Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports (2020)

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.

96 Airport Workshop Summaries A P P E N D I X E As part of this project, the research team conducted in-person workshops with three partner airports in order to gather input on the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology overall, as well as the qualitative and quantitative indicators included in the approach. These workshops were critical to ensure that the QOL assessment process is sufficiently robust and flexible to meet the needs of airports and their stakeholders. Input gathered from the workshop participants (including internal airport and external community member stakeholders) was used to refine the methodology and the draft list of indicators. This appendix provides a brief summary of each workshop. Purpose and Objectives of Workshops Three partner airports—including Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Tampa International Airport, and Portland International Jetport—volunteered to assist the research team by hosting half-day workshops with internal and external stakeholders to critically review and discuss the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology. Workshops were held during the summer of 2019, with all discussions facilitated by members of the research team. Key contacts at the airports worked with the research team to identify and convene a group of volunteer stakeholders for each workshop. The objective of these workshops was not to conduct a QOL assessment for the airport and its surrounding communities but, rather, to gather input on the proposed Quality of Life Assessment Methodology for refinement. During each workshop, participants had the opportunity to discuss the appropriateness and scope of the proposed qualitative QOL indicators in both small and large group settings. They also engaged in discussions concerning the ability of the methodology to capture critical information for a holistic QOL assessment. They considered the ability of the weighting process to account for the importance of each indicator and provided suggestions for how to refine the tool (e.g., revising existing indicators and adding new indicators). Each workshop included the following: An overview of the project objective, Discussion of the airport in the context of the community, Introductions by the participants and the research team, Discussion of each participant’s views on critical components of quality of life and priorities, E.1

Airport Workshop Summaries 97 Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport Workshop The workshop at Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport was held on Monday, June 24, 2019. Research team members who attended in person included Katherine Preston (HMMH), Julie Blue (ERG), Rebecca DeVries (ERG), and Jim Crites. Key contacts for the airport included environmental program managers and community engagement and external affairs professionals. Over 30 external stakeholders from surrounding communities and organizations were invited to participate in the workshop, including the following (stakeholders with asterisks attended the workshop): North Central Texas Council of Governments* City of Arlington City of Coppell* City of Euless City of Grand Prairie City of Grapevine City of Irving City of Lewisville City of Southlake Town of Flower Mound* Town of Trophy Club Town of Westlake As previously mentioned, participants were asked to reflect on what QOL means to them and their community before providing input on the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology. Figure E-1 presents a word cloud illustrating key words that were mentioned when describing QOL from each participant’s perspective. In this figure, the size of each word indicates the frequency with which a specific word was mentioned during the opening roundtable discussion. Words that appear in a larger font represent those mentioned with a greater frequency (e.g., safety, public transportation, and community engagement) than those appearing in a smaller font (e.g., population growth, amenities, and air quality). E.2 Overview and discussion of the draft assessment methodology, Small group discussions on a subset of the qualitative indicators, Discussion on the appropriateness of the selected indicators and any data gaps, Discussion of potential approaches to encouraging collaboration between the airport and community in applying the methodology, and Exchange of ideas concerning the resulting data and what stories it could tell. The following sections present a high-level summary of each workshop.

98 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports Figure E-1. Word cloud on quality of life for Dallas–Fort Worth workshop participants (Source: Word cloud generated by inputting key words from the workshop into free tool available at WordArt.com). The following items represent key discussion points that the research team considered when refining the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology: Feedback on Methodology A participant questioned the sample size necessary for obtaining accurate results and expressed concern about the importance score, citing that one person’s ranking of importance might differ from another person’s ranking. The participant also encouraged the research team to include guidance on how to administer the questionnaire in the guidebook. Another participant noted that airports will have to manage the perception that these assessments might be biased. Having a larger group involved (rather than just the airport) might make the community more willing to “trust” the results of the QOL assessment. The Council of Governments may choose to undertake the assessment for a variety of reasons. Participants strongly agreed with the use of four response options in the survey, noting their own experiences administering surveys. For example, a participant mentioned a prior survey that included five response options for which most participants selected the middle option, which ultimately was not very informative. Participants encouraged the research team to clearly state the goal of conducting a QOL assessment in the guidebook, noting that it is not to compare QOL scores across airports. Participants felt that the quadrant plot visualization would be very useful for strategic planning. Participants expressed some concern that the length of the survey may deter individuals from completing the entire survey, noting the potential for survey fatigue. This further underscored the importance of clearly defining what a QOL assessment is trying to accomplish to all stakeholders and survey participants. Workshop participants suggested focus groups prior to a QOL assessment to address this concern.

