Effective Cooperation Among Airports and Local and Regional Emergency Management Agencies for Disaster Preparedness and Response (2014)

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.

3 When disasters strike, airports often provide vital resources and functions for their communities. In many cases, they also call on other agencies for help maintaining and restor- ing operations both during and after emergencies. In order to ensure effective preparedness and response, airport operators and local and regional emergency management (EM) agen- cies must proactively address the unique challenges they face in managing the complexities of providing and receiving assis- tance during disasters. The basic premise underlying this study is that good rela- tionships between airports and their EM partners lead to more effective responses to emergencies and disasters. This is an assertion that this study is not designed to test. The assump- tion is that the respondents involved in the surveys and case examples believe in the truth of this premise to the extent that they are willing to invest time and effort into building and sustaining the relationships. This synthesis describes and discusses cooperation between airports and local and regional EM agencies. The study focuses on how airports and their EM partners establish and sustain effective working relationships, and it also examines methods of identifying problems and rebuild- ing damaged relationships. Airports recognized by peers or researchers as having good relationships with their EM partners were favored in the selection of participants for this study. This document will be useful to airports of varying gov- ernance structures and size in terms of employee depth and functionality; as well as to traditional emergency response mutual aid partners such as local government agencies, private partners, and airlines. It provides airports and their emergency response allies access to a full range of policies, programs, practices, and relationships found effective in establishing and sustaining good working relationships. TYPES AND MODES OF COOPERATION In general, cooperation among organizations seeks to achieve “the optimal allocation of such resources as assets, person- nel, equipment and technology, etc., and rational distribution of interests by all subjects of cooperation to realize their own value goal under a certain institutional environment” (Feng et al. 2010, p. 97). Among the possible modes of cooperation, multi- stakeholder cooperation is favored for the management of complex EM situations. Tong et al. (2011) applied evolution- ary game theory to compare the behavioral strategies of coop- eration and noncooperation, finding that cooperation was the winning strategy. However, they also found that sustaining cooperation required correction of noncooperation and strong supervision by senior managers. Waugh and Streib (2006) demonstrated that “collabora- tion is a necessary foundation for dealing with both natural and technological hazards and disasters and the consequences of terrorism” (p. 131). They recommend a number of meth- ods for improving collaborative activities, such as optimizing the use of networks. Their ultimate conclusion is that new leadership strategies are needed that derive impetus from “the transformative power of a compelling vision, rather than from hierarchy, rank, or standard operating procedures” (p. 139). A number of studies examine various aspects of coopera- tive EM at airports. ACRP Report 88: Guidebook on Integrat- ing GIS in EM at Airports (Barich et al. 2013) describes the use of geographical information systems (GIS) to enhance the effectiveness of EM at airports, including coordination with outside EM agency partners. ACRP Project 04-12, Inte- grating Web-Based Emergency Management Collaboration Tools into Airport Operations, provides a primer for airports on choosing and using web-based systems to enhance internal EM and cooperation with external partners (IEM, Inc., et al. 2013). Smith (2012a) looked at the airport-community partnership for resiliency, finding that close collaboration among stake- holders promotes the resiliency of both parties. ASYMMETRICAL NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP Airports and some of the EM agencies in this study are first responders who have a responsibility to take action under statutes or regulations. This is true of agencies such as fire departments, law enforcement agencies, and health depart- ments. On the other hand, EMs have the power to convene collaborating agencies (James G. Featherstone, personal communication, Feb. 9, 2011; Fred McCosby, review com- ments, Oct. 11, 2013). Their role is typically limited to coordination, communication, planning, and training. It is crucial for all members of airport-EM agency partnerships chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 Selection of Airports Based on his professional knowledge, and in consultation with the topic panel, the consultant selected 72 airports. Ten airports were selected in each of the seven National Plan of Integrated Air Systems (NPIAS) categories: large hubs (LH), medium hubs (MH), small hubs (SH), non-hub primaries (NH-P), commercial service airports (CS), reliev- ers (R), and general aviation (GA). Airports in six NPIAS categories (LH, MH, SH, NH-P, R, and GA) were chosen because they are known for strong, productive relationships with their EM partners. For CS airports, the 10 airports were selected to ensure geographical balance, but there were no data regarding the state of their relationships with EM part- ners. Besides the 70 U.S. airports, two Canadian airports comparable in size to U.S. large hubs, and included as such in Figure 1), were selected to add the perspectives of priva- tized operators and a non-U.S. operational and regulatory environment. The final rationale for airport selection was likelihood of response. Table 1 places the samples in the context of the total num- ber of airports in each category. Appendix B lists the airports that participated in the study and shows their NPIAS clas- sifications, airport locations, and FAA regions. Of the 72 airports whose executives were asked to partici- pate in the online survey, 67 responded (93%). The survey was left open for seven weeks, during which time two follow-up e-mails were sent and one round of follow-up telephone calls were made in an effort to maximize response. [It should be noted that the airports were selected in May 2013 before the final enplanement data for 2012 was avail- able. As a result of that data, the NPIAS categories of five airports changed from 2011 to 2012. For example, Astoria Regional Airport changed from CS to GA, and Concord Regional Airport began its change from GA to NH-P. The original 2011 classifications were used in this study.] to recognize this asymmetry and to exploit its benefits as fully as possible. SCOPE OF THE STUDY Information regarding the following issues was collected, considered, and synthesized: • Relationships, structures, and systems (formal and infor- mal) in place among airports and EM agencies • Methods for airport operators to coordinate and collabo- rate with local, state, and federal agencies with jurisdic- tion at airports during a major disaster • Potential solutions for addressing unique issues and challenges for airport operators during disasters (e.g., local practices, regulatory limitations such as revenue diversion, jurisdictional issues, operational complexities, airport size) • Case examples of effective practices. Mutual aid agreements are a major tool in shaping and managing relationships between airports and EM agencies. They are the subject of ACRP Synthesis 45: Model Mutual Aid Agreements for Airports (Smith and Kenville 2013), and are therefore outside of the scope of this study. STUDY METHODOLOGY This study combined a literature review, results of which were used to select the airports for the survey; the eventual survey of selected airports; and four case examples. Literature Review Available literature on 26 topics associated with airport-EM relationships was reviewed using searches in both the open web (using Google.com) and the deep web (using the TRB database, ProQuest, EBSCO, LexisNexis, and LLIS, the Les- sons Learned Information Sharing program of DHS/FEMA). Peer-reviewed literature in the field of airport-EM relation- ships is severely limited, but an aggressive search strategy revealed a number of pertinent documents. Previous ACRP research and synthesis reports provided helpful information. The results of the literature review presented in more detail in chapter two. Survey Survey Methodology A pair of online surveys was devised, one for airports and one for EM agencies. The questionnaires asked parallel questions about tools, methods, policies, and procedures used by the agencies in an effort to determine if the partners agreed on the tools they recommended as well as those they actually used. FIGURE 1 Airports by NPIAS category.

