National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses

« Previous: Chapter Two - Case Examples
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 32

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.

18 IntroductIon Interviews, a literature review, and a survey were the methods used to collect information. Detailed descriptions of methods, data, and the materials reviewed are contained in the appendices. IntervIews Structured interviews were conducted with managers and technical staff at airports and relevant agencies. The case examples in chapter two were informed and reviewed by a relevant interviewee. Interviewees were identified through several means, including the Topic Panel; discussions at the May 2011, TRB workshop on climate change adaptation at airports; and through the survey described later in this chap- ter. Each interviewee received a standard set of questions (see Appendix A) with which to prepare for the interview. LIterature revIew, wIth summary of cLImate change effects and ILLustratIve adaptIve measures A review of existing literature was conducted with respect to climate adaptation and resilience activities for airports and other infrastructure, with a view to what has been helpful to transportation facilities. Results of this review are presented in the following two formats in this chapter: 1. Summaries of each literature category helpful to trans- portation facilities, with representative sources; and 2. A summary of airport-specific information on pro jected climate change effects and illustrative adaptation and resil ience measures, presented in table form. The literature review revealed that there has not been a comprehensive analysis of the risks to airports from climate change or a full assessment of practices for addressing these risks. Also, new reports, articles, plans, and other materials on climate change adaptation and resilience are produced continually, with the volume of transportation-focused adap- tation and resilience information increasing rapidly. There- fore, it is important to note that this literature review and its results reflect a snapshot in time for 2011. Detailed information on the methods used for the literature review can be found in Appendix B. Summaries of relevant sources used for the literature review are in Appendix C. Given that climate change resilience and adaptation consti- tute an emerging issue, are complex, and require knowledge from multiple disciplines, across diverse sectors and scales, the Appendix C summaries contain substantial amounts of information to provide airports with a strong understanding of adaptation and resilience. From these sources and those listed in the References, information specific to airports was summarized and arranged in Table 1. Descriptions of literature review source categories, Table 1, and their airport-specific climate change information, follow. summaries of Literature review sources The sources in the literature review fall into certain broad categories. Many sources are at a high level compared with the sort of decision making and planning an airport conducts on a day-to-day basis, reflecting the nascent state of adaptation and resilience at airports, in the transportation sector, and generally. Projections of Climate Change and Its Impacts as They Relate to Transportation This category of sources provides projections of the impacts of climate change on the transportation sector and, to a lesser extent, airports. A notable source is the FHWA report Regional Climate Change Effects: Useful Information for Transportation Agencies (2010). Other sources may report on a specific regional- or state-level adaptation and resilience planning process and therefore include discussion of climate scenarios relevant to that region. In cases where an airport is in one of these regions and seeks general information these sources may be useful. Foundational and Authoritative Resources on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation There are a significant number of potential sources available, and adaptation and resilience is a complex and evolving field with resources continually emerging from diverse disciplines and circumstances. In this context, publications that can serve as authoritative resources are useful. Publications of this kind include those produced by research bodies, which, although technical, are also accessible and provide useful discussion on the uncertainties inherent in climate change and related adaptation and resilience activities. TRB’s Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation, Special Report 290 (2008) is frequently cited and relied upon. chapter three methods and survey responses

