Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
BACKGROUND
to ardent debate among decision makers and
influence groups, both over style and substance.
The theory put forth here differs from impact
assessments and inventory analyses in that the
aim is not to compute the absolute intensity of
environmental impacts caused by an airport project
but rather to develop procedures for the relative
comparison of different airport plans and designs.
The wording 'alternatives' will henceforth refer
to planning and design variations of an airport
development project and not alternatives to the
expansion or creation of an airport, for instance
by using other modes of transportation.
The development of the present evaluation
concept drew upon detailed reviews of established
practices in the fields of green construction and
airport sustainability practices, in addition to
evaluation methods from adjacent engineering
fields such as transportation and building ma-
terials (Table 1). We also consulted scholarly
works on such topics as Multi-Criteria Analysis
(MCA) in transportation and environmental plan-
ning (Lahdelma, Salminen, & Hokkanen, 2000;
Rakas, Teodorović, & Kim, 2004; Tsamboulas
& Kopsacheili, 2003; Vreeker, Nijkamp, & Ter
Welle, 2002), environmental impact assessment
procedures (Franssen, Staatsen, & Lebret, 2002),
design of environmental indicators (Lammers &
Gilbert, 1999), life-cycle analysis (Chester, 2008;
Junnila, 2003) (Lenzen, Murray, Korte, & Dey,
2003), and airport sustainability theory (Upham,
Thomas, Gillingwater, & Raper, 2003; Upham et
al., 2004; Upham & Mills, 2005).
A review of industry practice and scholarly lit-
erature shows that there is currently no generic
assessment procedure designed to accommodate
the complexity and specificity of airport systems,
nor to provide a platform for discussion among
interested parties. Effective consideration of
stakeholder concerns is central to the progress
of the project and to avoiding possible litigation
costs. An effective methodology should also be
applicable to a broad range of project scales, from
the minor remodeling of existing facilities to the
complete development of new systems, cover-
ing most airport functional categories including
but not limited to airside infrastructure, terminal
buildings, cargo facilities, ground transportation
and airport support equipment.
Common practices to demonstrate the envi-
ronmental sustainability of master plan propos-
als typically include the preparation of intensely
comprehensive regulatory environmental impact
assessments (FAA, 2006), the certification of new
buildings using generic green building standards
(USGBC, 2008), and qualitative evaluations on a
case-by-case basis. In rare instances, local airport
authorities have developed their own sustainabil-
ity design and construction guidelines to offset
the absence of a more adequate method (City of
Chicago OMP, 2003; LAWA, 2009). Doubts as to
the actual effectiveness of traditional measures,
which are meant to demonstrate the adequacy
of development proposals, often arise among
the relevant stakeholders—primarily members
of nearby communities. The complexity and
breadth of Environmental Impact Assessments
(EIA) and Statements (EIS), defined in the ISO
14011 standard (ISO, 1996), make them difficult
for the general public to access. Green building
certifications are popular but they are unable to
address the characteristic challenges of airport
facilities. Finally, the qualitative assessment of
such impacts is inherently subjective and subject
CHALLENGES OF AN EFFECTIVE
EVALUATION PROCESS
An effective environmental evaluation process
combines scientific accuracy and utmost reliability
while being practical and easy to understand for the
general public. The key challenges are therefore
to tailor a methodology specific for infrastructure
