to for-profit organizations. The following section provides a summary of literature related to stakeholder engagement practices for governmental and non-profit entities. The terms “engagement” and “participation” are used inter- changeably, with “participation” used much more prevalently in Europe. In “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Arnstein (1969) stated “. . . citizen participation is a categori- cal term for citizen power.” She used a ladder to depict the gradations of citizen participation (Figure 4). The bottom two rungs depict areas where the public would not be enabled, but “cured” or “edu- cated” as a substitute for actual participation. The “Informing” and “Consultation” rungs depict levels where the public may be heard and have a voice; however, it is merely a token level of partici- pation because those holding the power take no action. “Placation” is a higher degree of “Tokenism” in that the public may be allowed an advisor role, but those holding the power retain the right to decide. “Partnership” represents an area where citizens begin to gain “Power” because they are pro- vided the opportunity to negotiate and engage in trade-offs. At the “Delegated Power” and “Citizen Control” levels, citizens are afforded decision-making or full managerial power. Arnstein’s theories form the basis for much of the engagement theory that followed, and many public participation pro- grams and protocols are developed based on similar graduated methodologies. In 2008, Meredith Edwards wrote Participatory Governance, focusing on arrangements by which citizens and other organizations outside of government could be involved in the decision-making process. Her research describes three possible levels of participation between non-government players and the government: 1. When information alone is provided, it is a one-way relationship. 2. When government consults, it is a two-way relationship whereby the government is gaining feedback from the public and, hopefully, in turn providing feedback on how the public input affects decisions. 3. If active participation occurs, then the government not only gains feedback from the public, but also develops options reflecting their concerns. FIGURE 4 Ladder of citizen participation. Source: A Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969).

12 Edwards concludes that most policy processes will require some form of active participation by the non-government players. Whether participation occurs, when it occurs, and how it occurs will depend on the policy issue at hand. Various practices and techniques for civic engagement in local government settings are based on work conducted by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). IAP2 is an inter- national organization focused on the advancement of the practice of public participation in private, public, institutional, and non-profit agencies. This entity defines “public participation” as a . . . means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision-making process. It (public participa- tion) promotes sustainable decisions by providing participants with the information they need to be involved in a meaningful way, and it communicates to participants how their input affects a decision (Source: International Association for Public Participation). Through extensive research and a review of practices around the world related to public participa- tion, IAP2 has concluded that public meetings, surveys, open houses, workshops, polling, and citizen advisory committees are among the types of tools commonly used to engage the public and provide a means for direct involvement in the decision-making process. Beyond merely cataloging these tools, IAP2’s research efforts have produced the “Spectrum of Public Participation” (2007). IAP2 designed this tool to aid with determining the appropriate level of public participation based on the process or decision to be made by an organization (Figure 5). The Spectrum shows that various levels of public participation are both appropriate and dependent on the goals, time frames, resources, and levels of concern in the decision to be made. The Spectrum FIGURE 5 Spectrum of Public Participation. Source: International Association for Public Participation.