19 Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure Temperature Change More hot days Take-off Hotter days, when combined with moisture, can reduce airplane performance, increasing the runway length needed for take-off and climbing ability, particularly at high altitudes and/or hot weather airports (Peterson et al. 2008; Love et al. 2010; Shein 2008) Delays and cancellations due to need to limit daytime flights (Peterson et al. 2008; TRB 2008; Shein 2008) Limits on payload (TRB 2008; Shein 2008) Use of greater thrust, leading to more noise (Burbidge et al. 2011), increased fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Reduced ability of certain airports to take certain aircraft (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Alternate or new routes or schedules (Shein 2008) Improved engine design (CCSP 2008) Longer runways (Schwartz 2011; Klin et al. 2011; Stewart et al. 2011) Temperature Change More hot days Airfield, access roads, vehicles Pavement buckling (e.g., concrete expansion while remaining rigid) (Peterson et al. 2008) Loss of non-concrete pavement integrity (e.g., tarmac melt) (TRB 2008) Heat-related weathering of fleet, including tires (TRB 2008) Decreased utility of pavement (Peterson et al. 2008) Increase in foreign object damage on airfield; e.g., from weathered tires (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Pavement damage Load restrictions for certain pavement (CCSP 2008; Peterson et al. 2008) At 40–100 years in the future, better maintenance strategies (Meyer 2008) Replace road and bridge expansion joints (Schwartz 2011) At 40–100 years in the future, possible significant impact on pavement and structural design; need for new materials; better maintenance strategies (Meyer 2008) Research new materials (Schwartz 2011) Temperature Change More hot days Utility systems (energy, water, fuel, etc.) Increase in temperature will increase demand in energy; e.g., for air conditioning and for water needed to cool air conditioning systems (in the terminal, airplanes, etc.) (TRB 2008) (Stewart et al. 2011) Reduced lifespan of air conditioning equipment due to increased use (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Increased utility consumption and attendant costs (Stewart et al. 2011) Possible impacts of fuel ignition on emergency services and safety (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Increased risk to IT failure stemming from increased risk of power failure from pressure on the system (Stewart et al. 2011) Modification to infrastructure (Cranfield 2011) by, for example, ensuring availability of Fixed Electrical Ground Power on aircraft stands for air conditioning (Gatwick Airport Limited 2011) Research possible impacts on emergency services and safety (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) TABlE 1 POTEnTIAl ClIMATE CHAnGE EFFECTS AnD IlluSTRATIvE RESPOnSES FOR AIRPORTS (continued on next page)

20 Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure Heat illness (Peterson et al. 2008; Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Temperature Change More hot days Human resources Limitation on outdoor maintenance and services (Peterson et al. 2008) Increase health issue, especially for vulnerable groups (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) More nighttime construction (Schwartz 2011) Infrastructure capability assessment of heating and cooling needs (Birmingham Airport 2011) Temperature Change More hot days Air Increased heat causes increased levels of ozone, and other air quality issues (EPA 2009; Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Regulatory compliance issues (Klin et al. 2011) Conduct monitoring of conditions (TRB Special Report 299 2009) Temperature Change More hot days Airfield, airstrips, access roads Decrease in sea ice, making Arctic shoreline vulnerable to erosion (GAO 2003) Erosion or subsidence of coastal airstrips and access roads in the Arctic (GAO 2003) Dikes or levees to protect vulnerable coastal communities (Schwartz 2011) Move at-risk communities (Schwartz 2011) Temperature Change Fewer cold days Airfields, airstrips, access roads Permafrost thaw (Peterson et al. 2008) Subsidence and other disruption to foundations (TRB 2008) Identify areas with accelerated permafrost thaw (Schwartz 2011) Reinforcement or relocation (GAO 2003) Design changes in colder regions (Meyer 2008) Temperature Change Fewer cold days Airfield, access road, all surfaces Decrease in frozen precipitation (Peterson et al. 2008) Improved safety (Peterson 2008 et al.; TRB 2008) Increase in air routes in northern regions (Love et al. 2010) Temperature Change Fewer cold days All More mix in precipitation, with shift from snow to ice (Peterson et al. 2008) Changes in snow and ice removal costs and environmental impacts from salt and chemicals (TRB 2008) Possible reduction in de-icing facilities (TRB 2008) Temperature Change More hot days Fewer cold days Increase in extreme temperature days (greater amplitude, hot or cold) Airport operations Under increased warming and/or in combination with other climate change impacts (e.g., inundation), and increase in human migration away from areas severely affected by climate change Operational issues associated with large, migrating, human populations, including increase in passenger traffic, public health concerns, and other issues (Stewart et al. 2011) Incorporate the potential of climate change events into the existing systems of planning for irregular operations (Stewart et al. 2011) Change in wildlife populations may call for changes in landscaping, maintenance practices (Klin et al. 2011) Flashpoint of aviation fuel exceeded on hot days (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) TABlE 1 (continued)

