Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports (2020)

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.

5 Introduction Airports serve as critical economic engines for their local communities and in a broader regional context. As employment hubs, airports provide benefits to nearby residents and businesses alike. They provide the connectivity necessary to support regional and global trans­ portation networks and foster economic growth on a wider scale by moving people and goods. Aviation also provides critical infrastructure to facilitate response and recovery during local, regional, or national emergencies. Although airports provide important economic value and societal benefits, their operations may result in some negative social and environmental impacts. Communities have come to expect transparency from airports with regard to planning and development, and when airport activities are likely to affect them, the public expects opportunities for engagement and to provide input in the planning process (Federal Aviation Administration 2019a). When communities become concerned or preoccupied with the negative effects of airport operations on their neighborhoods and well­being, community actions and public opinion influence the airport’s ability to operate efficiently and expand service. Alternatively, when communities are more meaningfully engaged in airport decision­making processes, problems may be mitigated or avoided since subsequent decisions consider community priorities and concerns. Community concerns often focus on environmental impacts, such as increased exposure to noise, traffic, or air pollution. In some cases, communities have advocated closing airports altogether (Weikel and Smith 2017). For their own interests and for the good of their surrounding communities, airports benefit from building and maintaining constructive relation­ ships with stakeholders and neighbors. Airports in the United States often seek opportunities to engage with their local and regional stakeholders to better understand the social, economic, and environmental impacts of their operations while working to maintain safety, security, capacity, operational efficiency, and financial stability. Many commercial U.S. airports maintain informative public websites and routinely publish economic impact studies, operations statistics, and environmental reports. Sustainability planning is also increasing as airports develop sustainability management plans (SMP) or sustainability master plans (Federal Aviation Administration 2019b). Although these reports and planning efforts are helpful for communicating with the public and engaging with stakeholders about known sensitivities or activities, airports often encounter challenges in quantifying their economic, social, and environmental benefits and impacts in a comprehensive manner. Emerging issues—such as affordable housing shortages, population growth near airports, and related development—are difficult to understand through conventional airport reporting methods. Obtaining a better understanding of their surrounding communities and individuals’ perception of QOL will benefit airport leadership by enabling them to more easily identify challenges and concerns, as well as to understand how the airport can create opportunities to address these challenges. C H A P T E R 1

6 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports 1.1 Quality of Life Concept Over the past few decades, QOL reporting tools and related frameworks have been developed to serve diverse purposes across many disciplines to inform decision­making at local, national, and international levels. Examples include the Organisation for Economic Co­operation and Development (OECD) Better Life Initiative, the Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating (STAR) communities system, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Multi­ sector Evaluation Tool for identifying Resilience Opportunities (METRO). While some of the existing tools address certain transportation­related components of overall QOL, none were specifically developed to enable airports to assess QOL in their communities in a holistic manner. This guidebook aims to fill that gap by providing a community Quality of Life Assess­ ment Methodology designed uniquely for airports. The literature review for this study concluded that there is no universally accepted definition of QOL, though many are similar in nature. This guidebook adopts a definition of QOL like that used by the World Health Organization, which is as follows: Individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad-ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs, and their relationship to salient features of their environment (World Health Organization 1997). For the purposes of this document, QOL is a broad, multidimensional concept that refers to an individual’s or community’s perception of and actual well­being and position in life, encom­ passing many categories of variables that include health, economics, environmental, psychological, and social factors. 1.2 Quality of Life and Sustainability Many airports in the U.S. (and around the world) have integrated sustainability into their planning processes. The traditional definition of sustainability considers the intersection of environment, economics, and social factors, otherwise known as the triple bottom line. The airport industry developed a modified version that includes economic viability, operational efficiency, natural resource conservation, and social responsibility (EONS) (Figure 1). The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology includes several indicators that may fall into the categories shown in Figure 1, but it also considers indicators that fall under additional categories, such as health and social relationships. Airports that have developed sustainability plans will have experience considering the impacts of their operations outside the physical boundary of the airport and will likely be familiar with some of the QOL indicators discussed in Chapter 2. QOL concepts also relate to international frameworks and measures of sustainability. In particular, the United Nations (UN) developed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2012 as a component of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Figure 2). The goals provide a framework for government, civil society, and private industry to address environ mental, economic, and political challenges across all UN member states. The goals include ending poverty, hunger, and inequality while increasing access to health care, educa­ tion, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work, and economic growth through specific targets and initiatives. Especially relevant to the aviation industry are the SDGs related to improving industry, innovation, and infrastructure, in addition to

Introduction 7 promoting sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, and climate action. The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) strategic objectives share strong links to many of the SDGs, ensuring support for member states to meet related targets (ICAO 2019). The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) found that the aviation industry plays an important role in supporting 15 of the 17 SDGs. ATAG provides guidance for industry stakeholders to contribute toward accomplishing these goals and identifies the relevance of each goal to the industry in their 2017 Flying in Formation report (ATAG 2017). Some U.S. airports, such as Dallas–Fort Worth International and San Francisco International, are actively using the SDGs Figure 1. Airport industry definition of sustainability. Figure 2. UN Sustainable Development Goals (Source: United Nations, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/).

