Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience (2012)

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.

69 Appendix d Survey Respondents and Survey Method SuRvey ReSpondentS Recipient Completed Ted Stevens International Airport, Anchorage, AK x Fairbanks International Airport x Logan International Airport, Boston, MA x Dallas Love Field Airport, Dallas, TX x Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA x Jacksonville International Airport, Jacksonville, FL x San Francisco International Airport x Oakland International Airport x Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport x Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Newark Liberty International Airport) x Greater Toronto Airports Authority (Toronto Pearson International Airport) Toronto, Canada x Heathrow Airport, London, U.K. x Glasgow Prestwick, Prestwick, U.K. x Edinburgh International Airport, Edinburgh, U.K. x Birmingham–Shuttlesworth International Airport, Birmingham, U.K. x Glasgow Airport, Glasgow, U.K. x of the purpose and importance of this Synthesis Report. The Principal Investigator sent reminders, and follow up e-mails and phone calls were made to those who did not complete the survey within the requested time frame. A total of 20 entities were contacted; and 16 surveys were completed, each one for a single airport. The target response rate set for the survey was 80%, the response rate specified for ACRP studies. With 16 respondents completing the first set of questions, regarding their experience with airport disruptions from weather, the response rate for this study’s survey effort was 80%. The following table (Table D1) depicts how the group of 16 respondents self-selected their participation in the survey and how many proceeded to the final set of questions, regarding climate change adaptation and resilience. SuRvey Method—GeneRAl A survey instrument was designed, tested, and implemented in order to collect information for this synthesis addressing climate change adaptation and resilience. Its questions were designed to gather data that would provide a sound basis for describing what airports are doing to address the critical yet wide-ranging issue of climate change impacts and risks. Questions were developed to gather responses that were con- sistent and comparable. Climate change adaptation and resil- ience is an emerging area, so in several questions, respondents were provided the opportunity to choose multiple answers as well as provide additional or alternative responses that could better describe their experiences. Open-ended questions were limited in number but utilized where anecdotal information might reveal practices of interest for case examples. The survey was conducted in the summer of 2011. In the professional judgment of the Topic Panel and Prin- cipal Investigator, few U.S. airports have considered climate change adaptation and resilience per se in their planning or other activities. This understanding influenced the survey’s design in several ways: 1. The group of airports queried would include non-U.S. airports in locations with more mature policies to address climate change impacts; that is, in Canada and in Europe (primarily the U.K.). 2. The number of survey recipients would be low since it was not anticipated that many airports would have conducted the types of activities on which the survey was seeking details. 3. The first part of the survey would seek answers about cur- rent weather impacts on airport infrastructure and oper- ations at airports, to put into better relief the answers to subsequent questions focused explicitly on climate change. 4. The survey sought to ensure a basic competency; that is, respondents answered questions regarding their profes- sional judgment about the airport’s corporate response to (1) weather events generally and (2) climate change in particular. As a result, there were threshold questions to answer before the respondent answered additional ques- tions in each of these two areas. SuRvey ReSponSe RAte The TRB Topic Panel received a draft list of potential recipients and a final distribution list was derived from that list. Surveys numbering 20 were distributed via e-mail that provided back- ground on the ACRP program and emphasized the importance

70 Specific QueStionS in the SuRvey In reviewing survey responses regarding weather disruption, it may be helpful to have the definition provided to the respon- dents. The terms “weather and weather-related” damage and disruption were defined by a sidebar with the following text: Damage and disruption can be caused either directly by weather, or by changes in the natural environment caused by weather; for example, increased wildland fire. We are interested in examining all disruptions in this survey. The term “weather-related disruptions” captures all kinds of damage and disruption, including those caused directly and indirectly by weather. Examples of weather and changes in the natural environment caused by weather: • Pollution caused by flooding • Visibility issues caused by increased wildland fire • Storm • Hurricanes • Tornadoes • Snow • Heatwaves • Other, including drought. In reviewing Tables 2 and 3 in the report, it is helpful to under- stand some aspects of the corresponding question in the survey, Question 11. Type of Survey Participation U.S. Canada U.K. Began the survey (N 5 1 01 )61 = Continued after Question 2 (N = 13) Questions 3–9 asked how the airport handles disruptions related to weather 7 1 5 Continued after Question 10 (N = 11) Questions 11–24 related to climate change adaptation and resilience 5 1 5 Completed the entire survey (N = 11) 5 1 5 TABlE D1 SURvEy RESPOnDEnTS By COUnTRy AnD lEvEl Of PARTICIPATIOn • Respondents worked from the list of weather and climate variables provided. They were not given space in the sur- vey to add others. • The year 2010 was selected because it was the most recent full calendar year. The year 2030 was selected because it is a proxy for the broader time frame 2020–2040 for which climate modeling projections suggest a degree of climate change. • The 20-year difference between 2010 and 2030 is a famil- iar planning horizon for an airport. In the United States, for example, 20 years is typically the longest forecast conducted by airports in the Master Planning process. It also is the required time frame for the Department of Transportation- required long Range Transportation Plans, in which states are to consider a multi-modal analysis approach that can involve airports. In short, if airports are required to think long term it is typically 20 years out, not much longer. • The answers for 2010 and 2030 cannot be compared directly. Information on 2010 is composed of historical facts as reported by each respondent. The responses for 2030 indicated the anticipated increase from that base- line across all respondents. Since each respondent selected the relevant business area and/ or weather or climate variable, one respondent may have selected multiple business areas for the same climate or weather variable.