21 TABlE 1 (continued) Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure borne and contagious Changes in vector diseases increase likelihood of epidemics and pandemics (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Drought and increased or decreased water availability and/or earlier springs, later in falls may change ecosystems and wildlife, including migration (Stewart et al. 2011). increases in migrating wildlife or ecosystem shifts, including increases in invasive species and endangered species at airports (Klin et al. 2011; Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011), including more bird strikes and associated costs of prevention (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) and changing health and safety issues for staff (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Temperature Change More hot days Fewer cold days Increase in extreme temperature days (greater amplitude, hot or cold) Changes in season duration Entire facility and its operations Systemic changes in demand and delays such as increases in hotter days and fewer cold days, changes tourism destinations (Burbidge et al. 2011) Delays and other knock-on effects of systemic changes and increased irregular operations (Stewart et al. 2011) Decrease in capacity demands in some locations, increases in others due to tourism shifts (Burbidge et al. 2011) Incorporate the potential of climate change events into the existing systems of planning for irregular operations (Stewart et al. 2011) Seasonal Change Temperature swings above and below freezing Changes to freeze- thaw cycle of road subsurface: earlier in spring, later in fall (Peterson et al. 2008) Early appearance of ground heaves with earlier arrival of spring (Peterson et al. 2008) Damage to under- ground utilities leading to pollution and compliance issues (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Damage to roads (Peterson et al. 2008) Fracture risk to underground utilities (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) New management regime in weight limitations for certain pavement types (Peterson et al. 2008) Where there are shorter winters but longer thaw seasons, the timeframe for load restrictions may have to expand (Peterson et al. 2008) Shorter season for using ice roads in northern climates (Peterson et al. 2008) Precipitation Changes Increase in heavy precipitation events Airfield, roads, bridges, stormwater drainage system Flooding, standing water (Peterson et al. 2008; Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Flight delays; passenger and employee access issues; implications for emergency evacuation planning, facility maintenance; and safety management (TRB 2008) Increase in surface water leads to potential contamination of surface water from de-icing fluids (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Road submersion; (Peterson et al. 2008) Scouring around bridges, roads, buried pipelines (Peterson et al. 2008) Damage to runway or other infrastructure (TRB 2008) Protect existing and vulnerable structures; e.g., bridge piers (Schwartz 2011) Update hydrological storm frequency curves (Schwartz 2011) Over next 30–40 years, more targeted maintenance (Meyer 2008) Better land use planning in flood plains (Schwartz 2011) Over next 30–40 years, effect on pavement and drainage design. (Meyer 2008) Issues associated with (continued on next page)

Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure Damage to pavement drainage systems (TRB 2008) Flood damage to aircraft navigation systems and instrument landing systems (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) More probabilistic approaches to design floods (Meyer 2008). At 40–100 years in the future, impact on designs for foundations, drainage systems and culverts; effect on design of materials and pavement subgrade (Meyer 2008) Precipitation Changes Increase in heavy precipitation events Operations Fog Delays due to reduced visibility (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) often at 7:00 a.m. slowing down flight operations (Peterson et al. 2008) Restrictions on airside maintenance (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Shift to instrument flight rules from visual flight rules (Klin et al. 2011) Changes in aircraft separation (Klin et al. 2011) Precipitation Changes Increase in heavy precipitation events Increase in convective weather Generally, increase in delays due to re- routing to avoid convective weather (thunderstorm) (McCarthy and Budd 2010) and changes in flight levels to avoid turbulence or convective weather (McCarthy and Budd 2010) Destruction or disabling of navigation aid instruments (TRB 2008) Consider review of airspace management and related systems (Burbidge et al. 2011) Precipitation Changes Drought All In combination with increased heat, wild fires (TRB 2008; Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Possibility of water restrictions (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Less visibility (Peterson et al. 2008; TRB 2008), slowing down flight operations (Peterson et al. 2008) Smoke effects on aircraft engines (Stewart et al. 2011) Incorporate the potential of climate change events into the existing systems of planning for irregular operations (Stewart et al. 2011) Sea Level Rise Rising water levels in coastal areas and rivers (Meyer 2011) All or part of airport In combination with incremental warming (NRC 2011), causing glacial melt coastal erosion and threat of inundation Closures of airports, including major ones, on coasts (TRB 2008) Damage to airports not designed or sited taking into consideration sea level rise Protect infrastructure with dikes and levees (Schwartz 2011) Elevate critical infrastructure (Schwartz 2011) Repairs, replacement, and re-design (Peterson et al. 2008; Stewart et al. 2011) TABlE 1 (continued) 22

Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure Sea Level Rise Rising water levels in coastal areas and rivers (Meyer 2011) All or part of airport In combination with subsidence and/or tidal actions, threat of inundation (Peterson et al. 2008) Airport closures or restrictions affecting airport operations (Love et al. 2010; TRB 2008) and airport emergency response role (Stewart et al. 2008) Salt damage to aircraft (Stewart et al. 2011) Inundation of airport runways in coastal areas (TRB 2008) Same as above, but in earlier timeframe At 40–100 years in the future, stringent design for flooding and for building in saturated soils (Meyer 2008) Sea Level Rise Rising water levels in coastal areas and rivers (Meyer 2011) All or part of airport In combination with possible increase in storm intensity and frequency, storm surge leading to flooding and inundation (Peterson et al. 2008) Airport closures or restrictions affecting airport operations (Love et al. 2010; TRB 2008) and airport emergency response role (Stewart et al. 2011) Salt damage to aircraft (Stewart et al. 2011) Inundation of airport runways in coastal areas (TRB 2008) Same as above, but in earlier timeframe Construction of storm retention basins for short, high-intensity storms; i.e., flash flooding (Schwartz 2011) Provide good evacuation routes and operational plans (Schwartz 2011) Over next 30–40 years, design changes to bridge height in vulnerable areas, more probabilistic approaches to predicting storm surges (Meyer 2008) At 40–100 years in the future, greater protection of infrastructure, changes for bridge design, both superstructure and foundations, change in material specifications, more protective strategies for critical components (Meyer 2008) Extreme Events Increased hurricane intensity (IPCC 2011) All Damage to exposed assets (TRB 2008) More frequent evacuations (TRB 2008) Pressure on cargo storage if cargo cannot leave site (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Damage and evacuations cause disruption to operations (TRB 2008) Increased handling of redirected flights from other airports (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Difficulties for employees, including safety crews, to get to work (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Damage to landside facilities (e.g., terminals, navigation aids, fencing around perimeters, signs) (TRB 2008) Build or reconstruct more robust and resilient structures (Schwartz 2011) Move critical infrastructure systems inland (Schwartz 2011) Abandon or move coastal transportation system (Schwartz 2011) Generally, future transportation planning account for projected change in coastlines (Peterson et al. 2008) TABlE 1 (continued) (continued on next page) 23

24 increased icing Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure precipitation, winds, wind- induced storm surge; (Peterson et al. 2008) greater wave height (Meyer 2008) fronts that lead to icing in some regions (Peterson et al. 2008) (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011; Stewart et al. 2011) operations (Stewart et al. 2011) Extreme Events Increase in winter storms, with increases in winds, waves Airfield and aircraft operations (Peterson et al. 2008; (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) With increased amplitude of temperature (e.g.,extreme cold) increase in winter storms in the northern mid-latitudes (IPCC 2011; TRB 2008) Dangerous flying, takeoff and landing conditions (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Staff and passenger health and safety risk (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Increase in de-icing needs (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Disruption in key supplies (aviation fuel, glycol, rock salt) (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Disruption of key access points and parking impede flow of passengers and staff (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Loss of use of infrastructure, causing disruption (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Planning for availability and readiness of equipment and supplies (salt/sand for roadways and parking areas, other materials for runways and taxiways) and that of partners (e.g., where airlines manage de-icing) (WIST 2002) Extreme Events More intense aspects of storms: precipitation, winds, wind- induced storm surge (Peterson et al. 2008) greater wave height (Meyer 2008) Aircraft Microbursts and gust fronts (Peterson et al. 2008) Delays (Peterson et al. 2008) Increased damage from foreign objects (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Progressively incorporate consideration of this risk factor into existing design specifications, asset management systems, and maintenance work systems (Stewart et al. 2011) Extreme Events More intense aspects of storms: Icing on aircraft (Peterson et al. 2008) Increase in intense extra-tropical storms may increase warm Water quality compliance from Incorporate the potential of climate change events into the existing systems of planning for irregular TABlE 1 (continued)

