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.
17 4.1 Organization Readiness As previously stated, while there is no one sustainability practice or initiative that will work at every airport, the results of this research have shown that two elements are prevalent at airports with sustainability success stories: the organization has a champion of sustainability and the organization has a sustainability plan. A sustainability champion can be one person or it can be a group of people who believe in the benefits of sustainability and are willing to address the questions and concerns of those decision makers and stakeholders who are skeptical. A champion will help direct the organization toward a cohesive vision for sustainability. An organizationâs or a projectâs sustainability plan or vision statement is a clearly defined, written statement of an organizationâs or a projectâs sustainability vision and/or goals. Without one of more of these elements in place, the airport as an organization will not be able to fully consider sustainability program needs and resources or embrace innovations. Successful implementation of sustainability practices or initiatives requires support from leadership either formally, through an airport-wide or project-specific sustainability plan, or informally, in order for it to be viewed by frontline staff as being adaptable to the local airport environment and for it to be further viewed as compatible with other materials/existing values or culture within the organization as a whole. 4.2 Criteria for Evaluating Sustainability Concepts and Technologies As a result of the case study interviews conducted for this project, this section presents a list of criteria for evaluating sustainability concepts and technologies under consideration for implementation within an organization. See ASAT for specific examples of the decision-making processes at airports and other similar facilities. 4.2.1 Time, Budget, Scope, and Feasibility Considerations When considering sustainable initiatives for incorporation into an airport environment, it is important to also keep in mind the key criteria of time, budget, scope, and feasibility. The fol- lowing outline includes all four key criteria and presents questions for airport decision makers to consider and attempt to answer with key stakeholders in order to fully vet an initiative prior to implementation in their organization. This list of criteria also provides the structure of the interactive ASAT, which accompanies this guidebook. Implementation Process C h a p t e r 4
18 Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability into traditional airport projects 1. TIME a. Urgency: What is the time frame and is it a dependent or independent project? i. Is it an urgent requirement? Must something be done immediately? ii. Is it associated with a larger capital project, such as a runway addition, terminal expansion, etc.? iii. Is it a near-term requirement? iv. Is it a longer-term requirement? b. Time to Implement i. What is the range of time (in months) needed to plan, develop, and implement the initiative? 1. If different, what is the range of time (in months) before the initiative is functional? ii. What schedule can be established? iii. Is it dependent on a new or emerging technology? iv. What permits and/or approvals from outside agencies would be required? 2. BUDGET a. Economics i. What are the results of the life-cycle analysis or payback analysis, assuming a standard ROR or ROI for the airport? 1. Have the values for initial installation and for annual operating costs been thor- oughly researched and vetted? ii. Can the project compete on life-cycle costs, or must it compete on first cost? 1. What is the approximate payback period the project must meet? 2. What are the initial costs versus the operating costs? iii. What are the results of the useful life analysis? 1. Can the project be completed in such a way that deconstruction/demolition/ decommission at the end of its useful life allows for easy reuse into other projects? Examples for conducting a cost/benefit analysis include, but are not limited to the following: California Department of Transportation Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis: http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ The Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit Analysis web site: www.costbenefit analysis.org/ Examples for conducting a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) include, but are not limited to the following: Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP): www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/ lifecycle.html National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide: www.wbdg. org/resources/lcca.php Federal Highway Administration: www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/lcca.cfm Examples for conducting a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) include, but are not limited to the following: ISO 14040, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework: www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456 EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/ lca/lca.html iv. Are external funds necessary (i.e., federal, state, local, private grants)? v. What are the external funding options available, such as VALE, AIP/PFC, Clean Cities, etc.?
