Airport Sustainability Practices—Drivers and Outcomes for Small Commercial and General Aviation Airports (2016)

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.

36 This chapter presents a synthesis of current practice as it relates to sustainable initiatives pursued by small airports throughout the United States. The chapter first presents the entire survey results on a nationwide basis and then presents types of projects, outcomes, and drivers on the basis of FAA regions. This is for the benefit of airport staff interested in results for airports in their FAA region. The parameters differ by FAA region. Fully 303 of 340 airports (representing an 89% response rate) participated in this Synthesis. Adopted initiatives represent one or more of the following categories: • Socioeconomic benefits (health/welfare of employees) and community outreach/involvement • Economic vitality/operational efficiency • Air quality enhancement/climate change • Energy conservation/renewable energy • Noise abatement • Water quality protection and water conservation • Land and natural resources management • Land/property use • Pavement management • Materials use and solid waste reduction/recycling • Hazardous materials and waste management/reduction • Surface transportation management • Buildings/facilities. AIRPORTS WITH SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES Sustainable Projects Nationwide Of the 303 airports participating in the survey, 189 (representing 63%) have adopted at least one sus- tainable initiative. The most common sustainable initiative is in the category of energy conservation/ renewable energy (reported by 155 airports, representing 82% of the 189 airports with sustainable initiatives). The next most common category of sustainable initiatives is water quality protection and water conservation (79, representing 42%) and then materials use and solid waste reduction/ recycling (68, representing 36%) (Figure 20). Regions There were differences among the nine FAA regions, as presented in Table 20 and Figure 21. In the category of buildings/facilities, not many airports pursued sustainable initiatives. Only the regions of Great Lakes, New England, and Western Pacific reported sustainable initiatives in this category. In the category of hazardous materials and waste management/reduction, more airports reported sustainable initiatives. All regions reported efforts in this area, with the exception of the Alaskan. The Great Lakes and Eastern regions are more active in this category. chapter five SURVEY RESULTS

37 In the category of materials use and solid waste reduction/recycling, all regions reported sustain- able initiatives. The Southern and Western Pacific regions are more active in this category. In the category of pavement management, only three regions reported sustainable initiatives. A handful of airports in the Great Lakes, Southwest, and Western Pacific regions have pursued sustain- able initiatives in this category. In the category of land and property use, only three regions reported sustainable initiatives. A small number of airports in the Great Lakes, Southern, and Southwest regions have pursued sustain- able initiatives in this category. In the category of land and natural resources, five regions reported sustainable initiatives. Sixteen airports in the regions of Eastern, Northwest Mountain, Southern, Southwest, and Western Pacific have pursued sustainable initiatives in this category. In the category of water quality protection and conservation, all regions except the Alaskan reported sustainable initiatives. This proved to be a favorite category, with a total of 78 airports among eight regions reporting initiatives. In the New England region, this category was as prominent as the energy conservation/renewable energy category. 8 6 155 14 79 16 4 5 68 34 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Economic vitality/operational efficiency Air quality enhancement/climate change Energy conservation/renewable energy Noise abatement Water quality protection and water… Land and natural resources management Land/property use Pavement management Materials use and solid waste… Hazardous materials and waste… Buildings/facilities Number of Responses Ca te go ry Categories of Sustainable Initiatives – Nationwide FIGURE 20 Categories of sustainable initiatives—nationwide (Source: D. Prather 2016). AlaskanCategory Central Eastern Great Lakes New England NW Mountain Southern Southwest W Pacific Buildings/facilies 1 2 2 Hazardous materials and waste management 3 8 11 2 1 3 2 3 Materials use and solid waste/recycling 1 5 7 10 5 3 15 6 14 Pavement management 1 2 2 Land/property use 1 2 2 Land and natural resources 5 1 4 2 4 Water quality protec on/conserva on 5 14 17 7 5 14 7 9 Noise abatement 4 1 1 2 1 5 Energy conserva on/renewable energy 4 11 23 25 7 16 27 19 19 Air quality enhancement/climate change 1 1 1 1 1 Economic vitality/opera onal efficiency 2 1 4 1 TABLE 20 SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVE CATEGORIES IN USE BY FAA REGION