25 Climate Change Phenomenon Change in Environmental Condition Airport Asset or Activity Primary Impact Effect of Impact Illustrative Responses Operations and Interruptions Infrastructure Extreme Events More intense aspects of storms: precipitation, winds, wind- induced storm surge (Peterson et al. 2008) greater wave height (Meyer 2008) Aircraft; aircraft operations Hail (Peterson et al. 2008) Delays (Peterson et al. 2008; WIST 2002) Damage to aircraft (Peterson et al. 2008, WIST 2002) Progressively incorporate consideration of this risk factor into existing design specifications, asset management systems, and maintenance work systems (Stewart et al. 2011) Wind Loads Increases and decreases in wind speeds and loading Aircraft; ground transportation; ground structures (Peterson et al. 2008) More turbulence (Meyer 2008) More fuel burn when flying into the wind (Peterson 2008) Damage to structures (Love et al. 2010) Decreased wind speeds leading to increased longevity of wing tip vortices that endanger lighter aircraft, requiring aircraft separation (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Other than the likelihood of delays and rerouting (Love et al. 2010), the specific impacts and effects from climate change; Other than the likelihood of delays and rerouting (Love et al. 2011), the specific impacts and effects from climate change and wind are not yet e.g., on surface wind at airports and at flight levels, are not yet extensively assessed (Peterson et al. 2008; Pejovic et al. 2009a) extensively assessed (Peterson et al. 2008; Pejovic et al. 2009a). Hardening facilities for higher wind loads (e.g., building shell replacement, aerodynamic load analysis of building complexes, and extra tie-downs for aircraft and containers) (Stewart et al. 2011; Klin et al. 2011) Over the next 30–40 years, wind tunnel testing will have to consider more turbulent wind conditions, change in design factors (Meyer 2008) Wind Loads Change in prevailing wind Runway; operations (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Effect on runway utilization (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Backlog, delays, diversions, cancellations, and schedule changes (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011). Permanent change in prevailing wind could require realignment of runway direction (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Extreme Events More intense aspects of storms: precipitation, winds, wind- induced storm surge (Peterson et al. 2008) greater wave height (Meyer 2008) Ground operations Lightning (Peterson et al. 2008) Delays from suspension of refueling and other ground operations (Peterson et al. 2008; (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Delays from aircraft affected by lightning strike being taken out of service (Evaluating the Risk Assessment . . . 2011) Progressively incorporate consideration of this risk factor into existing design specifications, asset management systems, and maintenance work systems (Stewart et al. 2011) TABlE 1 (continued)

