Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
15 from three of the five continental European airports and the · Alliance to Save Energy one UK airports. Economic sustainability training was cited · Department of Energy Clean Cities. by only three continental European airport respondents. Non-U.S. Airports Sustainability Organizations Respondents from non-U.S. airports listed the following sustainability organizations: Survey respondents were asked to list sustainability organi- zations to which their airport belongs. · UK Sustainable Aviation Initiative · Scotland's Climate Change Forum. U.S. Airports The following organizations were listed by respondents from Public Reporting U.S. airports: Reporting on sustainability performance allows airport · California Climate Action Registry organizations to measure and therefore manage their per- · Sustainable Silicon Valley formance. The benefits of public reporting include increased · Sierra Business Council transparency and accountability, improved stakeholder · Green Print Denver relationships, and the ability to benchmark performance · ACINA Sustainability Subcommittee against peers. Annual reporting of financial performance · International Facility Management Association is common for organizations, but public reporting on envi- · The Natural Step ronmental, economic, and social sustainability performance · Oregon Environmental Council demonstrates a commitment to accountability, transparency, · Columbia Slough Watershed Council and ongoing improvement. · ACI Task Force on Sustainability · ACINA Technical Committee, Environmental Committee, and Sustainability Working Group · U.S. Green Building Council Table 8 · TRB Aviation Group Proportion of U.S. and non-U.S. airport respondents identifying stand alone sustainability reporting Table 7 As Part of As Separate Annual Report Report Proportion of U.S. and non-U.S. airport respondents identifying sustainability Environmental Environmental training at their airports Economic Economic Sustainability Training Social Social Airport Environmental Size/ Region Economic U.S. Airports Social Airport Size/ Non- Region 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Hub (1) U.S. Airports Small Hub 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% Non-Hub (1) 0% 0% 0% (2) Small Hub (2) 50% 50% 0% Medium 25% 0% 75% 25% 0% 25% Hub (4) % Respondents Medium 75% 75% 50% Large Hub Hub (4) 56% 44% 56% 67% 44% 22% % Respondents (9) Large Hub (9) 100% 56% 33% Non-U.S. Airports Non-U.S. Airports Continental 40% 40% 60% 60% 20% 40% Continental Europe (5) 80% 60% 60% Europe (5) Asia (1) 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Asia (1) 100% 0% 0% United United Kingdom 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% Kingdom (1) (1) Canada (2) 100% 0% 0% Canada (2) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
OCR for page 16
16 The survey asked respondents whether their airports ments about airport performance, both per airport and over- report on environmental, social, and economic performance all. Areas of differential impact are made more obvious as part of an annual report or in a separate report for each through comparison, and the reasons for these differences triple-bottom-line issue, and whether they used a standard can be investigated. Such differences can also be used as reporting framework and indicators. leverage points for regulators and other stakeholders who believe an airport should improve its environmental perfor- U.S. Airports mance in terms of reducing absolute impact or in terms of environmental efficiency (Upham and Mills 2005). Respondents from large, medium, and non-hub U.S. airports said that their airports publicly report on environmental and social performance in the annual report (see Table 8). None The vision of the Global Reporting Initiative is that comparable reporting on economic, environmental, and of the respondents from medium airports said that economic social performance by all organizations will become as sustainability performance is reported in their annual report. routine as financial reporting. In addition, neither of the respondents from the two small airports said that environmental, economic, or social per- Organizations can use the Sustainability Reporting formance was included in the annual report. The respondent Framework--of which the Global Reporting from one small hub airport said that the airport does not Initiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines are the report sustainability performance publicly at all. cornerstone--as the basis for disclosure about their sustainability performance. This gives stakeholders a Some respondents from large, medium, and small air- universally applicable, comparable framework in which to understand disclosed information (Sustainability ports said that their airports produce separate reports across Reporting Guidelines 2007). the triple bottom line. Respondents from six of the nine large airports cited a separate environmental report, and three also produce separate social and economic reports. One small The survey sought to identify airports that are using the hub airport reports on environmental, economic, and social Sustainability Reporting Framework, a standardized frame- performance in three separate reports. work and set of indicators. Only four respondents said that their airport uses the framework to report sustainability Non-U.S. Airports performance, and all of them are outside the United States (three continental European and one Canadian). Respondents from non-U.S. airports in continental Europe, Asia, and Canada said that their airports report on environ- mental, economic, and social sustainability practices in the Table 9 annual report. All the respondents from the UK and Canada said that their airports publish dedicated public reports on Sustainability topics addressed in Greater Toronto Airports Authority 2005 Sustainability environmental, economic, and social performance. Most Report respondents from continental Europe said that separate envi- Environmental Economic Social ronmental reporting is common. · ISO14001 · 2005 Operating · Employees Environmental Activity · Material Use The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) pub- Management · Operating · Ethics lishes data from the triple-bottom-line areas in its annual System Results report and provides more detailed information in a separate · Compliance · Public Donations · Risks and Guidelines sustainability report, which uses the Global Reporting Ini- · Energy Use Uncertainties tiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2005 Sustain- · Political · Water Use · Airport Contributions ability Report 2005). Table 9 outlines the issues addressed Development · Biodiversity · Privacy in this report. Program and · Emissions, Capital Projects · Diversity Effluents and Global Reporting Initiative Waste · Pickering Airport · Training and Plan Development Comparison of airport sustainability performance using · Health and standardized benchmarking and reporting indicators would Safety help both airport managers and stakeholders to make judg- · Community