38 In the category of noise abatement, six regions reported sustainable initiatives. Even so, only 14 airports among these six regions have pursued sustainable initiatives in this category. In the category of energy conservation and renewable energy, every region reported sustain- able initiatives. This category represented more than 50% of sustainable initiatives reported in the Alaskan and Northwest Mountain regions. It represented at least 30% of sustainable initiatives in the remaining regions, except the New England region. This category represented the single most noted category in which airports are pursuing sustainable initiatives in each FAA region. In the category of air quality enhancement/climate change, five airports in as many regions reported sustainable initiatives. The five regions are Alaskan, Eastern, Great Lakes, Northwest Mountain, and Western Pacific. In the category of economic vitality/operational efficiency, eight airports in four regions reported sustainable initiatives. These four regions are New England, Northwest Mountain, Southern, and Western Pacific. Drivers and Outcomes Drivers are the motivating factors that lead an airport to pursue a sustainable initiative. Outcomes are the results of those sustainable initiatives. To enable comparison of drivers and outcomes, the categories for both in the survey were the same. Often, the driver that motived the airport is identical to the outcome the airport experienced. Alaskan Central Eastern Great Lakes New England Northwest Mtn Southern Southwest Western Pacific 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Bu ild in gs /… H az ar do u… M at er ia ls … Pa ve m en t… La nd /p ro … La nd a nd … W at er … N oi se … En er gy … A ir q ua lit y… Ec on om ic … Alaskan Central Eastern Great Lakes New England Northwest Mtn Southern Southwest Western Pacific FIGURE 21 Categories by region (Source: D. Prather 2016).

39 Economic Vitality and Operational Efficiency Three drivers and identical outcomes were reported by airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of economic vitality/operational efficiency. The most common driver and outcome are cost reductions. Additional driver and outcomes are improved sustainability performance and reduction in maintenance hours (Figure 22). Air Quality Enhancement and Climate Change Five drivers and identical outcomes were reported by airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of air quality enhancement/climate change. The most common driver and outcome is addressing global concerns. Additional drivers and outcomes reported are management confi- dence, reduction in maintenance/man hours, cost reductions, and improved sustainability perfor- mance (Figure 23). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed Officials Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Economic Vitality Outcomes Drivers 10 FIGURE 22 Drivers and outcomes—economic vitality and operational efficiency (Source: D. Prather 2016). 0 987654321 10 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Air Quality Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 23 Drivers and outcomes—air quality enhancement/climate change (Source: D. Prather 2016).

40 Pavement Management Three drivers and identical outcomes were reported by airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of pavement management. The most common driver and outcome is improved sustain- ability performance. Additional drivers and outcomes include addressing global concerns and risk reduction (Figure 24). Materials Use and Solid Waste Reduction/Recycling Four drivers and identical outcomes were reported by airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of materials use and solid waste reduction/recycling. An additional driver was reported without a match- ing outcome. The most common driver and outcome reported is addressing global concerns. Additional drivers and outcomes are revenue increases, management confidence, and improved sustainability performance. One driver that is not also reported as an outcome is cost reductions (Figure 25). Land and Natural Resources Management Four drivers and identical outcomes were reported by airports with sustainable initiatives in the cat- egory of land and natural resources management. The two most common drivers and identical out- comes are compliance and addressing global concerns. One additional driver and identical outcome 0 987654321 10 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Pavement Management Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 24 Drivers and outcomes—pavement management (Source: D. Prather 2016). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Materials Use Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 25 Drivers and outcomes—materials use and solid waste reduction (Source: D. Prather 2016).

41 is management confidence. One outcome that was not also reported as a driver is neighbors and community. This final finding means that neighbor and community relations were improved but were not expected (Figure 26). Land/Property Use Airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of land/property use reported only one driver and identical outcome. Addressing global concerns was the only driver and outcome reported (Figure 27). Buildings/Facilities Airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of buildings/facilities reported only one driver, with an identical outcome. Improved sustainability performance was the only driver/outcome reported (Figure 28). Hazardous Materials and Waste Management/Reduction Airports with sustainable initiatives in the category of hazardous materials and waste management/ reduction reported two drivers and identical outcomes. The most commonly reported driver/outcome was addressing global concerns. The other remaining driver/outcome was compliance (Figure 29). 2 4 6 8 10 12 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Land and Natural Resources Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 26 Drivers and outcomes—land and natural resource management (Source: D. Prather 2016). 1 65432 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Land/Property Use Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 27 Drivers and outcomes—land/property use (Source: D. Prather 2016).

