Airports and Environmental Sustainability A Compre

Environmental Research Letters
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS
Airports and environmental sustainability: a comprehensive review

To cite this article before publication: Fiona Greer et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb42a
Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

Accepted Manuscript is “the version of the article accepted for publication including all changes made as a result of the peer review process,
and which may also include the addition to the article by IOP Publishing of a header, an article ID, a cover sheet and/or an ‘Accepted
Manuscript’ watermark, but excluding any other editing, typesetting or other changes made by IOP Publishing and/or its licensors”
This Accepted Manuscript is © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd.
As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY 3.0 licence, this Accepted
Manuscript is available for reuse under a CC BY 3.0 licence immediately.
Everyone is permitted to use all or part of the original content in this article, provided that they adhere to all the terms of the licence
https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0
Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their copyrighted content
within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this
article, please refer to the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as permissions may be required.
All third party content is fully copyright protected and is not published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY licence, unless that is
specifically stated in the figure caption in the Version of Record.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 45.40.126.207 on 03/09/2020 at 04:12

Page 1 of 52 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-109175.R2
1
2
3 Airports and Environmental Sustainability: A Comprehensive Review
4
pt
5 Fiona Greera*, Jasenka Rakasa, Arpad Horvatha
6
7 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
8
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
9
cri
10 *corresponding author
11
12
13
14 Emails
15 FG: fionagreer@berkeley.edu, JR: jrakas@berkeley.edu, AH: horvath@ce.berkeley.edu
16
us
17 Abstract
18
19 Background: Over 2,500 airports worldwide provide critical infrastructure that supports 4 billion annual
20 passengers. To meet changes in capacity and post-COVID-19 passenger processing, airport infrastructure
21 such as terminal buildings, airfields, and ground service equipment require substantial upgrades. Aviation
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
accounts for 2.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but that estimate excludes airport
construction and operation. Metrics that assess an airport’s sustainability, in addition to environmental
impacts that are sometimes unaccounted for (e.g., water consumption), are necessary for a more complete
environmental accounting of the entire aviation sector.
Methods: This review synthesizes the current state of environmental sustainability metrics and methods
(e.g., life-cycle assessment, Scope GHG emissions) for airports as identified in 108 peer-reviewed journal
dM
29 articles and technical reports. Articles are grouped according to six categories (Energy and Atmosphere,
30 Comfort and Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, Material and Resources, Multidimensional)
31 of an existing airport sustainability assessment framework. A case study application of the framework is
32 evaluated for its efficacy in yielding performance objectives.
33 Results: Research interest in airport environmental sustainability is steadily increasing, but there is ample
34 need for more systematic assessment that accounts for a variety of emissions and regional variation.
35 Prominent research themes include analyzing the GHG emissions from airfield pavements and energy
36 management strategies for airport buildings. Research on water conservation, climate change resilience,
37 and waste management is more limited, indicating that airport environmental accounting requires more
38 analysis.
pte
39 Discussion: A disconnect exists between research efforts and practices implemented by airports. Effective
40 practices such as sourcing low-emission electricity and electrifying ground transportation and gate
41
equipment can in the short-term aid airports in moving towards sustainability goals. Future research must
42
emphasize stakeholder involvement, life-cycle assessment, linking environmental impacts with
43
44
operational outcomes, and global challenges (e.g., resilience, climate change adaptation, mitigation of
45 infectious diseases).