26 General Adaptation Guidance and Planning This category of resources includes “how-to” guidance relied on by state and local planners, and these types of guidance, tool-kits, and other instructional materials on climate change adaptation are quite numerous and widely available. As described in Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments (2007), prac- tices commonly cited include the selection of a champion and the proper governance structure for running a climate planning initiative, an analysis of metrics used in determin- ing the vulnerability or value of an asset, and how to evaluate subject matter experts, including climate scientists, needed for certain analyses. Transportation Sector Adaptation Many resources address climate impacts and adaptation plan- ning in the transportation sector in varying levels of regional or technical detail. An important finding in this review is that the transportation sector is represented predominantly by the highway sub-sector, which covers some, but not all, aspects of airport facilities. That said, there are examples in broader transportation planning that can be applied to the development of airport adaptation planning, including a 2011 article pub- lished by ASCE describing the asset inventory and high-level risk analysis conducted by the Port Authority of new York and new Jersey, “Anticipating Climate Change” (2011). Sources Focused on the General Airport Context Under Climate Change virtually all sources that address airports do so in the con- text of a larger report or research project. Other articles are narrowly focused and academic. Work products focusing on airport adaptation and resilience provide information and conclusions based on the professional judgment of aviation experts. The summary of adaptation planning efforts received by the government of the united Kingdom in response to required reporting provides a useful list of climate risks for reference and consideration, Evaluating the Risk Assess- ment of Adaptation Reports under the Adaptation Reporting Power: Aviation Sector Summary (2011). Sources Detailing Climate Risk Assessment and Other Decision Support Tools and Methodologies Many transportation sector sources describe risk assessment practices. FHWA has been a leader in developing methods and piloting their use in regions and cities, and its concep- tual climate risk assessment model is influential. A helpful resource is therefore Assessing Vulnerability and Risk of Climate Change Effects on Transportation Infrastructure: Pilot of the Conceptual Model (n.d.). The general approach to risk analysis, with minor variations from the FHWA model, includes defining the climate change variables and projections, setting baseline conditions (e.g., current stress- ors), developing asset inventories based on policy priorities, assessing vulnerabilities, analyzing risks, prioritizing the assets, and developing adaptation strategies. With respect to risk analysis, the traditional approach is followed, with risk as a function of the likelihood of occurrence and the grav- ity of the consequences. Metrics are developed to evaluate the magnitude of the consequences, and these may include capital and operating costs, effects on society, health, eco- nomics, and the environment. With respect to the likelihood of occurrence, one critical factor is whether there is a likeli- hood of occurrence of the impact in the lifetime of the asset. With limited data and guidance, the lifetime of the asset can be a subjective judgment that differs across and within asset classes; a good practice is to develop a quantitative scale for this purpose. In-depth studies of certain climate risks and methods for their analysis tend to be academic in nature. For example, there have been efforts at modeling the impact of weather events on flight delays in the atmosphere and those nearer to the ground. This is a new field and although the work product is often carefully qualified it can provide insights of use across diverse sectors and organizations. For example, a common insight is the type of observational data needed for meaningful analysis. Summary of Projected Climate Change Effects and Illustrative Adaptive Measures for Airports The literature contained significant information on projected climate change effects, impacts, and potential responses. Working from a table of categories of climate effects on trans- portation (Potential Impacts of Climate Change . . . 2008), this information from the literature review was organized into Table 1 for ease of review. survey responses results from a small survey of airport Leadership Sixteen individuals, each a senior executive, operational, or technical manager representing a single airport, responded to a 20-minute survey distributed to 20 airports (see Table D1 in Appendix D for information on the number of respondents that completed the first and the second set of questions). The survey had two parts: the first covered how airports address current weather-related disruptions, without regard to climate change, to gauge their capacity to address climate change, in the second part, airports responded to questions about projected climate change impacts. Most respondents (12 of 16, or 75%) stated that they thought airport disruptions related to weather were becom- ing more frequent or more intense, without attribution to cli- mate change or any other cause. A similar percentage was