Airport Workshop Summaries 99 Feedback on Qualitative Indicators The workshop participants provided input on all the qualitative indicators during the meeting. This input was combined with the input of the other two airport workshops to revise the methodology and indicator list. Feedback on Demographic Questions Participants noted that demographic information may be problematic for some individuals to share and suggested that survey respondents be allowed to skip any question that they are not comfortable answering. General Comments/Considerations Participants noted that data collection should probably be conducted by a third party to ensure data security. Participants discussed how the relationship between the community and the airport, including stakeholder perceptions of the airport, are influenced by a variety of factors. If someone does not use the airport and has a negative view of it, there is additional opportunity for engagement to inform them of the indirect positive impacts that the airport may have on them. Broadly speaking, the airport has a great interest in determining what the public cares about and how this can inform their actions. Participants mentioned several potential end uses of the QOL assessment results, such as helping the airport to identify priorities in the community, developing more relevant reports, and better engaging with the local community. The results can also help “tell a story” in their Annual Social Governance Report with a better understanding of community concerns and interests. Airports can use this information to understand the desires of the community, improve or positively impact critical issues of the community, and avoid unintentional negative impacts of airport actions on the community. Tampa International Airport The workshop at Tampa International Airport (TPA) was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2019. Research team members who attended in person included Katherine Preston (HMMH), Julie Blue (ERG), and Rebecca DeVries (ERG). The primary contact for the airport was the sustainability and wellness manager. Other airport staff who assisted in the organization of the workshop included communications, human resources and government affairs staff. Close to 30 external stakeholders from surrounding communities and organizations were invited to participate in the workshop, including representatives of the following (stakeholders with asterisks participated in the workshop): City of Tampa, Economic and Urban Development Department* Tampa Chamber of Commerce Clearwater Chamber of Commerce St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority E.3

100 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports Florida Dept. of Transportation District 7 Dana Shores Civic Association* Carrollwood neighborhood Sunset Park Homeowners Association* Beach Park neighborhood Drew Park Community Redevelopment Area Tampa Homeowners: An Association of Neighborhoods Pinellas County Administrator Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)* Hillsborough County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Pinellas County Economic Development* Hillsborough County Administrator Hillsborough County MPO and Planning Commission* Hillsborough County Schools University of South Florida Tampa Downtown Partnership Hillsborough Community College University of Tampa WestShore Alliance Visit St. Pete/Clearwater Tampa Bay Partnership Visit Tampa Bay As previously described, the half-day workshop began with an introduction to the project, roundtable introductions and discussion of what QOL means to each participant, and a brief presentation from airport personnel covering background of the airport and, in this case, introducing the airport’s sustainability program. They noted recent initiatives in TPA’s sustainability program, which are expanding to emphasize the social and economic sides of sustainability, as well. Figure E-2 presents a word cloud illustrating key words that were mentioned when describing QOL from each participant’s perspective. Examples of words that rose to the top include community partnerships, affordability, flight paths, noise, jobs, and housing.

Airport Workshop Summaries 101 Figure E-2. Word cloud on quality of life for Tampa International Airport workshop participants. (Source: Word cloud generated by inputting key words from the workshop into free tool available at WordArt.com). The following items represent key discussion points considered when refining the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology: Workshop Preparation and Organization TPA reached out to an extensive list of stakeholders for this workshop, including school boards, neighborhood associations, development councils, and more. The list was derived from a stakeholder list used for TPA’s Master Outreach Plan. Similar sources could be considered by other airports as a starting point when drafting a list of stakeholders. Methodology Feedback A participant was concerned about the ability of survey respondents to intentionally skew answers to produce a certain outcome and noted the importance of the guidebook clearly defining options for how the survey can be administered. The group discussed several approaches that could be taken to minimize this concern, based on prior experiences administering questionnaires. For example, several participants mentioned the utility of having the survey administered by a Planning Commission or MPO instead of the airport. They thought this may increase “trust” in the resulting assessment data, with the added benefit of involving another party to add to the resources necessary for completing a full QOL assessment. Participants discussed considerations when defining the study boundary. Like the Dallas–Fort Worth workshop participants, participants in the TPA workshop noted the importance of making it clear that the point of an assessment is not to calculate a QOL score that can then be compared to another airport. Participants sought clarification on the importance scores and weighting mechanism.