46
Key Words: aviation; greenhouse gases; environmental impact; environmental footprint; infrastructure
ce
47
48
49
List of Acronyms
50
51 ACI Airport Council International
52 ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
Ac
53
54 APU Auxiliary Power Unit
55 CO Carbon Monoxide
56
57
1
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-109175.R2 Page 2 of 52
1
2
3 CO2 Carbon Dioxide
4
pt
5 EUI Energy Use Intensity
6 GHG Greenhouse Gas
7 GPU Ground Power Unit
8 GSE Ground Service Equipment
9
cri
10 HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning
11 IAQ Indoor Air Quality
12 ISO International Organization for Standardization
13 LCA Life-cycle Assessment
14
15 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
16 LTO Landing and Take-Off
us
17 NOx Nitrogen Oxides
18
PKT Passenger Kilometer Travelled
19
20 PM Particulate Matter
21 PV Photovoltaic
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SCM
SFO
URTS
VOC
WUL
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
San Francisco International Airport
Underground Rapid Transport System
Volatile Organic Chemical
Work Load Unit
an
dM
WW Wastewater
29
30
31
32 1. Introduction
33
34
Airport infrastructure is a vital component of society’s transportation network. There are more
35
36 than 40,000 airports worldwide (CIA, 2016). Around 2,500 airports processed over 4 billion passengers in
37
38 2018 (IATA, 2018). The onset of COVID-19 has drastically decreased air traffic levels (IATA, 2020). It
pte
39 is likely that air travel will recover over the next couple of years and continue to rise. In the United States,
40
41 massive investment is required (ACC, 2020; ASCE, 2017) to modernize and retrofit aged, inadequate
42 airport infrastructure (e.g., terminals, airfields, service equipment). Similar expansion projects and
43
44 necessary reconfiguration projects for post COVID-19 processing of passengers are occurring worldwide.
45
46
Airports are not solely transport nodes. The onset of “airport cities” make this critical infrastructure a
ce
47 catalyst for economic, logistical, and social development (Appold & Kasarda, 2013).
48
49 The environmental impacts attributed to airport construction and operational activities (e.g.,
50 building operation, ground service equipment (GSE)) are significant to consider, especially in light of the
51
52 fact that as other transport sectors go “green,” the air transport sector will face more challenges in
Ac
53
reducing their environmental impacts. It is estimated that the aviation industry accounts for approximately
54
55 2.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2018 (IEA, 2019), but that estimate excludes the
56
57
2
58
59
60
1
2
3 impacts from airport construction and operation. An analysis of 2019 data for San Francisco International
4
pt
5 Airport (SFO, 2018, 2020) reveals an approximate annual breakdown of 85% for aviation GHG emissions
6
and 15% for airport GHG emissions. Although not accounting for life-cycle impacts and not
7
8 representative of every airport, this breakdown offers a sense of scope of how GHG impacts are divided
9
cri
10 between aviation (i.e., flights) and airport activities. The environmental impact of airport
11 infrastructure/operations is not just limited to their GHG emissions. Airport construction and operation
12
13 also results in emissions of air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
14 particulate matter (PM), displacement of and damage to natural ecosystems, generation of waste, and
15
16 consumption of resources such as water.
us
17
In the public policy sphere, airport sustainability is an emerging area of interest. The aviation and
18
19 airport communities recognize the important role that airport infrastructure plays in promoting beneficial
20
21 environmental and human health outcomes. However, how the public sector addresses airport
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
sustainability is fragmented and lacks rigorous appraisal of suggested best practices. Oftentimes, airport
operators rely on other airports’ existing sustainability guidelines for selecting “green” practices that are
not explicitly defined and quantified (Setiawan & Sadewa, 2018). This review offers the public aviation
sector, in particular, a much-needed overview of relevant sustainability indicators and methods for airport
dM
29 infrastructure and guidance in pursuing future research and implementation of sustainable practices and
30 projects.
31
32 The expected increase in demand for air travel and the necessary upgrades for airport
33 infrastructure compound the environmental impacts of airport construction and operation. In designing
34
35 and operating the next generation of airport infrastructure (e.g., terminal buildings) there must be a
36
systematic way for evaluating the resulting environmental impacts. Measures that assess the sustainability
37
38 of the design, construction, and operation of airport infrastructure offer a potential solution for airport
pte
39
40 operators to consider.
41 1.1. History and Background
42
43 Sustainability, as defined in the United Nations’ Brundtland Report, states that present society
44 must manage and consume resources so as not to compromise future society’s needs (Brundtland et al.,
45
46 1987). While the Brundtland definition acknowledges human activity’s environmental impact, it does not
ce
47
48
offer concrete guidance for achieving sustainability. A less abstract framework is the “triple bottom line”
49 approach, which aims to identify solutions that balance environmental, social, and economic interests
50
51 (Elkington, 1994).
52 Sustainability indicators, or metrics, can be used to measure the “sustainability performance” of
Ac
53
54 an airport. Metrics are critical because they allow for:
55
56 • Comparing the sustainability of one airport (or one type of airport) against another;
57
3
58
59
60
1
2
3 • Identifying the weak points or opportunities for improvement in airport infrastructure;
4
pt
5 • Measuring progress towards meeting targeted goals.
