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.
11 The synthesis sought to define the current status of green initiatives at airports with regard to maturity, drivers, and governance. MATURITY OF SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES To assess the maturity of the airportsâ green initiatives, the airports were asked to characterize whether their practices are primarily compliance oriented; included some sustainability practices that were not related to compliance; or were fully developed with sustainability practices in place. All 15 of the airports reported falling within the latter two categories, indicating fairly substan- tial movement beyond compliance practices only. The majority (nine) reported their practices included noncomplianceârelated sustainability practices. Six characterized their programs as fully developed. DRIVERS FOR AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS To provide better understanding of the reasons behind the adoption of sustainability efforts, the air- ports were asked to rank a series of potential drivers from very important to not important. The drivers were developed considering the 2010 ACRP sustainability study. As was found in 2010, the survey respondents ranked compliance as the most important driver (Figure 3). Rounding out the top five drivers, they ranked cost reductions, desire for improved sustainability performance, neighbors and community, and leadership in the industry. chapter five SURVEY RESULTS FIGURE 3 Drivers for green initiatives.
12 12 11 11 8 7 6 5 5 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Airports FIGURE 4 Groups involved with planning process. ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNANCE OF GREEN INITIATIVES A series of questions asked respondents to assess the management, organization, and structure that have been developed to support green initiatives. All the airports responded that their sus- tainability initiatives were founded in a sustainability policy. In addition, six of the 15 airports reported using an environmental management system (EMS) to manage their green initiatives. Of these six, four were certified to ISO 14001. Of the airports with an EMS in place, only one reported having an established sustainability program with fully developed practices in place. Planning Processes The airports were also asked whether they had a formal sustainability planning process. Twelve of the 15 respondents reported having an established process. Seven airports coordinate the pro- cess with their budgeting process, which is indicative of a level of integration with general airport planning. When asked about participation in the planning process, all airports with planning processes for sustainability identified that airport management is involved. Most also included the environmental and operations and maintenance departments in their planning. Far fewer air- ports included involvement by stakeholders who are not part of the airport organization, such as tenants, operators, and the public, indicating that only some airports hold a broader view of the stakeholderâs role in the process (Figure 4). Resources Used to Develop Sustainability Programs When asked about the resources they had relied on to develop their sustainability programs, all sur- vey respondents reported having relied on their internal environmental staff. Other internal resources used included operations and/or maintenance staff (reported by 14); accounting, administrative, or finance staff (9); and internal health and safety staff (6). External resources used included external consultants (12); industry trade groups or nonprofit groups (11); and external training (4). The airports were also asked to report other resources. Of the resources listed by name, half could be categorized in the industry or nonprofit group category (Figure 5).
13 Roles in Implementing Practices The airports were also queried as to the roles played by various groups in the implementation of their green initiatives. Most of the respondents reported that the internal environmental staff had a leadership role; the few who did not reported that a supporting role for internal environmental staff. Airport man- agement was the next most identified group to have a leadership role. Again, if they were not identified as having a leadership role, they had a supporting role, an indication that the green initiatives are high- profile airport activities. For some airports, operations and maintenance, finance and administration, and marketing also performed leadership roles. More than half the airports identified outside groups that oper- ate on the airport or on behalf of the airport as having supporting roles, reinforcing the finding that air- ports are recognizing that sustainability challenges extend beyond organizational boundaries (Figure 6). 15 14 12 11 9 6 6 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 N um be r o f A irp or ts FIGURE 5 Resources utilized. 0 5 10 15 Value Chain Public Airport Supplier Airport Vendors Local Community Airport Health and Safety Airport Contractors Airport Tenants Airport Markeng Airport Finance and Admin Other Airport Operaons and Maintenance Airport Management Airport Environmental Staff Number of Airports Leadership Role Supporng Role FIGURE 6 Roles in implementing sustainability practices.
14 Tools Used to Support Practices The 15 airports were surveyed with regard to the tools they use to support and communicate their sustainability. The airports use a combination of the following: ⢠Sustainability report, ⢠Internet or intranet website, ⢠Noise monitoring software, ⢠Flight tracking software, and ⢠Geographic information system (GIS). Tools and who has access to the tools are described in Table 1. How Performance Is Assessed A series of questions were asked to determine how airports assessed their performance regarding their green initiatives. Of the 15 airports surveyed, all but one reported they assess the perfor- mance of their sustainability practices, and with only one exception, they evaluate their perfor- mance data for trends. The majority (12 airports) included cost savings in their performance data (Figure 7). Tool Environmental Staff Operations and Maintenance Tenants Public Sustainability report 12 10 10 11 Shared drive 12 9 0 0 Intranet or Internet website 10 11 8 12 Database 10 10 0 0 Noise monitoring software 10 10 8 11 Flight tracking software 8 9 6 8 GIS 7 7 2 2 Other 1 1 1 0 Source: First Environment, Inc. TABLE 1 ACCESS TO COMMUNICATION TOOLS 11 10 10 10 9 9 7 6 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Airports FIGURE 7 Reports of sustainability performance.