13 holds that the tools and techniques deployed by an organization range from being merely informative to actual empowerment depending on the goal it has for public participation as well as its pledge to the public (i.e., stakeholders) on how it will utilize solicited input in its decision-making process. IAP2 stresses the importance of an organization determining in the formative stages of its decision- making process what its public participation goals are and the corresponding level or desired level of public participation. IAP2 also encourages public involvement when determining these goals and objectives and gives the public a voice in how they can participate. Public administration scholars and practitioners have adapted the “Spectrum of Public Participa- tion” (2007) to more specifically address the use of these tools in local government settings. The following articles focus on adaptation of the “Spectrum” by federal, state, and local public adminis- trators: Lukensmeyer and Torres (2006); “Connected Communities: Local Government as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building” (2010); and Huggins and Hilvert (2013) Huggins and Hilvert build on work by the IAP2 as well as Lukensmeyer and Torres and the Alli- ance for Innovation to propose sample tools for local government leaders to use for the various levels of public engagement as depicted in Figure 6. Tools for informing the public include fact sheets, websites, and open houses. As citizens become more and more empowered and involved in the decision-making process, the types of tools can advance to conducting workshops (Involving) to “Citizen Juries,” ballots, and delegated decisions (Empower). These authors also provide the rationale and drivers for increased public participation in local government decision making, concluding that because of the 2008 global “Great Recession,” an explosion in social media and other electronic platforms for sharing information, and formation of more active and engaged special interest groups, it makes good business sense for local governments to actively inform and seek out public input on the critical decisions they face. The city of Ventura, California, offers a definition of “civic engagement” that appears to capture the essence of these practices for many local government bodies: Civic engagement is the process by which our citizens’ concerns, needs, and values are identified prior to deci- sions being made. It allows our residents the opportunity to contribute to and become involved with the City’s decision making process. Two-way communication and problem solving from the onset result in better decision- making by the City supported by our residents. The heart of a healthy democracy is a citizenry actively engaged in civic responsibility for building communities, solving community problems and participating in the electoral and political process. This is what we strive for (Source: City of Ventura, California website). Stakeholder participation has been recognized as a necessary component of success for many types of initiatives all over the world. In 2001, the African National Bank developed the Handbook on Stakeholder Consultation and Participation in African Development Bank Operations (2001). The handbook’s introduction stresses that managers recognize the importance of participation and require the adoption of participatory development. . . . participation is essential to the achievement of its overarching objectives of poverty reduction and sus- tainable development. Participatory approaches have been shown to enhance project quality, ownership and sustainability; to empower targeted beneficiaries (in particular, women and poor people); and to contribute to long term capacity building and self-sufficiency. The handbook leads the user through a step-wise process for stakeholder selection and ranking to communication plans. Likewise, the European Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate establishes policies for health care issues on behalf of the European Union. The Directorate’s current Code of Good Practice for the Consultation of Stakeholders (n.d.) offers principles, definitions, and standards for the engagement of stakeholders. Of particular note are the Directorate’s ten consultation standards summarized here: 1. Plan our consultations early in the policy-development process. 2. Explain why we are consulting and how we are going to take stakeholders’ views into account. 3. Involve the widest spectrum of stakeholders in our consultations.

14 4. Organize consultations to be convenient and accessible. 5. Analyze the input to distinguish between opinions and fact. 6. Give feedback to stakeholders. 7. Report back on next steps and timeline. 8. Communicate the results of consultations. 9. Act on the results of consultations. 10. Evaluate consultations and review our process for improvement. With the roots for stakeholder engagement formed in the private sector, the literature points out that in recent years many public-sector and non-profit entities have embraced more proactive citizen engagement activities in an ongoing and comprehensive fashion in recent years. FIGURE 6 ICMA Public Participation Spectrum. Source: Public Management (August 2013).

15 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (AIRPORTS) This literature review also focused on issues specific to the airport industry and sought to identify how stakeholder theory, identification and analysis, and engagement practices applicable to for-profit and governmental organizations are used by airport leaders. In 2005, Melissa Burn developed An Assessment of Airport Community Involvement Efforts, in which she studied and analyzed the often strained relationships between airports and their surround- ing communities, and she recommends several strategies that airports could use to improve those relationships. Burn noted that very few airports engage in “dialogue mechanisms, such as advisory committees that include citizen representatives, and rarely continue them beyond the life of the spe- cific study for which they were convened.” Burn concludes that, ultimately, changes in attitudes and practices for both airports and their hosting communities will remain unchanged until they develop a “new set of processes for shared communication and cooperation.” She recommends that airports establish standing committees on airport community relations that involve all airport stakeholders, and that airports implement “permanent outreach punctuated by increased activity during a growth project or noise study.” Schaar and Sherry’s 2010 report, Analysis of Airport Stakeholders, identified airport stakehold- ers, their goals for the airport, and relationships among the stakeholders. The authors contend that most airports in the United States have characteristics similar to public utilities in that they typi- cally are publicly owned, require high capital investments, infrastructure duplication is considered in efficient, and they operate under revenue-neutral financial regulations. It is within this context that Schaar and Sherry developed a stakeholder model depicting airport stakeholder interrelationships, airport organizational boundaries, airport service boundaries, and system loops. They concluded that, based on their model, airport management can only control matters that relate to airport infra- structure, operational procedures, and efficiency specific to their own organizations (Figure 7). Schaar and Sherry argue that system loops can be significant because they demonstrate how a change that positively affects one stakeholder may have a negative effect on another. For instance, when air traffic increases, the associated increase in noise has a negative effect on communities located near the ends of the runways. Relating this interrelationship to the work of Mitchell et al. (1997), the neighbor off the end of the runway may have been a dormant stakeholder (powerful but quiet), but he now has a legitimate and urgent claim; therefore, that stakeholder is now a definitive stakeholder possessing all three salient attributes. A major aspect of some of the literature reviewed for this report pointed to airport organizations embracing the concepts of customer service. ACRP Synthesis 48: How Airports Measure Customer Service Performance (Kramer et al. 2013) offers practices, tools, and techniques used by the industry to measure and monitor customer service performance related to users of facilities and amenities. This report also demonstrates that in terms of the overall delivery of aviation services to the public, the airport operator has limited control over the methods, means, and/or employee behavior and appearance of direct service providers such as the airlines, rental car agencies, ground transportation providers, concessionaires, FBOs, and the TSA. Because of the inherent disconnect in service delivery between airport owners and operators and these direct service providers, the literature review led to consideration of basic concepts and principles for customer service. In particular, the work of Jan Carlzon, former chief executive offi- cer of Scandinavian Airlines (SAS), was reviewed. In his 1987 book, Moments of Truth, Carlzon describes the processes and paradigms used to transform SAS to a customer-driven company. Carlzon promotes the concept of how a collection of “Moments of Truth” form the “Customer Service Cycle.” Through his work, the concept of a Moment of Truth in the realm of customer service is now defined as: An instance of contact or interaction between a customer and a firm (through a product, sales force, or visit) that gives the customer an opportunity to form (or change) an impression about the firm (Source: Business dictionary.com).