27 concerned about the effect of climate change on their airport, citing heat waves, increases in storm intensity, and visibility as issues of most concern. Several drivers for considering climate change in decisions were identified by the respondents. The most cited driver was awareness raised from greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, and another of note was staff professional judgment, weather, and emergency management activities. Insurance and bonding requirements were not cited as much. u.K. respondents identified mandatory reporting requirements as an important driver. Appendix D describes the Survey Method. The survey text is in Appendix E, and Appendix F presents the results for each survey question. results relating to current weather As noted, 75% of the survey respondents (12 of 16) thought airport disruptions related to weather were becoming more frequent and/or more intense. Respondents were next asked to state whether their airport was considering ways to specifi- cally address more frequent or intense weather disruptions. Considering such action would indicate an awareness reflect- ing some level of adaptive capacity. If an airport was not considering ways to specifically address more frequent or intense disruptions from weather, the respondent’s obliga- tions were completed. Three of the 16 left at that point; the remaining 13 answered questions regarding their airports’ responses to current disruptions from weather. The most frequent weather-related disruption reported for 2010 was scheduling disruptions, with 11 of the 13 respon- dents (82%) reporting this issue. Figure 2 depicts the types of disruptions reported for 2010 and how many airports were affected. The airports also identified the effects or outcomes from weather-related disruptions. The one most frequently cited was lost revenue. When asked what resources they used to prevent, reduce, or otherwise address threats from weather, u.S. respondents gave a variety of answers, with the most common sources of funding being local funds and a budget line item for that purpose, as seen in Figure 3. Figure 4 depicts effects and outcomes from weather- related disruptions in 2010, for only 12 of the 13 respon- dents; one respondent could not answer the question. Slightly more than half reported a re-allocation of funding or human resources as an effect or outcome. As shown in Figure 4, five respondents reported that the effects or outcomes of a specific disruption from weather led to coordination with airport service providers. In response to another survey question, respondents listed the external stakeholders with which they worked to address weather disruptions and related impacts. Airlines were the most fre- quently cited external partner, while two airports reported that they did not work with any external partner. In 2010, several forms of physical damage occurred at the respondent airports during weather-related events. Figure 5 shows their frequency within this group of 13, with damage to the infrastructure relating to taxiways/runways, roads, and drainage cited most often. Asked if their airports keep records of increased or extra- ordinary maintenance caused by weather events, more than half (7 of 13) said they did not know, whereas 3 said no and 3 yes. Overall, 12 of the 13 respondents (92%) believed, “the airport could manage current weather variability adequately.” FIGURE 2 Weather-related disruptions in 2010, with number of respondents selecting each. FIGURE 3 Resources used by U.S. respondents to prevent, reduce, or otherwise address threats from weather.

28 results relating to climate change and related risks After completing questions about current weather, the 13 respondents were asked if they were familiar with the way climate is projected to change in their airport’s region. If a respondent replied “no” the survey was terminated. Two respondents replied in the negative, and the remain- ing 11 responded to in-depth questions about their activities regarding projected climate change. Respondents were presented with a list of climate change variables and told to consider four airport areas that can be affected by weather and climate change: 1. Airside 2. landside 3. The inter-modal transportation system 4. The local and regional geographic area. The respondents then answered two questions based on their personal knowledge or judgment: 1. For 2010, did the respondent’s airport experience a major disruption from weather (or events in the natu- ral environment caused by weather). Each respondent was to use the list of climate variables in the survey as a guide and record an answer for each airport area. The first column in Tables 2 and 3 show all responses to this question. 2. For 2030, do the respondents believe there would be increases in disruptions by that time frame for each of the given climate variables. Each respondent was to use the list of climate variables as a guide and record answers for each airport area. The second column in Tables 2 and 3 show all responses to this question. A 20-year difference was used because that is a typical planning horizon for u.S. airports, with 20 to 30 years seen as the farthest extent (Potential Impacts of Climate Change . . . 2008). Table 2 presents the results ranked by total responses, with the most frequently cited climate variable first. This pre- sentation highlights the areas of most concern currently, and those perceived as concerns for the future. The type and the scope of concern appears to shift from 2010 to the 2030 time frame, with snow and ice the primary concern in 2010, but and heat waves and high-intensity storms of more concern for 2030. Table 3 presents the same data as in Table 2, but it directly compares the number of responses for each climate and weather variable. The two columns are compared based on the highest ranked answer for the future; that is, the 2030 time frame. The respondent’s collective ranking of perceived FIGURE 4 Effects from weather-related disruptions in 2010, with number of respondents selecting each. FIGURE 5 Physical damage during weather and weather-related events in 2010.