42 Noise Abatement Airports with one or more sustainable initiatives in the category of noise abatement reported sev- eral drivers and outcomes. In general, the drivers were identical to outcomes. The three most com- monly reported drivers and outcomes were reduction in maintenance/man hours, cost reductions, and improved sustainability performance. Addressing global concerns was also listed as a driver and outcome. Risk reduction, although not identified as a driver, was listed as an outcome (Figure 30). Water Quality Protection and Water Conservation Airports with one or more sustainable initiatives in the category of water quality protection and water conservation reported four divers with identical outcomes. The most commonly reported driver and outcome was compliance. Additional drivers and outcomes were addressing global concerns, cost reductions, and improved sustainability performance (Figure 31). Energy Conservation/Renewable Energy The most prominent category of sustainable initiatives at small airports, energy conservation/ renewable energy, is associated with three drivers and identical outcomes. The most commonly reported driver and outcome was cost reductions. Additional drivers/outcomes were reduction in maintenance/man hours and improved sustainability performance (Figure 32). 2 3 4 51 6 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Buildings/Facilities Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 28 Drivers and outcomes—buildings/facilities (Source: D. Prather 2016). 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Hazardous Materials and Waste Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 29 Drivers and outcomes—hazardous materials and waste management/ reduction (Source: D. Prather 2016).

43 2 864 10 12 14 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Noise Abatement Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 30 Drivers and outcomes—noise abatement (Source: D. Prather 2016). 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Water Quality Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 31 Drivers and outcomes—water quality protection and water conservation (Source: D. Prather 2016). 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compliance Improved Sustainability Performance Cost Reductions Reduction in Maintenance/Man Hours Neighbors and Community Leadership in Industry Management Confidence Confidence of Elected and Appointed… Risk Reduction Protection of Environmentally Sensitive… Revenue Increases Addressing Global Concerns Improved Tenant and Customer Relations Improved Employee Relations Improved Relations with Environmental… Number of Responses Ca te go ry Drivers and Outcomes – Energy Conservation Outcomes Drivers FIGURE 32 Drivers and outcomes—energy conservation/renewable energy (Source: D. Prather 2016).

44 Metrics When asked how outcomes from sustainable initiatives were measured, several common themes emerged. These themes are: • Utility bills • Maintenance costs • Maintenance/man hours • Usage • Wildlife hazards • Life of equipment/parts. In general, to track long-term project success, cost savings over time was a commonly used measure. One hundred seven participating airports responded with this identical long-term measure (representing 57% of the 189 participating airports with sustainable initiatives). Expectations Versus Actual Benefits Realized When asked if sustainable projects met expectations as far as benefits realized, 93 participating airports responded in the affirmative. In other words, for these airports, the outcomes closely matched the drivers. This is true across categories and initiatives. Of the 95 participating airports that answered this question, only one indicated their sustainable initiatives did not meet expecta- tions, indicating that most often, sustainable initiatives are successfully meeting the expectations airports have in pursuing these initiatives in the first place. Lessons Learned Depending on the airport, different measures may be more successful than others. Size of airport, geographic area, and sustainable goals affect the initiative undertaken and the degree of success enjoyed. Lessons learned from the study, including the literature, include: • It is less expensive to build sustainability into a project than retrofit later. • There is a general lack of understanding about sustainability among small airport staff. • An airport does not have to develop a sustainability master plan to implement sustainable initiatives. • Many sustainable initiatives at small airports are in place not because the airport wanted them but because the municipality did. The airport was part of a larger project. • Whether or not airport staff believe their airport has environmental impact, sustainability is an option. • A business case can be made for sustainability. • Sustainability is a mind-set. What is a better, more efficient, way to do this? • Good planning needs to be sustainable. • Sustainability can be part of any airport’s portfolio. • Environmental, although the first piece generally recognized, is only one piece of sustainability. • There is great deal of literature available on sustainability that staff of small airports may not be aware of. • Many airports have implemented energy efficiency measures, with energy, water, and materials the top three. • Staff of small airports may be unaware of sustainability definitions, think sustainability initia- tives cost too much, and think their airport does not have any impact on the environment. Twenty-five participating airports provided anecdotes and comments on lessons learned from their sustainability experiences. These lessons, grouped by category of sustainable initiative, are shared here. Note that duplicate comments have been removed. • Economic vitality/operational efficiency – The importance of patience, cooperation, and compromise. – Our state spends a lot on compliance.