6
7 A standardized, empirical metric is also crucial for making decisions about sustainable design and
8
9 operation of airport infrastructure (Longhurst et al., 1996). Stakeholder involvement in developing these
cri
10
indicators is necessary (Upham & Mills, 2005) Sustainability metrics are a component of a larger-scale
11
12 sustainability plan. Ideally, formalized sustainability plans developed by airports should incorporate
13
14
metrics for tracking progress towards goals.
15 Airport sustainability, as defined by the aviation industry, incorporates the “triple bottom line”
16
us
17 concept with a fourth pillar focused on operational efficiency. Airport Council International (ACI) refers
18 to this approach to sustainability as EONS (Martin-Nagle & Klauber, 2015; Prather, 2016). Common
19
20 subcategories of EONS are shown in Table 1. An important research dimension of the airport industry is
21
the U.S. National Academies of Sciences’ Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
researches and publishes synthesis reports and guidance for current sustainability practices at airports.
ACRP reports are largely compiled through literature reviews of airports’ published sustainability reports
and through interviews, surveys, and questionnaires with airport operators. Recent topics of ACRP
reports include:
dM
29
30 • overall sustainability (ACRP, FAA, & Brown, 2012; Delaney & Thomson, 2013; Lurie et al.,
31
32 2014; Malik, 2017; Prather, 2016);
33 • feasibility of on-site energy provision (S. B. Barrett et al., 2014; Lau et al., 2010) and microgrids
34
35 (Heard & Mannarino, 2018);
36
37 • GHG emission reduction strategies (ACRP, FAA, McKee, Dresser & Camp, et al., 2011; S.
38 Barrett, 2019);
pte
39
40 • air quality impacts (ACRP, FAA, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, et al., 2012; ACRP, FAA,
41 & Environmental Science Associates, 2012; Kim et al., 2014, 2015; Lobo et al., 2013)
42
43 • water efficiency (Krop et al., 2016) and stormwater management (Jolley et al., 2017);
44
45 • habitat management (Belant & Ayers, 2014);
46 • sustainable ground transport (Kolpakov et al., 2018);
ce
47
48 • sustainable construction practices (ACRP, FAA, Ricondo & Associates, et al., 2011);
49
50 • waste management (Turner, 2018);
51 • climate change adaptation of airports (Marchi, 2015).
52
Ac
53 Table 1: Airport industry concept of sustainability or EONS, as defined by Prather, 2016.

54
55 Economic Operational Efficiency Natural Resource Conservation Social Responsibility
56 Viability
57
4
58
59
60
1
2
3 • Economic • Delivering services • Air quality • Socioeconomic
4 vitality in a cost-effective enhancement/climate change benefits
pt
5 manner • Energy conservation/renewable • Community outreach
6 • Accounting for life- energy & participation
7 cycle costs • Noise abatement
8 • Water quality protection &
9 water conservation
cri
10 • Land & natural resources
11 management
12 • Land/property use
13 • Pavement management
14 • Materials use & solid waste
15 reduction/recycling
16 •
us
Hazardous materials & waste
17 management/reduction
18 • Surface transportation
19 management
20 • Buildings/facilities
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
The definition of environmental airport sustainability in the academic literature varies with some
defining it according to multiple categories of environmental impacts (Chao et al., 2017; Ferrulli, 2016;
Gomez Comendador et al., 2019; S. Kilkis & Kilkis, 2016) and others limiting that definition to
traditional environmental aviation impacts like emissions and noise (Lu et al., 2018). Environmental
dM
29 sustainability is assessed using both quantitative and qualitative metrics/measures, and using both
30
31 generalized, average airports ( Chester & Horvath, 2009) and data from operating airports (Chao et al.,
32 2017; S. Kilkis & Kilkis, 2016; Li & Loo, 2016).
33
34 In both industry and academic research, environmental impacts are often disaggregated according
35
to the airside and landside components of the airport system boundary. Figure 1 shows a plan view
36
37 schematic of the typical features included in the airport system boundary. It should be noted that energy
38
generation, water/wastewater (WW) treatment, and waste management infrastructure can be located
pte
39
40 within airport-owned property (i.e., decentralized) or within the surrounding community of the airport
41
42 (i.e., centralized). Table 2 identifies the purpose and primary stakeholders for each airport component.
