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.

29 Gathering Data Because the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology relies on gathering both quantitative and qualitative information, a full assessment will include QOL scores for both types of indi­ cators. In addition, every indicator in the tool should be ranked by survey participants with an importance score to facilitate weighting. As noted in Section 2.4, not every indicator is of equal importance to others in the overall assessment, based on individual replies. Therefore, it is useful to have survey participants rank all indicators (quantitative and qualitative) with an importance score of 1 to 4 (with 1 representing low importance to the overall assessment and 4 representing high importance, or a more central contributor to QOL). 4.1 Gathering Data for Quantitative Indicators As described in Chapter 3, airport personnel should gather publicly available data as part of Step 3 for each of the quantitative indicators that will be evaluated in their QOL assessment. Data gathering efforts will likely be managed by the lead individual or department but involve support from others on the core decision­making team to coordinate, collect, and compile data from their respective departments (e.g., operations and maintenance, public safety, environment, and sustainability). Recommended publicly available data sources are provided for each quantitative indicator (in the Quantitative Data Sources tab of the Excel spreadsheet that comprises Appendix B). These sources include government databases, such as the U.S. Census Bureau database for demographic data; the Federal Bureau of Investigation database for crime statistics; and other nongovernmental sources, such as annual reports on city park systems published by the Trust for Public Land. The data sources recommended for each quantitative indicator include one or more websites from which data can be obtained. Data from these sources are used to determine the QOL score for each of the selected indicators, following the approach described in Chapter 3. Additional instructions are provided in the Appendix B Excel spreadsheet for how to identify the necessary data at the recommended sources or websites, process the data, and calculate results for each quantitative indicator. Quantitative data may also be gathered as part of Step 2, when airports are building relation­ ships with and gathering additional insight from other stakeholders (e.g., service providers, local government, metropolitan planning organizations, and local businesses). During this step of the QOL process, airports may identify important data gaps, as well as more up­to­date or relevant local sources of data that can be used to evaluate the selected quantitative indicators. For example, a municipal government may have more recent or accurate sources of data than the data sets recommended in Appendix B. In these cases, airports should use the alternate local data sources, provided that they represent the same QOL metrics. For example, Indicator T10 (active transportation for commuting) relies on data available through the U.S. Census Bureau C H A P T E R 4

30 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports that was collected in the 2017 American Community Survey. Cities or towns that have con­ ducted analyses of commuting patterns within their communities may be able to use more local or recent data in lieu of those available through the U.S. Census Bureau website. The same applies for data recommended for evaluating many of the other quantitative indi­ cators (e.g., voter turnout and job opportunities). In some cases, airport departments may already work with relevant data sets and be able to gather indicator values quickly from pre­ existing reports used for other purposes. When conducting a QOL assessment, airports are encouraged to gather data from local planning reports and documents and work with city managers, local chambers of commerce, universities, and so on to obtain data that best represent the boundaries of the study area, to the extent possible. The quantitative indicators should be collected and calculated according to the instructions in Appendix B. Results should then be compared to the unique thresholds listed to determine the corresponding QOL scores for each indicator. As an example, consider Indicator EN12 (outdoor air quality). If evaluating this indicator for a QOL assessment, one would use data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) database following the directions provided in Appendix B. This requires generating an Air Quality Index (AQI) report for the most recent full year of data by selecting the appropriate city or town and the appropriate year from the dropdown menu at the recommended website. The resulting value in the column labeled “AQI Median” should then be compared to the indicator threshold criteria and assigned a QOL score, as described in the following: • Assign a QOL score of 1 if this result is 44 or more. • Assign a QOL score of 2 if this result is between 40 and 44. • Assign a QOL score of 3 if this result is between 36 and 40. • Assign a QOL score of 4 if this result is less than 36. In this example, if the EPA NAAQS database shows that the city in question had a median Air Quality Index of 43 for the most recent year of complete data, then—according to the indicator thresholds—this would result in a QOL score of 2 for EN12. The Quality of Life Assessment Methodology identifies relevant and user­friendly data sources to facilitate the data collection process. Most indicators only require looking up a single data value and comparing this value to the indicator thresholds. For example, obtaining data related to Indicator E15 (household income) simply requires navigating to the U.S. Census Bureau website at https://data.census.gov/, searching for the appropriate city or town by name, and locating the value for median household income on the city or town’s profile page. Some indicators involve more in­depth calculations using data gathered from more than one source or looking up results in large online databases or downloadable spreadsheets. Detailed instructions are provided in Appendix B to obtain data from these sources. For example, Indicator H19 (workplace safety) requires users to first download the Severe Injury Reports data table from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration website. Then the downloaded data table should be used to identify the number of injury reports occurring in a specific city or town. The resulting number should then be divided by the population (per 100,000 residents) in the corresponding year obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau website. Indicator EN14 (amount of protected land) is unique in that it requires the use of ArcGIS [a geographic information system (GIS) for working with maps and geographic information] to calculate an indicator value from a shapefile (an Esri vector data storage format for storing the location, shape, and attributes of a geographic feature). The research team recommends obtaining the help of an individual trained in basic GIS and following the instructions included