15 How Performance Is Reported When the airports were queried about reporting of their sustainability performance, 12 responded that they did report on performance. Internally, almost all reported performance to airport manage- ment, with operations and maintenance following closely behind. Externally, most of the reporting airports reported performance to their tenants, operators, and the public (Figure 8). Most airports report their practices through written public reports, internal meetings, and on their web- sites. Four of the airports provide written internal reports, and one provides the information at public meet- ings. One airport reports on its sustainability performance through presentations to industry stakeholders. The 12 airports were then asked about the structure of their reporting. Four used the GRI reporting guidelines of which one had their report verified. Four reported using the ACI Airport Performance Measurement Guide. POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF GREEN INITIATIVES The airports were asked to rate various benefits they received from their green initiatives. Nine of the survey respondents reported that their airports obtained all of the positive outcomes included in the survey. The highest ranked benefit was improved sustainability performance. This benefit was followed by recognition of leadership in the industry and greater management confidence. Risk reduction, protection of environmentally sensitive receptors, improved compliance and regulator rela- tionships, and improved tenant and customer relationships followed with similar rankings (Figure 9). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Airports FIGURE 8 Methods used to report performance. 1 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 12 8 10 11 9 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 5 6 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 5 10 15 Revenue increases Cost reducon Improved employee relaonships Addressing global concerns Improved relaonships with environmental organizaons Greater confidence by elected and appointed officials Improved relaonship with neighbors and community Improved tenant and customer relaonships Improved compliance and regulator relaonships Protecon of environmentally sensive receptors Risk reducon Greater management confidence Recognion of leadership in industry Improved sustainability performance Number of Airports Significant Benefit Moderate Benefit No benefit Did not respond FIGURE 9 Benefits gained from green initiatives.
16 When the positive outcomes gained from green initiatives were compared with the drivers, a moderate correlation was found (r = 0.38), indicating that the outcomes from green initiatives were somewhat reflective of the drivers for the initiatives but not entirely so. For example, although compliance was ranked as the most significant driver, the benefits of improved sustainable per- formance, recognition in the industry, and greater management confidence were all ranked higher as positive outcomes. The widest negative gaps between drivers and positive outcomes regarded cost reductions and improved neighbor and community relations. Positive outcomes that exceeded driv- ers included sustainability performance, improved customer and tenant relationships, and improved relationships with environmental organizations (Figure 10). BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION Airports were asked to identify barriers to implementing their sustainability practices. The air- ports ranked insufficient resources or staff and competing priorities as their greatest barriers. These were followed by lack of top management support; however, three airport reported that this was not an issue for them. All three identified airport management as having a leadership role in their programs. Union resistance was ranked lowest as a barrier and was identified as not relevant by almost half the airports. The airports were also asked open-ended questions regarding barriers and how they overcame them. Airports that indicated their greatest barrier to success was insufficient resources or staff overcame the problem in a number of ways. One overcame limited funding by implementing a collaborative airport planning effort with the city and community. Another airport identified alternative financing mechanisms and ways to minimize staff time requirements. Another successfully used grants and collaboration with the city to overcome funding issues. One of the airports responded that top management support is essential for the smooth implementation of sustainability initiatives (Figure 11). Buy-in across the organization was identified as a challenge that was successfully overcome by engaging employees to help develop and administer the various programs. Another found that stake- holder coordination could be improved by identifying stakeholders and including them early in the process. IMPROVEMENTS The 15 airports were asked, âWhat would you do differently in terms of your sustainability practices?â The majority of the answers focused on governance and process. Identified needs included a policy, a plan, and a budget. Appropriate organizational structure with access to top management was another area 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Improved relaonships with environmental organizaons Improved employee relaonships Improved tenant and customer relaonships Addressing global concerns Revenue increases Protecon of environmentally sensive receptors Risk reducon Greater confidence by elected and appointed officials Greater management confidence Recognion of leadership in industry Improved relaonship with neighbors and community Cost reducon Improved sustainability performance Improved compliance and regulator relaonships Number of Airports Benefits Drivers FIGURE 10 Positive outcomes compared to drivers.
17 of consensus for improvement. Finally, setting goals and monitoring performance was identified as an area for improvement. SUCCESSES The airports were asked âWhat has been your greatest success?â Many survey respondents pointed to the successful implementation of a particular practice. A few focused on successes with sup- porting processes and governance, such as training and communication. A few others focused on the recognition of their leadership resulting from the implementation of the practices. FUTURE PLANS The survey asked, âHow do you hope to improve in your sustainability practices over the next five years?â All the airports have significant plans. Most responses focused on the development of pro- cesses and structure that will support sustainability practices, rather than plans for specific new initia- tives. The respondents were considering how better to integrate sustainability into their operations. 1 1 2 4 5 4 7 8 10 9 3 6 2 1 7 1 3 1 0 5 10 15 Union resistance Line management resistance Lack of top management support Compeng priories Insufficient resources or staff Number of Airports Very relevant Relevant Somewhat relevant Not relevant FIGURE 11 Barriers to implementing green initiatives.