43
Understanding the scope of airport infrastructure aids in identifying the most relevant environmental
44
45 impacts and the stakeholders best equipped to mitigate those impacts.
46
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
5
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
pt
5
6
7
8
9
cri
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
us
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
dM
Figure 1: Plan view of airport system boundary. Key infrastructure features are identified.
29
30
31
32 Table 2: Purpose and primary stakeholders of key airport infrastructure.
33
34 Component Infrastructure Purpose Primary Stakeholder
35
36 Airside Runway Support aircraft take-off/landing Aviation regulatory
37 agency
38 Taxiway Move aircraft from gate to runway Aviation regulatory
pte
39 agency
40
41 Apron Passenger boarding/aircraft maintenance Airline
42
43 Gate Connect passengers from terminal to aircraft Airline
44
45 Terminal Process passengers from landside to airside Airport
46 Landside Curb Passenger drop-off/pick-up Airport
ce
47 Access Road Transport passengers/employees to/from Airport/Local

48 airport Community
49 Energy Generation Provide energy for airport operation Airport/Local
50 Community
51 Water/WW Provide safe water for airport operation Airport/Local
52 Treatment Treat effluent Community
Ac
53 Waste Manage waste from airport operation Airport/Local

54 Community
55 Parking Garage Provide space for passenger/employee Airport
56 parking
57
6
58
59
60
1
2
3 1.2. Research Objectives and Goals
4
pt
5
6
While previous studies have examined sustainability practices of individual airports (Berry et al.,
7 2008; Prather, 2016), this work represents the first comprehensive systematic review of academic and
8
9 industry literature on airport environmental sustainability. The five objectives of this research are: (1)
cri
10 synthesize the existing literature on environmental sustainability indicators and metrics for airports; (2)
11
12 review the application of sustainability indicators developed for the construction of terminals and other
13
airport facilities at a case study airport (San Francisco International Airport also known as SFO); (3)
14
15 identify gaps in the literature; (4) recommend what sustainability indicators/metrics should be employed
16
us
17 at airports based upon the results of the literature review; (5) provide recommendations for future
18 directions of research. Sustainability indicators are grouped according to the SFO framework: Energy and
19
20 Atmosphere, Comfort and Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, Materials and Resources.
21 These five categories provide a framework for stakeholders to begin exploring the scope of relevant
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
environmental impacts. The breadth of the five categories also highlights that sustainability encompasses
more than one type of impact (e.g., GHG emissions) and underscores that airports have multiple priorities
in addressing their environmental impacts. The expected outcome from this review is the identification of
gaps in the existing literature and practice as it pertains to evaluating the sustainability of airport
dM
29 infrastructure. Recommendations for future research directions will provide those in the academic realm,
30
31 as well as in the public aviation sector, a robust assessment of what metrics, practices, and methods
32
should be applied to achieve optimal performance outcomes.
33
34
35 1.3. Overview of Article
36
37 Section 2 presents the methodology for conducting the systematic review. Section 3 follows with a
38
characterization, trend analysis, and synthesis of the reviewed literature, along with a review of the
pte
39
40 sustainability indicators used at a current SFO infrastructure project. Section 4 discusses the limitations
41
42 and gaps of the existing literature, analyzes the efficacy of SFO’s sustainability assessment framework,
43 and provides guidance for future research directions. Section 5 concludes with a summary of the overall
44
45 work and a recommendation for practices that airports should implement in the short term.
46
ce
47 2. Methods
48
49 2.1. Systematic Literature Review
50
51
52
2.1.1. Criteria for Selecting Research Papers
Ac
53
54 The foremost criterion in selecting peer-reviewed research articles and technical reports is that
55 they pertain to indicators (i.e., metrics or measurements) for environmental sustainability. Although
56
57
7
58
59
60
1
2
3 sustainability includes economic and social factors, they are outside the scope of this review. We
4
pt
5 excluded corporate sustainability reports published by individual airports as data from these reports often
6
appears in a non-standard format. However, individual airport sustainability practices were explored as
7
8 part of the review of academic and ACRP literature. We iteratively searched for peer-reviewed research
9
articles and technical reports in Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the National Academies of Science’
cri
10
11 ACRP database that were relevant to “airport sustainability” using the key terms of “airport” and
12
13 variations of “sustainability” including “environmental sustainability”, “sustainable development”, and
14 “environmental impact”.