16 Carlzon further maintains that a customer experiences multiple Moments of Truth in the course of an encounter with an entity and such a collection forms the basis for the “Cycle of Service” with impressions being made by consumers all through a service delivery cycle. Figure 8 provides an example of a Cycle of Service related to an individual going to the movies: Carlzon maintains that he utilized these concepts in redefining SAS as a customer-driven com- pany. He further holds that “a company that recognizes its only true assets are satisfied customers, all of whom expect to be treated as individuals and who won’t select SAS as their airline unless we do just that.” ACRP Report 48 (Kramer et al. 2013) documents how airport leaders have embraced Carlzon’s principles and are deploying them in an effort to offer a seamless experience for all cus- tomers who come in contact with their facilities and service providers. In addition to ACRP Synthesis 48, review of the literature revealed that the following ACRP reports detail efforts to identify and engage airport stakeholders: • ACRP Report 85: Developing and Maintaining Support for Your Airport Capacity Project (Futterman et al. 2013) reiterates the need to understand the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder and to build and maintain support by stakeholders throughout a project cycle. The report identifies stakeholder involvement as one of the primary components for successful capac- ity projects. It emphasizes how to understand project opposition and show respect to opposition FIGURE 7 Financial, customer, and other relationships between airport stakeholders. Source: Analysis of Airport Stakeholders (Schaar and Sherry 2010).

17 groups. Investigators suggest keeping the process transparent and addressing the specific needs of each of the stakeholder groups through communications tailored to address their specific concerns. • Legal Research Digest 22 (Wyatt 2014) investigates the role of airport sponsors in airport plan- ning and environmental reviews of projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The digest provides a summary of relevant statutes and regulations, the different stages for environmental review and actions, “special-purpose” environmental laws, and the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. In general, the airport sponsor can satisfy the FAA’s requirement, and thereby NEPA requirements, for public hearings by providing an opportunity for a “gathering” under the direction of a designated hearing officer, the opportunity for the pub- lic to “speak and hear,” and adequate documentation of the proceedings. • ACRP Synthesis 20: Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques (Lyons and Powell 2010) describes stakeholder management as a key component to the project’s success and that it is vital that the stakeholders feel engaged and involved. The study identifies stakeholders to include all parties with an interest in the successful activation and operation of new airport terminal facilities. This includes both internal airport stakeholders (e.g., airport operations and maintenance, police, management, and staff) and external stakeholders such as airlines and airport tenants. The study discusses using focus groups, workshops, interviews, and consulta- tions as methods to identify and engage stakeholders, then meetings with each stakeholder independently to assess their impact and level of involvement in various stages of the project. After the various stakeholders are assessed, a communications plan can then be established that lists the types of meetings that stakeholders should attend, the purpose of each meeting, and the frequency of the meetings. • ACRP Report 77: Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business Plans (Aviation Management Consulting Group, Inc. et al. 2012) identifies the role, value, and reasons for hav- ing an airport business plan as it applies to airports of all sizes. It highlights the elements of an airport business plan and addresses each step of the development and implementation processes. The guidebook recommends that internal and external airport stakeholders be involved in these processes. It identifies internal stakeholders as policymakers, the airport sponsor, advisory bod- ies, and airport staff. It identifies external stakeholders as airport businesses; aircraft owners and operators; industry colleagues; community leaders and associations; aviation consultants; economic development organizations; local, regional, and state planning and transportation agencies; chambers of commerce; and educational institutions. • ACRP Report 15: Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations (Woodward et al. 2009) assists airport managers by suggesting tools and techniques that can be used to incorporate “people issues” into the planning process. The toolkit contains useful information for airports of all sizes, from the small airport with perhaps just one full-time employee, to large commercial service airports. By utilizing surveys, interviews, case examples, and literary reviews investigators developed a series of most effective practices, tips, techniques, and lessons learned, from both within and outside of the aviation industry. An accompanying CD-based FIGURE 8 Cycle of Service. Source: Florida Consumer Service Institute.

