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