8 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports to guide their sustainability strategies and goals. Many SDG targets closely align with the QOL indicators included in this guidebook. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology presented in this guidebook serves as an additional tool for airports to gain a better understanding of baseline conditions and how these may tie into SDGs. 1.3 Role of Airports By evaluating the diverse components that comprise total QOL in their surrounding commu­ nities and how to measure them, airport leaders will better understand how community QOL is affected by factors the airport directly controls, factors that the airport doesn’t control but may influence, and factors over which the airport has little to no control or influence. By engaging a broad group of stakeholders and including as many community perspectives as feasible (particularly those that may not already be captured by other engagement efforts), airports will have access to more data sources that demonstrate airport activities’ benefits to surrounding communities, as well as data sources that enhance the airport’s awareness and consideration of negative effects on their neighbors. Inclusivity is key to ensuring that the assessment will provide airport leaders with information that will encourage them to think more holistically about their influence and be better informed about community priorities that may influence the airport’s current decision making, long­term planning, and relationships with the community. Building relationships is an important benefit of the QOL assessment process. Airport leaders and federal regulators strive to ensure the safety, capacity, and security of airports while minimizing environmental impacts. Often, airport decisions have positive and negative effects on communities, requiring decision makers to carefully consider all impacts before making a final decision. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) implementation of Performance­Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and other technology changes through the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) airspace moderni­ zation program have led to some unanticipated effects. The NextGen program intends to improve the capacity, performance, efficiency, and predictability of the National Airspace System (NAS) through upgraded technology, navigation, and communications systems. While the implementation of new air traffic procedures such as PBN can improve efficiency and safety, it also results in aircraft flying more precise routes over narrow corridors. Residents that live underneath new PBN flight paths will experience a higher frequency of overflight as well as increased—and perceived increases in—noise exposure, which can negatively affect QOL. NextGen implementation serves as an example of how one indicator (i.e., noise exposure) can affect the QOL of residents and, thus, change how airport communities perceive the airport and its effect on their environment. As such, the RTCA PBN Blueprint Community Outreach Task Force determined that it is essential that “proposed PBN implementations should include the populations and political jurisdictions affected by anticipated changes in flight track centerline locations (both lateral and altitude changes), aircraft dispersion around the centerlines, and anticipated changes in runway use at the affected airports.” Failure to do so “can delay/derail PBN projects whether or not federal standards are exceeded” (RTCA 2016). The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology ensures that a proactive approach to community engagement is conducted, which assures project success while maintaining community QOL. As new programs arise and technologies for managing airports evolve, airport leaders will find value in obtaining a baseline of community QOL to better anticipate responses from the community when changes occur. A QOL assessment will provide an airport with a snapshot of community QOL at a specific point in time, which will allow the airport and other stake­ holders to track changes over time. Once established, the assessment process is intended to be

Introduction 9 easily replicable, allowing the airport to perform periodic assessments and adjust planning and public outreach when possible, based on changes in QOL assessment results. 1.4 Purpose and Objective of the Guidebook Many airports routinely study their impacts on certain compo­ nents of QOL—such as contributions to the local and regional economy—or environmental impacts, such as noise exposure. However, there is no existing guidance for airports, communi­ ties, and other stakeholders to discuss or assess overall QOL and how it may be affected by airport­related activity. The objective of this research is to provide airports with a tool to better under­ stand their impacts on the QOL of surrounding communities, which can, in turn, inform planning processes and stakeholder engagement activities. At many airports, diverse airport departments—such as external or government relations, human resources, commu­ nications, operations, planning, environmental, commercial development, and concessions—collect and manage data related to their respective departmental objectives and related commu­ nity involvement efforts. Although each department has unique expertise, it can be challenging or impractical to combine the results of multiple studies—conducted over varying timelines in support of differing goals—into a cohesive analysis for decision­ making purposes. For example, the Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance database contains almost 1,000 exam­ ples of initiatives that airports have employed to improve their economic performance, increase operational efficiency, conserve natural resources, and provide a positive social impact. These examples highlight the diversity of the influences that airports have on local communities and the complex issues that airport managers work to address. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology provides a flexible framework for airports— or any organization that uses the assessment methodology—to collect data for 100 suggested indicators that span six categories of QOL and collectively contribute to overall QOL. The categories include Environmental, Health, Economic, Transportation, Social Relationships, and Local Governance–Community Services (Figure 3). Not all of the indicators are affected by airport operations, but they are included so that the baseline data represent all factors contributing to—or detracting from—a community’s overall QOL. Even if an airport does not appear to influence a particular indicator, future conditions may change and airport activities may at that point begin to influence the indicator. Indicators include some airport­related items such as intensity of aircraft noise annoyance, but the majority are not specific to an airport. Examples include access to health care, job satisfaction, satisfaction with public transportation, feeling of belonging to a community, and community safety. This guidebook is intended to bring together airport staff from diverse departments and facilitate engagement with external organizations and community members to increase the airport’s ability to understand community needs and perspectives. The research team’s mixed­ methods approach—integrating both quantitative and qualitative data—intends to improve an airport’s understanding of its broad influence on local communities. These insights may illuminate interrelationships among airport decisions and community QOL, or they may demonstrate that certain aspects of QOL are completely independent of airport operations. The Build awareness within the airport of the interrelationships between airport decisions and community QOL. Provide new tools to interact with the community and build trust. Enhance planning and support the airport’s long-term goals. WHY UNDERTAKE A QOL ASSESSMENT?