Implementation process 19 There are many opportunities for grants, rebates, tax incentives and credits available from federal, state and private sources. For example: www.dsireusa.org is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility and federal incentives and policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. eCivisÂ® Grants Networkâ¢ (www.ecivis.com) provides grants management software for accurate grants information, reporting, and management used by governments and community organizations. ACRP Synthesis 24: Strategies and Financing Opportunities for Airport Environmental Programs (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_024.pdf). The purpose of this ACRP syn- thesis is to provide a comprehensive summary of those funding opportunities, programs, and strategies available to airports to assist them in meeting their environmental responsibilities or undertaking environmental initiatives. vi. Could it be considered a test or demonstration of the concept or technology? vii. What are the project delivery techniques and methods that would be anticipated? 1. Design/Bid/Build? 2. Design/Build? 3. Other? b. Staffing i. Can the project be implemented and/or completed with existing staff, or would new staff be required? 1. Would training of new or existing staff be required? ii. Would implementation/completion of the project require outside consultants, vendors, or other special expertise? 1. If yes, at what level of involvement? c. Technology i. Would implementation/completion of the project require proprietary hardware, equipment, software, mandatory service agreements, or other similar technology? 3. SCOPE a. Policy and Vision: What is motivating this initiative or technology? i. Internal 1. Executive initiative and/or champion driving this? ii Community posture 1. Is the local community socially or environmentally active? 2. Have they made a specific request or do they simply want results? iii. External mandate 1. State or municipal political goal or requirement? 2. Federal or state legal requirement? b. Operating Motivation i. Expand capacity? ii. Improve efficiency? iii. Reduce cost? iv. Opportunity for vision and innovation? v. Enhance or improve the passengersâ experience? vi. Enhance social aspects of sustainability? 1. Does it support good-neighbor policies and/or public relations efforts? vii. Promote environmental/regulatory compliance? viii. Other? c. Essential Stakeholders i. Who must be involved and who should be involved? 1. Airport staff 2. Airport management
20 Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability into traditional airport projects 3. Airlines 4. Tenants 5. Passengers 6. FAA 7. Other regulatory agencies (state environmental agency, EPA) 8. Municipal politicians 9. Elected officials 10. Local citizens and/or businesses 11. Building inspectors 12. Local utility companies 13. Designers and contractors a. Engineers, architects, general contractors, and similar can be involved at varying levels; the minimum of which would be to provide basic information/questions to ask that would assist the stakeholders in making an informed decision 14. Other? d. Environmental/Compliance-related Issues i. Although sustainability does not equal compliance, the two can be related. 1. Is this required for compliance? 2. Will it improve compliance? 3. What are the significant environmental impact areas (emissions reductions, energy conservation)? 4. How will implementation of the initiative affect the environmental impact areas? 5. How will implementation of the initiative affect the airportâs carbon footprint? 4. FEASIBILITY a. Geographical/Regional i. Is this an appropriate location for this initiative (i.e., solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, etc.)? b. Land Use and Physical Constraints i. What are the real estate goals (i.e., highest and best use identified) for property within the airport boundary, as defined by airport management? 1. Does this initiative conform with or contradict those goals? 2. Is there an opportunity for 3rd party involvement? a. Could the land be developed as a concession or land lease by an outside entity/ private firm with no upfront funding by the airport? 3. What are the space constraints within the airport property boundary? 4. Is currently open space already earmarked for another project? ii. What are the physical space requirements for the initiative vs. what is available on-site? iii. Are there aeronautical compatibility issues, as defined by FAA? 1. Would it cause issues with bird attractants, visual hazards for pilots, or other issues? 2. Does the planned sustainability use for the space conform to or contradict the approved ALP and/or master plan (existing or future)? iv. Are there potential conflicts with existing building code and/or zoning requirements? c. Economic i. Consider locally high electricity costs, fuel costs, etc. d. Environmental i. Consider attainment status, etc. e. Adaptability/Technical Performance i. Has the concept/technology been proven to be successful at similar facilities and/or in similar circumstances? ii. Would you be the first to implement a certain type or usage of technology? Is that a desired situation? iii. What is the adaptability of the concept/technology to change?