29 TABlE 2 TOTAl RESPOnSES FOR EACH ClIMATE vARIABlE, RAnKED HIGHEST TO lOWEST, FOR THE 2010 AnD THE 2030 TIME FRAMES

30 TABlE 3 TOTAl RESPOnSES FOR EACH ClIMATE vARIABlE, RAnKED HIGHEST TO lOWEST, BASED On FuTuRE COnCERnS (2030)

31 next, given a list of climate risks, the 11 respondents indicated which risks their airport has addressed in planning (whether as a climate risk or not). Every risk was addressed by at least one airport, and one added an item to the list: air- field inundation (as opposed to flooding) from sea level rise. Table 4 divides the responses into three groups, based on the number of responses for each climate risk. Air traffic disrup- tion, physical damage from flooding, and decreases in infra- structure performance were those risks most often addressed. Although survey respondents had stated earlier that they are aware of the climate changes projected for their region, impacts in 2030 contrasts with those experienced in 2010, indicating an increased level of concern for certain variables; for example, high winds, in 2030. The results suggest that certain climatic changes, such as heat waves and wind changes, are expected to become more severe by this group of respondents, having influence over airport operations and planning. The greater number of responses relative to the airside business area suggests that the respondents are more likely to focus on impacts related to the airport’s immediate operations rather than those of rel- evance to the region. TABlE 4 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECTED ClIMATE CHAnGES THAT AIRPORTS MAY HAvE ADDRESSED In PlAnnInG

32 there were divergent views at this stage about the confidence they put into climate change information. Most respondents were only “Somewhat Satisfied” with climate change infor- mation (see Figure 6). In addition to varying opinions on climate change infor- mation, when respondents were asked if they were concerned about the impacts climate change could have on their air- port’s operations, all who answered the question registered some level of concern (see Figure 7). no respondent was “not concerned” or “extremely concerned.” Although most respondents registered some level of concern over climate change, the catalysts for considering climate risk at the airports varied among the respondents. The most common catalyst, cited by more than half the TABlE 5 InTEGRATIOn OF ClIMATE COnSIDERATIOnS InTO ORGAnIzATIOnAl PROCESSES FIGURE 6 Answers to the question: Are you satisfied with the climate science information your airport has available to use in future planning? FIGURE 7 Answers to the question: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not Concerned” and 5 being “Extremely Concerned” are you concerned about the impacts that climate change could have on your airport’s operation?

33 respondents, was the awareness raised from climate change mitigation efforts (e.g., carbon emissions reduction). The following are the catalysts the airports cited, from the most to least frequently cited. • Awareness raised by efforts on climate change mitiga- tion (e.g., carbon emissions reduction) (7) • Weather events and/or disruptions (6) • Employee professional judgment (5) • Required climate change analysis or reporting in a federal/ national, state, local, or other governmental program (4) • Insurance requirements (3) • Issues emerging from emergency response plans (3) • Bonding requirements (1) • Master plan forecasts (1) • Other (incorporation in assessment of infrastructure for safety purposes; i.e., seismic and flood control) (1) • Master plan work, not including forecasts (0). The tools or resources used when airports considered cli- mate change fell into a handful of categories. Some used more than one approach, and three replied that they did not use any tool or resource. The following is the entire list of tools and resources cited by the eight respondents that use tools and resources, from most to least frequently cited: • Climate impact and/or vulnerability assessment (6) • Education or training (4) • Existing risk management processes (3) • Full inventory of infrastructure/assets, including qual- ity assessment (3) • Scenario planning (2) • Participation in a community-wide climate change adaptation process (1). Table 5 lists areas where the surveyed airports have integrated analysis of projected climate change impacts and/ or related future risks into their organizational processes. In 2011, the united Kingdom required reporting on climate adap- tation planning, which was not required in the united States or Canada. Therefore, Table 5 lists the survey results by country. With respect to disaster management and emergency response, Table 5 indicates that 3 of 11 airports have integrated analysis of projected climate change impacts and/or related, future risks into organizational processes in that area. Six of the 11 believe emergency planning processes are a satisfac- tory method for addressing future climate change risks, as indicated in Figure 8. In contrast, a larger majority within this same group, 7 of 11 respondents rejected the use of irregular operations as a method for addressing future climate change risks. These respondents believed irregular operations were not a satisfac- tory method for addressing future climate risks, although four thought it was. Almost all respondents (10 of 11) agreed that climate change adaptation required investment in capital expenditures as well as operations and maintenance. Only one respondent reported capital expenditures alone were the appropriate means for investing in adaptation. FIGURE 8 Answers to the question: Do you feel emergency planning processes are a satisfactory method for addressing future climate change risks?

Next: Chapter Four - Climate Risks and Adaptation and Resilience and Activities »
Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 33: Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience reviews the range of risks to airports from projected climate change and the emerging approaches for handling them.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!