10 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports resulting conversations are intended to assist the airport in understanding trends, anticipating community needs and concerns, and improving overall perceptions of the airport. Improved understanding supports airport managers and other leaders in making decisions that are beneficial to local QOL. Many of the anticipated benefits of a QOL study are similar to those described in ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry (Ricondo & Associates et al. 2009), which includes the following organizational benefits to the airport (summarized): • Increasing efficiency through the development of performance metrics; • Developing processes or frameworks to help prioritize projects; and • Facilitating airport decision makers to comprehensively review “bold initiatives, strategies, and alternatives more easily than during the master planning process.” Community benefits include: • Assisting the airport “to build community support and explain to elected officials how the airport contributes to the community’s economic development”; • Serving as a tool for obtaining feedback from key stakeholders; and • Minimizing future conflicts by building consensus for future airport needs that must be supported by decisions in the present or near term. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology is intended to be flexible. As described in Chapter 3, the methodology is presented in a series of steps, which enable the airport to study Figure 3. QOL indicator categories. Note: The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology includes 100 indicators, 99 of which are in the six categories represented in this figure. The 100th indicator concerns overall QOL and is not included under a specific category.

Introduction 11 QOL progressively, depending on the airport’s goals and available resources. QOL assessments will be custom for each airport and its identified assessment study area, reflecting the unique characteristics of a specific community. The results of one airport’s QOL assessment cannot be compared to the results from any other airport’s assessment. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology will allow individual airports to compare their results over time from their baseline year (when the initial assessment was completed). 1.5 Research Approach Development of the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology included a literature review, development of draft QOL indicators, categorization of the indicators, development of the survey instrument, identification of sources and thresholds for quantitative data collection, and collaboration with three partner airports and their community stakeholders to refine the proposed methodology. The research did not include administration of a full QOL assessment for any of the three partner airports. The research team conducted a comprehensive literature review to gain an understanding of existing QOL frameworks and methodologies. Appendix C provides an overview of selected QOL studies. The summaries provide a small sample of the QOL assessment resources that were consulted to develop the guidebook, including both QOL studies that are more general and those specific to transportation and aviation. Appendix C is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all literature related to QOL, but rather a snapshot of relevant resources to further acquaint the guidebook user with the topic and provide background material for context. The literature review allowed the research team to identify a draft list of QOL indicators. The research team then sorted the list of indicators into high­level categories and narrowed the list to remove repetitiveness. The resulting indicators reflect a broad range of elements that comprise total QOL and are organized into six categories: Environmental, Health, Economic, Transportation, Social Relationships, and Local Governance–Community Services. Existing data sets tend to be insufficient in capturing complete information on the myriad of factors affecting QOL. To capture data related to all selected indicators, the research team selected a mixed­methods approach to QOL assessment. The mixed­methods approach uses quantitative and qualitative data to measure QOL, ensuring that the QOL assessment is as comprehensive as possible. Quantitative indicators rely on data from publicly available data sets, such as U.S. Census Bureau data. Qualitative data require gathering input directly from community members, in this case through administering a survey in which each indicator is framed as a multiple­choice question. The survey portion of the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology is intended to capture information directly from community residents concern­ ing their subjective experiences, opinions, and perceptions. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology is described in greater detail in Chapter 2, and the data collection process is dis­ cussed in Chapter 4. The Quality of Life Assessment Survey instrument is found at www.trb.org by searching for “ACRP Research Report 221.” Additional explanation of the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology and motivation for the research team’s QOL assessment approach is included in Appendix D. The selected indicators are not expected to be of equal importance to an individual’s or a community’s overall QOL. Thus, the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology includes a process for weighting the contribution of each indicator to overall QOL. Weighting the indicators will provide greater insight into which indicators are most important to specific communities and will allow the airport to prioritize discussion and consideration of issues the community weights as most important.

12 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports To refine the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology, the research team worked with three volunteer partner airports. The methodology was reviewed during teleconferences, webinars, and in­person workshops with the partner airports—Dallas–Fort Worth International in Texas, Tampa International in Florida, and Portland International Jetport in Maine—and their internal and external stakeholders. Feedback received from the airports and community stakeholders was incorporated into a refined methodology. Once the methodology was revised, the Quality of Life Assessment Survey was further tested by 32 members of the research team living within the service area of a large international airport, and quantitative data from publicly available data sets covering the same spatial area were gathered. The results from this survey were used to visualize data for purposes of this guidebook. The sample survey was administered only to generate data to facilitate portions of this guidebook and is not a representative sample.