45 – Airports are like households. You have to pick and choose what you need/can afford. If you can’t afford a Lamborghini, don’t buy one. – Retrofitting is expensive. Choose efficiency during construction. – Use reliable products and products best for the region. – Not much cost reduction but have seen maintenance reduction. – Small city airport. Not worth investing in sustainability. • Air quality enhancement/climate change – Try to be as conscious of the environment as possible. • Energy conservation/renewable energy – Not yet seen cost reduction in LED. – Like LEDs. Want to switch all lights in the future. – Old lights were from 1973, so LEDs are much better. Looking into LED taxiway. – Hoping for LED in future depending on AIP from FAA. – Will replace runway with LED when lights get old. – Trying to switch buildings and runway to LED. – LEDs don’t melt snow so wouldn’t work there. Want solar but would need a grant. – Stainless fixtures are not a good choice for ocean areas. Cannot withstand salt. – Efficient lighting has cut costs by $200/month, and lighting is much better. – Changing all lights to LED eventually. – LEDs don’t emit heat, an important consideration in areas receiving cold temperatures. – Had LEDs, but they were problematic. – Not yet seen cost reduction in LED, but they stay brighter – FAA is behind the curve on setting standards for LEDs—still haven’t made up their minds. • Pavement management – In future will change to recycle pavement for redoing runway. Funding and Payback As specified in chapter three, there are multiple sources of funds to support sustainable initiatives at airports. Funds for sustainable initiatives, although not always available, generally are secured from the following sources: • FAA • State Department of Transportation Aeronautics/Aviation • Local municipality • Utility company • State energy/environmental protection. Most sustainable projects have a payback period, which depends on the initial capital investment, ongoing costs, funding received, and the revenue or cost savings generated by the project. Installing motion sensors on lighting in restrooms may have a short payback period, whereas hosting the commu- nity for an open-house event to learn more about the airport’s master planning update process may have a much longer payback period. Indeed, depending on the initiative, payback may be difficult to measure. Barriers Most participating airports shared barriers to implementing sustainable projects. For example, barriers include not only costs but also competing priorities. Possibly the greatest barrier and one that is not nec- essarily understood is the need for a changed mind-set. According to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI 2011, p. 6), “One of the key challenges of sustainable development is that it demands new and innovative choices and ways of thinking.” To develop strategies to overcome barriers and ensure project success, it is important to be aware of common barriers. Themes of commonly reported barriers were shared by 166 survey participants (representing 88% of airports with sustainable initiatives). The themes include: • Funding • Lack of political will (champion)

46 • Different priorities • Costs • Lack of matching funds • Unaware of grant opportunities. It is important for an airport pursuing a sustainable initiative to perform the necessary research so that funding sources are known, costs are understood, and supporters can be nurtured. It is important to note that although developing a sustainability plan may prove beneficial, an airport may implement sustainable initiatives without having a formal sustainability plan in place. Staff of small airports need not let the perceived obstacle of developing a sustainability plan or sustainability master plan interfere with their efforts to be sustainable. Reasons for Not Pursuing Sustainable Initiatives When asked why more small airports do not implement sustainable projects, 171 participating airports (representing 91% of airports with sustainable initiatives) responded. Common themes include: • No need • Costs • Funding • Minimal staff • Unaware of grants • Lack of matching funds • Different priorities • Too small of an airport • Too little airport activity • Small budget. Encouragement for Small Airports to Consider Sustainable Initiatives In an effort to seek encouragement for staff of small airports to pursue sustainable initiatives, partici- pating airports were asked, “How can small airports be encouraged to be more sustainably focused?” Responses were gathered from 139 participating airports (representing 74% of participating airports with sustainable initiatives). Common themes emerged, including: • More funding • More incentives • More education on benefits of sustainability • More education on cost/benefits of sustainability • Example set by peer airports • Ease application requirements for sustainability grants • Communication of sustainability plans by municipalities to airport. AIRPORTS WITHOUT SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES Future Sustainable Plans In an effort to determine if the 113 participating airports not yet having adopted one or more sustain- able initiatives had plans to pursue sustainable initiatives in the future, these airports were asked, “Does your airport have plans to implement any sustainable initiatives in the near future?” Ninety- one (representing 80%) answered in the negative, whereas 23 (representing 20%) responded affir- matively. Thus, approximately one of five of these airports has plans to pursue sustainable initiatives in the near future.