Gathering Data 31 in Appendix B to calculate a value for this indicator. Another option is to remove this indicator from the assessment. The methodology has some built­in redundancy among the indicators, allowing for flexibility in case data cannot be easily obtained to score every indicator. In general, a few dropped indicators will not compromise the overall value of the assessment. Note that most indicators rely on data at the city or town scale, but there are other indicators for which data at this scale do not exist or are less appropriate than data from a larger spatial scale, such as a county. For example, data for Indicators T12 (vehicle safety) and G15 (emergency medical response time) are only readily available to users at the county scale. Data for Indicator G17 (voter turnout) is not available from a comprehensive, standardized database. Thus, users will have to obtain the best available data through local government websites. When gathering data for quantitative indicators as part of assessment Steps 2 and 3, guide­ book users should be mindful that these indicators only represent a small subset of QOL components. If resources are available to gather qualitative information from the residents in the communities potentially affected by airport operations, users are encouraged to collect such information from a representative sample of the community following the process described in Section 4.2. 4.2 Gathering Data for Qualitative Indicators The majority of the 100 indicators recommended for conducting a full QOL assessment of the community or communities surrounding the airport are qualitative indicators. Qualitative information about the QOL of community residents should be gathered from a representative sample of the residents. Under Step 2 (Engage external stakeholders), it will be valuable for airport personnel and external stakeholders to discuss the qualitative indicators and consider how they anticipate that residents would score various indicators. As described in Chapter 2, scoring of indicators includes determination of QOL scores and determination of importance scores. The former shows how an individual’s or—collectively—the community’s QOL is affected by the QOL component represented by the indicator (with 1 representing low QOL and 4 representing high QOL, with respect to each indicator). The latter shows how the component represented by the indicator should be weighted in the overall assessment, regardless of the QOL score assigned (i.e., how important that indicator is to the individual’s QOL or how important the indicator is to the community once importance scores have been averaged). In other words, if the indicator is very important to overall QOL (given a high importance score by respondents), a very low QOL score would result in a very low overall QOL. Steps 1 through 3 allow an airport to make valuable strides in understanding community QOL. Simply convening airport staff from diverse departments (under Step 1) to discuss community QOL can enhance internal understanding of various contributors to the airport’s overall impact on the community (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative). By discussing the individual indicators in the Quality of Life Assessment Methodology and considering airport decisions from a more holistic lens, it is likely that areas for improvement—as well as areas where the airport already has a positive impact on the community—can be readily identified. Under Step 2, engaging community leaders and bringing other stakeholders from outside of the airport into the conversation can yield even more insight into the airport’s ability to affect community QOL. When discussing the assessment scope and selection of indicators, internal and external stakeholders should consider how individual residents may interpret the questions included in Appendix A: Quality of Life Assessment Survey Tool to ensure that they can be understood in the context of the community (as discussed in Section 2.2). External stakeholders

