Click for next page ( 49


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 48
48 APPENDIX A Method and Survey Response LITERATURE REVIEW Target Audience A literature review was conducted to identify best practices for The TRB panel and staff provided a list of candidate terminals, energy efficiency and generate categories and questions about low- which was supplemented by the research team to total 20 airport cost practices for the survey questionnaire. In addition, the review operators with direct knowledge of airport terminals and energy collated data from previous studies about low-cost energy efficiency efficiency measures. To obtain data salient to small airport termi- improvements and provided supplemental information to support nals, the researchers were directed to contact small hub and com- results of the survey. mercial service airports to determine if they had completed applic- able projects and invited them to participate in the survey. The final A wide variety of sources were referenced including aviation, list was not intended to be a random sample and may not present an transportation, and construction journal articles; aviation industry and unbiased or broad perspective of energy efficiency improvements. government reports; university and institution studies; industry con- For instance, some respondents are also members of the TRB panel. ference proceedings; and national, state, and public agency websites. The results of the literature review appear throughout the docu- SURVEY RESPONSE ment, as both highlighted information and general content to sup- port the respondent's strategies for reducing energy costs through Of the 20 airports required to submit information, 20 responses efficiency improvements. Information from the literature review is were received, representing a 100% response rate. The 20 airports cited and sources are listed in the References. that responded to the survey are referred to as survey respondents throughout the report. Small hub, non-hub, and commercial service SURVEY Box A1 Airport Classification A questionnaire was developed to obtain information about the plan- ning and implementation of energy efficiency practices at targeted US Code Title 49 47102 categorizes airports into large hub, airports. medium hub, small hub, and non-hub, according to annual passen- ger boardings or enplanements. The categories are defined as follows: The survey consisted of multiple choice and yes/no questions. For Large hub airport--a commercial service airport that has at least specific practice-oriented questions, participants were encouraged to 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings. quantify "estimated payback" and "cost to implement" by checking Medium hub airport--a commercial service airport that has at supplemental boxes. Survey participants were also encouraged to least 0.25% but less than 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings. elaborate on responses within blank text boxes In this report large and medium hub airports were combined into The results of the survey were used throughout the report to one category. These combined categories identify airports with more describe or reference practices and cost information. Primary for- than 1.9 million enplanements. mats of these results found in the report include: Small hub airport--a commercial service airport that has at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of total U.S. passenger boardings Figures or charts summarizing results (more than 380,000 and less than 1.9 million enplanements). Highlighted areas of text describing actions from specific air- Non-hub airport--a commercial service airport that has less than ports in greater detail or topics of interest supplemental to the 0.05% of total U.S. passenger boardings (more than 10,000 and main report less than 380,000 enplanements). A general discussion of results pertaining to specific topics. Nonprimary commercial service airports were also contacted. This See Appendix B for more information and specific questions. category is defined as follows: Commercial service airport--a publicly owned, commercial service airport that has at least 2,500 and fewer than 10,000 passenger Format and Distribution Methods boardings each year and receives scheduled passenger service. To ensure easy access to the survey it was translated into Portable The respondents represented the following classifications of airports Document Format (PDF) for electronic distribution. This allowed (see Figure A1): each survey to be coded for distribution to a specific airport. It also 8 large and medium hub (40%) allowed immediate return of data to the consultant to expedite 5 small hub (25%) preparation of the report. Lastly it preformatted the data to that par- 4 non-hub (20%) ticular airport, allowing tracking of responses and management of 3 commercial service (15%) completed surveys.

OCR for page 48
49 INTERVIEWS A total of 13 airports were contacted for follow-up interviews to dis- cuss energy efficiency practices that have been implemented in greater detail. Of these 13, 12 were able to provide additional information. Airport interview participants: Bemidji Regional [BJI] Dallas/Fort Worth International [DFW] DickensonTheodore Roosevelt Regional [DIK] Fresno Yosemite International [FAT] Juneau International [JNU] Montgomery Regional [MGM] Minneapolis/St. Paul International [MSP] Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton [PDT] Mid-Ohio Valley Regional--Parkersburg [PKB] Reno/Tahoe International [RNO] Lambert/St. Louis International [STL] Tampa International [TPA]. FIGURE A1 Airport size graph. These interviews were conducted as person-to-person tele- phone calls and teleconferences that included additional research staff and/or additional airport staff and airport energy consul- airports represented 60% of responses. See Box A1 for more about tants. Content from interviews is incorporated throughout the airport classification. report and as text boxes to highlight specific practices or strate- gies of note. AIRPORT TERMINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE Box A2 Geographic Location of Respondents The 20 airports provided terminal size as a reference. The respondents reported the following range of terminal sizes: The FAA monitors and regulates the national airspace through 9 administrative regions: Alaska, Central, Eastern, Great Lakes, large/medium hub: 400,000 ft2 to 6 million ft2 New England, Northwest Mountain, Southern, Southwest, and small hub: 140,000 ft2 to 600,000 ft2 WesternPacific. non-hub: 54,000 ft2 to 160,000 ft2 The 20 responses were from airports located in all 9 of the FAA commercial service: 5,000 ft2 to 21,000 ft2 administrative regions and 16 different states: Alabama, Alaska, Ari- zona, California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Although there were a number of large and medium hub airports Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and that provided information, many energy efficiency practices are West Virginia. scalable to smaller airport terminal buildings.