47 Twenty-three of these airports shared the types of projects they plan to pursue, including: • LED lighting • LED windsock • Energy-efficient building • Pilot-activated airfield lighting • Refurbishing pavement • Energy-efficient terminal lighting • Energy-efficient ramp lighting • PV solar panels. When asked why these airports were motivated to pursue these initiatives in the future, 20 airports responded with several themes: • Cost reduction • Energy efficiency • Increased safety • Maintenance reduction • Longevity • Quality • Reliability. These 20 airports also shared the benefits they expect to receive in pursuing these sustainable initiatives. Themes include: • Cost savings • Increased efficiency • Greater safety • Usage reduction • Reduced maintenance expenses and time • Revenue generation • Increased longevity. Reasons for Not Pursuing Sustainable Initiatives Ninety-two of the 113 participating airports (representing 81%) that have not yet pursued sustainable initiatives shared their reasons for not yet having done so. Common themes include: • Small airport • Little to no environmental impact • Different priorities • Sustainability costs too much • Small budget • No cost–benefit to sustainability • More focused on operational costs • Not required by regulatory agency. When asked what would convince airport staff to begin a sustainable project at their airport, 87 of the 113 participating airports (representing 77%) without sustainable initiatives responded. Common themes include: • More funding • More federal grants • Neighbors expressing environmental concerns and demanding airport action • Financial return on costs • More aircraft activity.

48 Eighty-four of these airports (representing 75%) shared negative drivers they associate with sustainable projects at airports of their size. Common negative drivers include: • Cost • Lack of AIP funding. Clearly, the cost of sustainability is the most significant and commonly reported negative driver. Participating airports not yet having pursued sustainable initiatives were also presented five state- ments to which they were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with. These statements were designed to determine (1) an airport’s awareness of sustainability benefits, (2) the perceived impact that airport has on the environment, (3) whether or not environmental sustainability is a priority, and (4) if environmental sustainability is perceived to cost too much and have too long of a payback period. Responses are presented in Figure 33 and Table 21. The staff of most small airports that have not implemented sustainable initiatives responded that their airport has little impact on the environment. Although sustainability is much more than environmen- tal sustainability, this belief leads them to not make sustainability a priority, believing it costs too much and has too long of a payback period. Regions Among the various FAA regions, airports express differing views on sustainability (Table 22 and Figure 34). First, across regions (except the Alaskan and Central) there is a general lack of familiar- ity with the concept of the triple bottom line. In the Alaskan region 82% of airports surveyed were familiar with the triple bottom line, and in the Central region 67% were familiar with the concept. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 I am familiar with the triple bottom line. Our airport has little impact on the environment. Environmental sustainability is not a priority for us. Environmental sustainability costs too much. Environmental sustainability has too long of a payback period. Number of Responses St at em en t Views on Environmental Sustainability It Depends Disagree Agree FIGURE 33 Views on environmental sustainability (Source: D. Prather 2016). Agree Statement Disagree It Depends I am familiar with the triple bottom line. 61 49 1 Our airport has little impact on the environment. 107 4 0 Environmental sustainability is not a priority for us. 93 8 4 Environmental sustainability costs too much. 90 2 13 Environmental sustainability has too long of a payback period. 87 1 8 TABLE 21 AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ON SUSTAINABILITY, BY AIRPORTS NOT YET PURSUING INITIATIVES

49 Airport staff in all regions believe their airports have little impact on the environment. Six regions had 100% agreement with this statement. This was generally because of the size and geographic location (often rural in nature) of these airports. Airport staff in all regions believe that environmental sustainability is not a priority. However, fewer airports (50% and 56%, respectively) in the Eastern and Southern regions share this sentiment. Airport staff in all regions believe that environmental sustainability costs too much. However, only 33% of airports in the Great Lakes region share this sentiment. Four regions had 100% agree- ment with this statement. Airport staff in all regions also believe that environmental sustainability has too long a payback period. Five regions had 100% agreement with this statement. These data show that there is a general lack of awareness of and interest in sustainability among small airports, specifically as it relates to the more common concept of environmental sustainability. Statement Alaskan (%) Central (%) Eastern (%) Great Lakes (%) New England (%) Northwest Mountain (%) Southern (%) Southwest (%) Western Pacific (%) I am familiar with the triple boom line. 82 67 0 0 0 20 0 21 17 Our airport has lile impact on the environment. 98 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 83 Environmental sustainability is not a priority for us. 94 100 50 100 100 75 56 83 100 Environmental sustainability costs too much. 91 100 100 33 100 75 100 67 67 Environmental sustainability has too long of a payback period. 100 100 100 67 100 75 100 67 50 TABLE 22 AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ON SUSTAINABILITY BY REGION 0 25 50 75 100 Alaskan Central Eastern Great Lakes New England Northwest Mountain Southern Southwest Western Pacific Pe rc en t i n Ag re em en t FAA Regions Agreement with Sustainability Statements by Region I am familiar with the triple bottom line. Our airport has little impact on the environment. Environmental sustainability is not a priority for us. Environmental sustainability costs too much. Environmental sustainability has too long of a payback period. FIGURE 34 Agreement with sustainability statements by region (Source: D. Prather 2016).