18 toolkit contains more than 200 examples of noise and public participation documents that have proven successful in communicating information to the public. This toolkit provides a useful reference for anyone in the process of initiating or upgrading a communications program and provides: – Techniques that contribute to effective airport communication; – Mutual benefits of building strong airport public relations; – Outcomes the airport could expect by building good relationships with the surrounding com- munity; and – Methods for implementing a successful approach for community engagement, including attributes of different types of engagement. Through their research, the investigators identified the following six keys to effective communications: 1. Build trust through good two-way communications, 2. Put senior leadership out front, 3. Use graphics to illustrate the message, 4. Have a transparent process, 5. Select staff for service-oriented attitude (people skills), and 6. Be ahead with communication. • In ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry (Ricondo and Associates Inc. 2009) investigators used surveys to determine who the appropriate internal and external stake- holders were and to rank them as to what degree of involvement those stakeholders should have in the process. The following scale was developed for airports to use as a guide (Figure 9). The investigators then developed a series of matrices that airports could use to identify each stakeholder’s needs and level and methods of engagement (Figure 10). One matrix was developed for each stakeholder. The types of participation will be determined by the planning team through interviews and by the use of a power versus interest grid. Investigators suggested using interviews and discussions to map stakeholder’s expectations by answering the following questions: • What is the stakeholder’s interest in our organization? • What is the stakeholder’s expectation from its relationship with our organization? • What contribution could the stakeholder make to our organization? • What is the stakeholder’s influence on our organization? • What is the stakeholder’s current opinion of our organization? After expectations are revealed, the planning team then needs to develop its communications strategy by determining how to involve each stakeholder. Investigators suggest using a power versus interest grid to plot each stakeholder in order to finalize its communications strategy (Figure 11). Airports can use this information to complete the matrices for each stakeholder and develop their communications plan. Although this approach is designed for a strategic planning project at a commercial service airport, the techniques described could be adapted to any size airport or type of airport project. The literature review revealed some examples of governing requirements and organizational guidance that address airport stakeholder relationships including: • Airport Mission Statement. Some airports have mission statements that mention working coop- eratively with other entities and partnering with stakeholders. • Airport Leasing Policies. ACRP Report 47: Guidebook for Developing and Leasing Airport Property (Crider et al. 2011) discusses the importance of stakeholder engagement when devel- oping airport lease policies.

19 FIGURE 9 Strategic planning process stakeholders. Source: ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry (Ricondo and Associates, Inc. et al. 2009). FIGURE 10 Sample stakeholder matrix. Source: ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry (Ricondo and Associates, Inc. et al. 2009).