5 Selection of EM Agencies As part of the airport survey, each airport was asked to iden- tify its primary, most important, or most interesting local or regional EM partner. For this study, an emergency agency could be an agency with EM in its name or mission state- ment, or it could be a first responder agency or mutual aid partner such as a fire department, sheriff’s department, or police department. The criteria were flexible, with the final choice left to the airports. Fifty-three of the 67 responding airports identified EM partners (79%), and invitations were e-mailed to those con- tacts. Of the 53 agencies contacted, 35 participated in the online survey, a response rate of 66% (49% based on the 72 airports originally contacted). Case Examples As shown in Table 2, the seven NPIAS categories and the two basic approaches—whether the airport facilitates coor- dination or the airport uses local EM agency to coordinate— yield a matrix of 14 distinct combinations. However, the study design was limited to four case examples. The four selected—Boise International Airport (BOI), John Wayne (Orange County, California) Airport (SNA), Massport [pri- marily Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), but also Hanscom Field (BED) and Worchester Airport (OHR)], and Western Nebraska Regional Airport (BFF)—reflect the use of data from the surveys and previous studies to attempt to balance the two approaches and to represent different NPIAS categories. In addition to the four case examples, follow-up interviews on the topic of revenue diversion’s being a potential barrier to airport-EM agency collaboration suggested a fifth and more specific comparison of the approaches of two airports, Den- ver International Airport (DEN) and Jackson–Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport (JAN), to that issue. Data Analysis Survey data were organized and analyzed using graphical analysis and thematic content analysis (qualitative analysis). Results are shown in Figures 3 through 6 and Tables 3 through 8, and the data analysis is discussed in chapters three through five. Quantitative statistical analysis was not appropriate, pri- marily because of the lack of randomization. NPIAS Category Airports in Survey Total Airports in Category Percent of Category Surveyed Large Hub 10 + 2 Canadian 29 (FAA 2013) 34 Medium Hub 9 33 (FAA 2013) 27 Small Hub 9 76 (FAA 2013) 12 Non-hub Primary 9 239 (FAA 2013) 4 Commercial Service 10 139 (FAA 2013) 7 Reliever 9 268 (FAA 2012b) 3 General Aviation 9 3436 Publicly owned, public use (FAA 2010b) 0.3 TABLE 1 PUTTING SURVEY AIRPORTS INTO CONTEXT AMONG ALL AIRPORTS IN THEIR CATEGORIES NPIAS Category LH MH SH NH-P CS R GA Airport coordinates 1:1 with outside agencies Massport BOS Western Nebraska Regional BFF Airport uses city or county EOC to coordinate John Wayne SNA Boise BOI TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE EXAMPLES