102 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports Feedback on Qualitative Indicators The workshop participants provided input on all the qualitative indicators during the meeting. This input was combined with the input of the other two airport workshops to revise the methodology and indicator list. Feedback on Demographic Questions Participants recommended using zip codes instead of having participants select whether they live in an urban, suburban, or rural area. They indicated that individuals may interpret these classifications differently. Participants encouraged the research team to revisit the initial categories for education, age, and race/ethnicity. Participants suggested revisiting the upper and lower bounds included in the response options for how far survey respondents live from the nearest airport. They also suggested mentioning a specific airport when administering the survey rather than saying “closest major airport,” though this may introduce other biases. Participants suggested a new question about whether the survey respondent has any children or dependents. General Comments/Considerations Participants reported that a small population is affected by noise from the airport, although it continues to be an area of concern noted by many stakeholders. Also, noise annoyance varies by time of day for various communities in TPA, with some experiencing it in the morning and some at night. This could be considered in a QOL assessment. Participants sought additional information related to the purpose of this study and how the data can ultimately be used by airports. They noted that increased communication and sharing of information between the airport and community groups lead to positive relationships. Portland International Jetport (PWM) The workshop at Portland International Jetport (PWM) was held on Thursday, June 27, 2019. Research team members who attended in person include Mary Ellen Eagan (HMMH), Julie Blue (ERG), Rebecca DeVries (ERG), and Julia Nagy (HMMH). The primary contacts for the airport included the airport director and the marketing and communications coordinator. Over 20 external stakeholders from surrounding communities and organizations were invited to participate in the workshop, including members of the Noise Advisory Committee (stakeholders with asterisks participated in the workshop): E.4

Airport Workshop Summaries 103 Portland City Councilor Peaks Island resident Westbrook City Councilor South Portland City Councilor South Portland resident Cape Elizabeth Town resident The President of the Stroudwater Village Association* The President of the Western Prom Neighborhood Association Station Manager Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System Northeast Air (Fixed base operator) Westbrook City Councilor WEX, Inc., Unum,* and Idexx The President of the Greater Portland Chamber of Commerce Parking management at Jetport Like the workshops previously described, this half-day workshop began with an introduction to the project, roundtable introductions and discussion of what QOL means to each participant, and a brief presentation from airport personnel covering background of the airport and, in this case, introducing the airport’s sustainable airport master plan (SMP). They noted that PWM was one of the first airports in the country to develop an SMP. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology shares many components with the PWM SMP and could serve as a useful resource for airports wishing to develop these types of resources in the future. Figure E-3 presents a word cloud illustrating key words that were mentioned when describing QOL from each participant’s perspective. Examples of words that rose to the top of discussion include noise, air service, community, pollution, tourism, and sustainability. Figure E-3. Word cloud on quality of life for Portland International Jetport workshop participants. (Source: Word cloud generated by inputting key words from the workshop into free tool available at WordArt.com).

104 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports The following items represent key discussion points considered when refining the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology: Workshop Preparation and Organization Participants identified the following key stakeholders: Neighborhood associations/community leaders who can engage residents; People who do not live in the local community but who work there and can be identified through professional organizations; Noise advisory committees, chambers of commerce, local businesses, and political/elected officials; and Residents and elected officials from surrounding communities. Methodology Feedback Participants noted the importance of providing background information when administering the survey, including an introduction for why the survey is being done. One participant recommended including an (optional) video if the survey is to be administered online. Participants expressed concern about the length of the survey and potential survey fatigue, encouraging flexibility in completing the survey so that respondents do not have to complete it all at once. They also suggested formatting the questions in a variety of different ways. Feedback on Qualitative Indicators The workshop participants provided input on all the qualitative indicators during the meeting. This input was combined with the input of the other two airport workshops to revise the methodology and indicator list. General Comments/Considerations Participants discussed ways to successfully engage with various stakeholders on topics that multiple parties can benefit from. For example, airports can communicate with realtors and developers in order to ensure that home buyers are aware of the reality of living near an airport and do not encounter buyer’s remorse due to airport noise. Several participants felt that a QOL assessment likely could not be used as a standalone tool. While they saw the value in identifying community QOL issues, they viewed this as an “add-on” process to some other preexisting study or larger effort, such as a Master Plan update. One participant noted that surveys are viewed as a valid way to gather information and felt that a QOL assessment administered by the airport could be trusted, relevant, and valuable as long as the process is validated and the sample size is large enough. Participants noted the importance of defining the assessment boundary. Participants discussed end-uses of the tool, noting that the tool is designed to bring stakeholders together in the community. The goal of the assessment is to promote effective dialogue, as well as proactive and sustained awareness by the airport with the community it serves. Participants discussed how airports can select indicators that they should monitor over time to observe how they change, possibly as demographics change. Changing QOL indicators could be an early warning sign that changes are occurring in the community.