20 • Grant Obligations. Community issues are addressed in FAA’s Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances 6, 7, and 8. These assurances are designed to ensure that the airport sponsor accounts for the existing plans, interests, and concerns of both the surrounding community (particularly local planning agencies) and current airport users before entering into an airport development or leasing agreement. • Air Traffic Control. FAA policy conveyed in its internal orders indicates that air traffic man- agers must negotiate a letter of agreement when operational and procedural needs require the cooperation and concurrence of other persons, facilities, and/or organizations. The National Air Transportation Association published and distributed a guidance document writ- ten from the point of view of the user and tenant stakeholder entitled Things to Do to Maintain Good Working Relationships with Your Airport Management Authority (n.d.). This document lists the fol- lowing 16 action points that aviation service organizations can use to build better relationships with airport sponsors: FIGURE 11 Stakeholder grid. National Air Transportation Association’s Things to Do to Maintain Good Working Relationships with Your Airport Management Authority Adequate leasehold agreements, fair treatment through the non-discriminative enforcement of minimum standards, and economic viability are just a few of the many issues with which aviation service organizations and their airport management authorities wrestle. NATA’s Airport Committee created the following action points highlighting activities that will help to create positive working relationships when implemented. • Communicate—provide your airport with annual data of your FBO’s financial contributions. • Demonstrate the value of your business to the community (Air Med/Search and Rescue/Fire, etc.). Build community awareness of your company. • Be proactive. • Do your homework! Educate the airport! • Attend meetings of airport governing bodies.

21 The literature review found that many airports have formal community outreach programs. For example, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) initiated a new Strategic Plan in 2000. Although DFW is a large hub airport, its programs and the principles upon which they are based can be helpful to airports of all sizes as they seek to improve stakeholder engagement. As part of DFW’s Strategic Plan, the DFW Board of Directors initiated a proactive program committed to pollution prevention, source reduction, and waste minimization. To promote those efforts, DFW developed a comprehensive outreach program that included numerous environmental educational events and initiatives throughout the community. One such DFW outreach campaign identifies wildlife awareness and education for both airport users and the general public about how wildlife can endanger air traffic. Printed materials were dis- tributed and displayed and on-line access provided through the airport website allowing the public to post questions or file complaints on wildlife issues. The Airport Development Department’s Capi- tal Development Program (CDP) communications team is responsible for developing and deliver- ing outreach programs such as World of Wings, sight tours, and presentations to interested parties. These programs promote the CDP infrastructure and innovations, technologies, and environmental stewardship. DFW’s regular communications are distributed through quarterly bi-lingual newsletters and made available online to local communities and stakeholders. Topics include capital improvement proj- ect updates, environmental impacts relative to construction projects, and descriptions of pending projects. In addition, DFW’s Environmental Affairs Department Noise Compatibility Office operates a 24-hour hotline to address public concerns about aircraft noise. The office uses several measures to help educate the public on flight trends and, if necessary, investigates unusual noise patterns as a result of public input. Beyond the review of available literature on airport stakeholder engagement, a host of airport websites were searched in an attempt to identify airports that have very public and proactive engage- ment efforts. The following website page demonstrates how the Munich Airport pursues both stake- holder and community engagement efforts (Figure 12). Within the stakeholder section, it provides links for several different types of stakeholders: APPLICATION This literature review synthesizes works that could ultimately provide guidance for airports in their efforts to understand and develop effective stakeholder engagement plans. Early works were largely theoretical in nature and developed from a private-sector managerial point of view. As the theory • Attend special events of governing bodies (e.g., ribbon cutting ceremonies, open house, etc.). • Inform the airport of initiatives you plan to do. • Provide tours. • Provide a document to the airport management authority summarizing your activity for the coming year that highlights its value to your airport. • Sponsor/host charitable/community/political events whenever possible (public relations). • Invite airport management to weekly/monthly staff meetings. • Know the hot button issues at your airport. Be able to discuss them. • What are the challenges that face your airport and its administration? Your input as an aviation professional may be helpful. • Identify lawmakers (federal, state, and local). Contact them. • Make the business community your ally. Remember aviation is a business tool. • Build a good relationship with the local media. Get to know individual reporters. (Reporters are generally interested in learning to fly, air shows, etc. Aviation is always a leading topic in the news. Become a background resource to help a reporter understand things aviation.)

22 FIGURE 12 Munich Airport website—Stakeholders. Source: http://munich-airport.com/en/company/dialog/gruppen/ index.jsp.

23 evolved into practical application, its implementation grew well beyond private corporate use. Gov- ernments, non-profits, and non-governmental organizations use stakeholder engagement techniques to consult, engage, and empower the public. Airports, managing essentially as public entities, operate within a complicated network of stakeholders. Understanding systematic and comprehensive engage- ment approaches will facilitate more productive working relationships between airport management and airport stakeholders. The models and concepts relative to stakeholder analysis and engagement as reflected in this literature review were used to help develop the Appendix C checklist. The checklist is a tool to help airport professionals assess their readiness to undertake a stakeholder engagement process/program, strategize and formulate such a plan, implement it, and assess outcomes.