50 Forty-seven airports (representing 17% of respondents) reported having a formal sustainability plan or program. Twenty airports shared benefits of having such a plan in the following themes: • adherence to guidelines, • prioritization in use of funds, • FAA preference, • environmental benefits, • minimization of liability, and • facilitation of environmental review for each project. AIRPORT SURVEY COMMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED Participating airports were provided an opportunity at the end of the survey to share lessons learned or any additional words of wisdom. Half of the airports (representing 151 actual responses) shared lessons learned. Actual comments are grouped into themes and presented here. Duplicate comments have been removed. • Sustainability planning – Not sure about sustainability plan but probably because it was written by an engineer. – Attention in master toward triple bottom line. – Will consider sustainability plan in future. – Master may include sustainability. – In future will make sustainability plan. – Next year will create a sustainability plan. – May create sustainability plan in the future. – In process of updating master. – Master needs to be updated. – Will consider sustainability plan in future with more funding. – Soon will have environmental plan. – Not a master plan type of airport. – Will consider sustainability plan in future. – Would consider formal sustainability plan if granted. – Not sure what the environmental section covers. – Going to renew environmental impact study. – Will consider sustainability plan in future. – Master has an overview of environmentally sensitive areas. – Will consider sustainability plan in future (2017). – Didn’t know about grants before you called. – May create sustainability plan in the future. – Master plan includes environment. – In process of creating sustainability plan. – Would like to have a sustainability plan in the future if they grow. – Sustainability plan would not work here. – Still updating—will try to incorporate environment into master. – County itself has sustainability group. – Will consider sustainability plan in future—not sure what it would mean. – Lacking in long-term planning. – All planning is up to the city. – Yes to sustainability plan in future. – Working on environmental plan. – Plan is not financially beneficial but keeps you out of trouble later. – Included sustainability in ALP. – Contract sustainability out. – Have environmental section in master. – In future ALP will have sustainability addressed. – In 2016 master will include environment.

51 – Environment included in the strategic business plan. – Master includes potential impact on the environment only. • Future projects – New sustainable building scheduled 2016. – Want to renovate terminal and make it as efficient as possible. – May try for solar in 5–10 years. – Have grant to change lights to LED in 2 years. – Want to redo runway in 2–3 years—grant dependent. – Changing runway and parking lot to LED; 25% local funds. – AIP in 5 years—LED. State funded. • Funding – Applied for LED grant. – Most small airports are broke. – It would be extremely expensive to create a sustainability plan. – 16% budget reduction from state. – Grants have too many regulations. – Wants sustainability but has no money. – Wanted LED but too expensive. – In future with more funding would make sustainability plan. • Priorities and support – Elected officials are only in office for 4 years and want to spend as little money as possible. Taxpayers don’t want to see their money spent at airports. – Sustainability is not a priority. – Our state doesn’t value airports. – Our state is pro-conservation. – Airport too small for environment to be priority. – If there was a demand for sustainability we would comply. – State handles sustainability. – Very interested in protecting environment. – Need to start running airports like a business and not a boys club. – We try to get the community involved and invite them to events at the airport, which is a way to make the community not have negative feelings toward airports. – We have to be responsible for humanity. – Wasn’t aware FAA had approved LEDs. – City specifications are too high. – People are resentful toward funding airports. They think they are only useful for the rich. – Have state-mandated air quality and noise analysis. These comments further validate survey responses, including findings that small airports are concerned with costs, have small staff, and generally have little aircraft activity. In addition, findings reveal that: • Sustainability is more than environmental initiatives. • There is a lack of awareness among staff of small airports about the types of sustainable initiatives that may be pursued to enhance the triple bottom line. • Funding is available to support sustainable initiatives. • More small airports are considering sustainable initiatives.