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 6
6
CHAPTER TWO
METHOD
Literature Review tors do not tell the whole story. Quantitative indicators tend
to reflect past performance, whereas management practices
A literature review was conducted to identify concepts of can predict future performance. Robust, proactive, consis-
sustainability that could be specialized to an airport sustain- tently well-funded management practices for sustainability
ability program. These concepts were translated into content issues reduce the risk of unexpected developments or unde-
and questions for the survey. The literature review also iden- sirable effects associated with those issues.
tified examples of airport sustainability practices to support
the results of the survey. The management performance scale was developed to
assess the extent to which sustainability management prac-
A variety of sources are cited, including aviation indus-
tices are fully integrated into standard business processes at
try reports, annual reports, transportation journal articles, airports. The scale covers a wide range of classic manage-
and airport authority websites. The results of the literature ment issues (such as staff awareness, formal policies, and
review appear throughout the report as we highlight current accountability), with 1 representing little or no awareness of
airport practices for environmental, economic, and social the issue and no policies or programs in place, and 5 repre-
performance. Information from the literature review is cited senting high awareness, accountability and long-term plan-
and sources are listed in the References. ning, and incentives aligned with performance.
Following the management performance rating, the sur-
Survey vey contains a series of multiple choice questions for each
sustainability subtopic. The user was requested to rate the
A survey was developed to obtain information on the imple- implementation performance for each subtopic by selecting
mentation of sustainability practices at airports. It was struc- one of the answers (see Figure 1). Examples are provided
tured around a range of triple-bottom-line issues developed within the survey questions to help respondents choose an
by the research team. answer.
The survey consisted of multiple choice questions. To In Place Planned Not Applicable
capture additional information on sustainability practices There are initia- No sustainability initia- The sub-topic
at their airports, survey participants were encouraged to tives being tives in place for does not apply
write in blank text boxes. See Appendix A for a copy of the actively imple- the sub-topic at present; to the respon-
survey. mented and however, there are plans dents' particular
managed for for initiatives to be imple- airport.
the sub-topic. mented in the future.
Self-Assessment Using Performance Scales
FIGURE 1Implementation performance scale.
The survey was designed to allow users to undertake a self-
assessment of their airport's performance across a range of Format
issues. Under the triple-bottom-line framework, users were
prompted to assess environmental, economic, and social sus- To ensure easy access to the survey within and outside the
tainability performance using a management performance United States, it was translated into an online format. This
scale of 1 to 5 developed by the research team. For a copy of program also allowed the survey to be password protected
this scale, see Appendix B. for each user and to be circulated to more than one person
at each airport.
The scale was designed to measure the extent to which
airport operators manage sustainability issues. Management Target Audience
is considered a proxy for performance. Financial analysts
look at management practices to assess a company's expo- The survey was administered to 52 persons working in air-
sure to financial risk, recognizing that quantitative indica- ports within and outside the United States. To obtain infor-
OCR for page 7
7
mation from a cross-section of airports, the researchers The 21 non-U.S. airports were from the following
targeted airports of different sizes and geographic locations. regions:
The TRB Panel provided a list of airport names and key con-
tacts. The research team added other airports to supplement · Continental Europe (7)
the list. · United Kingdom (6)
· Asia (3)
The final target list is not an objective random sample of · Canada (2)
airports and may not present an unbiased representation of · Middle East (2)
airport sustainability performance. For example, some of the · Australia (1).
survey respondents are also members of the TRB Panel.
Airport Size
Geographic Location
US Code Title 49 § 47102 categorizes airports into large hub,
To capture a wide range of sustainability practices, 31 U.S. medium hub, small hub, and non-hub, according to passen-
and 21 non-U.S. airports were targeted for participation in ger boardings. The categories are defined as follows:
the survey.
· Large hub airport--a commercial service airport that
The 31 U.S. airports were from the following states: has at least 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings (in
2005, this was more than 7.4 million passengers).
· California (5) · Medium hub airport--a commercial service airport
· Florida (2) that has at least 0.25% but less than 1.0% of total U.S.
· Illinois (2) passenger boardings (in 2005, this was more than 1.8
· Pennsylvania (2) million and less than 7.4 million passengers).
· Texas (2) · Small hub airport--a commercial service airport that
· Arizona (1) has at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of total U.S. pas-
· Colorado (1) senger boardings (in 2005, this was more than 368,101
· Georgia (1) and less than 1.8 million passengers).
· Louisiana (1) · Non-hub airport--a commercial service airport that
· Massachusetts (1) has less than 0.05% of total U.S. passenger boardings
· Michigan (1) (in 2005, this was less than 368,101 passengers) (US
· Missouri (1) Code 2004).
· Mississippi (1)
· New Mexico (1) The following sizes are represented by the 31 U.S. air-
· Nevada (1) ports in our survey:
· New York (1)
· Ohio (1) · 16 large hub
· Oregon (1) · 8 medium hub
· Tennessee (1) · 4 small hub
· Utah (1) · 3 non-hub.
· Virginia (1)
· Washington (1) In this report, we do not specify sizes for the 21 non-U.S.
· Wisconsin (1). airports.