32 Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports involved in the QOL assessment development process may not necessarily answer the questions used to gather the qualitative information in the same ways that other community residents would, so they should consider interpretation of the questions from a resident’s point of view. To ensure that they are comprehendible to a local audience, any edits that are needed to the survey tool provided in Appendix A should be made prior to being administered to a represen­ tative sample of community residents. As airport personnel and external stakeholders discuss the details of and the value of the QOL assessment under Steps 1 and 2, they may determine that these steps are sufficient to meet the goals of the QOL assessment process for their airport at that time. Or, the discussions may lead to the conclusion that there are enough resources for the airport or one or more of the stakeholders to spearhead a full QOL assessment in the community and to complete additional steps. In the latter case, the airport personnel and the external stakeholders should decide on the appropriate geographic boundaries for the QOL assessment (e.g., one town abutting the airport, several neighborhoods, or a large metropolitan statistical area). Regardless of the scale selected, decisions about the method of distribution of the survey with the qualitative indicators should also be made. Multiple participants at the methodology validation workshops identified the concern that survey bias may occur if community members who view the airport negatively intentionally attempt to skew the results of the assessment, particularly if they are able to coordinate and communicate with potential survey respondents in advance of survey administration. It is impossible to eliminate such interference entirely, but there are a few barriers built into the QOL assessment process to prevent this from occurring. First, only three indicators present respondents the opportunity to provide input specific to the airport. Even if the respondent’s answers correspond with a low QOL score for those three indicators, and if they rate those three indicators each as “very important,” there are still 97 additional indicators that contribute to the individual’s overall QOL. Second, if the airport works with a third party to administer the survey, it may not be apparent to respondents that the questions are for a study commissioned by the airport. Third, the first indicator on the survey asks respondents to rate their overall QOL before participants see any other questions. This can serve as a check to compare against respondents’ other answers. Finally, the survey should be distributed to a representative sample of the defined study area. It is not likely that the community members with negative views of the airport would have the capacity to get their message out to the entire possible pool of survey respondents in the study area. 4.2.1 Administering the Quality of Life Assessment Survey Tool When conducting a full­scale assessment under Step 4, an airport or other QOL assessment proponent may choose to contract with a third party to administer the survey. This may be helpful in eliminating or mitigating any real or potential bias that respondents may have with regard to attitude toward or perception of the airport. It could also be necessary if the airport does not have the internal workforce to administer the survey or if it wants to bring in external expertise. Otherwise, an appropriate airport department or independent external stakeholder that was involved in the previous steps of the QOL process could spearhead administration of the survey directly. Because the survey intends to collect information about individuals and responses may include personally identifiable information, the airport or third party should ensure that it complies with any research processes for human subjects that are in place at its organization prior to administering the survey. These processes may include the need for institutional review board assessment and approval of the study. Institutional review boards are intended to ensure

Gathering Data 33 the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in studies. It is likely that some airport departments and stakeholders are already familiar with such processes from administering surveys for other purposes. The airport or third party could choose to administer the survey using a variety of methods, depending on its resources and QOL assessment scope. For example, the survey could be administered via a mass mailing to a selection of residents within the agreed­upon geographic study area. In this case, respondents could be provided the option to mail in hard copy versions of survey responses or enter them via a secure online portal. Less data entry would be required on behalf of the airport or third party if either chooses to set up a web page to collect responses and store data. The airport could also use an online survey tool (e.g., Qualtrics, SurveyGizmo, and Survey Monkey) to administer the survey and collect responses. Alternatively, staff—or a third party contracted by the airport—may devise a method for administering the survey to participants in person. These decisions depend in part on the size of the community in the study area, the number of participants required to achieve a reasonably representative cross­section of the community (with regard to socioeconomic status, race, gender, proximity to the airport, age, and so on), and resources allocated for the study. Costs and benefits of various survey administration options are discussed in ACRP Report 26 (Biggs et al. 2009) and ACRP Web-Only Document 17 (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2014). The decisions should be made during discussions under Step 4. Once a methodology for selecting potential survey participants and collecting responses has been selected, use of the survey for collecting and then evaluating information from respondents should be straightforward. Survey participants respond to each of the qualitative indicator questions by reading the four answer choices and selecting the one that best represents their own life and experience. Each answer is associated with a QOL score from 1 (representing low QOL with respect to the component represented by the indicator) to 4 (representing high QOL). The survey participants also weight each indicator with an importance score from 1 through 4, with 1 representing low importance of the indicator in the context of the overall assessment, and 4 representing high importance. Survey participants select an importance score for all of the quantitative indicators in the assessment, even though they will not have the opportunity to select a QOL score for these indicators. This is because the data value for the community is predetermined by hard data sets, and scoring of QOL for these indicators will have been completed during quantitative data collection efforts in Step 3. Once data are collected through the survey, the airport can conduct the analysis (Step 5) as described in Chapter 5. In developing the guidebook, a small sample of participants (comprised of members of the research team living within the service area of a large international airport) filled out the survey to provide data to illustrate the analysis process. This information is described in the following chapter.