15
16 Searches were conducted with key terms related to the five categories of the SFO framework (i.e.,
us
17
Energy and Atmosphere, Comfort and Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, Materials and
18
19 Resources). Additional searches also included articles that incorporated life-cycle assessment (LCA), a
20
21 method for assessing the “cradle-to-gate” environmental impacts of a product, process, or project. We
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Table 3: Summary of GHG Scope emissions for airports.
Scope 1
an
elected to also include search terms for Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 GHG emissions. Table 3
summarizes the definitions and examples of Scope GHG emissions.
Scope 2 Scope 3
dM
29
30 GHG emissions come from
GHG emissions come from
GHG emissions come from
31 Definition on-site sources that airport on-site sources that are
purchase of off-site energy
32 owns controlled by tenants
33
• On-site natural gas • Utility-supplied • GSE owned by airlines
34
combined heat and power electricity • Concessionaire activities
35
36 Examples plant • Passenger/employee
• Airport-owned vehicles transportation to and
37
from airport
38
pte
39
40 Characterizing GHG emissions according to the three Scopes aligns with airport industry practice of
41
42 allocating responsibility for GHG emissions among airport stakeholders (ACA, 2020). Exact search
43
44
terms for all criteria are provided in Table A1 in Appendix A. Articles that were relevant to at least more
45 than one of the five sustainability categories were considered as part of a Multidimensional category.
46
ce
47 Articles that focused on sustainability indicators for the construction and operation of physical
48 airport infrastructure were prioritized. Articles were excluded if they concentrated on aircraft, aircraft
49
50 fuel, or on aircraft operations within the airport boundary such as taxiing, queuing, and the landing and
51
take-off (LTO) cycle. The rational for this exclusion is that aircraft-related sustainability is an already
52
Ac
53 extensively reviewed subject (Agarwal, 2010; Blakey et al., 2011; Sarlioglu & Morris, 2015). However,
54
55 articles pertaining to aircraft servicing operations at airports (e.g., ground service equipment or GSE, de-
56 icing) were included. All screening criteria are listed in Table A2 in Appendix A. Note that the time
57
8
58
59
60
1
2
3 period of 2009 to 2019 is selected to provide a meaningful analysis of the academic literature, as interest
4
pt
5 in airport environmental sustainability as a research field began in earnest at the end of the 2000s.
6
The searches yielded a total of 108 articles grouped according to Energy and Atmosphere (n =
7
8 22), Comfort and Health (n = 25), Water and Wastewater (n = 14), Site and Habitat (n = 16), Materials
9
cri
10 and Resources (n =18), Multidimensional (n = 13). Common themes of sustainability indicators for each
11 category are depicted in Figure 2. A bibliography for all articles included in this systematic review is
12
13 provided in Appendix A (Table A3). Section 3 provides a trend analysis of the articles included in the
14 systematic review.
15
16
us
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
dM
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pte
39
40
Figure 2: Themes for each of the five sustainability categories.
41
42 3. Results
43
44
45
3.1. Characterization of Systematic Literature Review
46
ce
47 A trend analysis of the reviewed articles indicates that interest in airport environmental
48 sustainability has steadily increased over the period of 2009 to 2019 (Figure 3). Article counts in each
49
50 category theme (Figure 4) reveal that research among the various categories is relatively balanced, with
51
52
some prominent exceptions. Article counts for “Ambient Air Quality”, “Airfield Materials”, and
Ac
53 “Multidimensional” research themes are the highest. The high article counts for “Ambient Air Quality”
54
55 and “Airfield Materials” suggests that research in the field of airport environmental sustainability largely
56
57
9
58
59
60
1
2
3 focuses on the characteristics of an airport that are most prominent and apparent (i.e., the runway,
4
pt
5 taxiway, and apron). The high article count for the “Multidimensional” category indicates that the
6
research community is beginning to recognize that airport sustainability is comprised of multiple
7
8 environmental impacts across multiple airport functions. In categories such as “Waste Management” and
9
“Building Materials”, the small article counts imply that these specific subjects are emerging as relevant
cri
10
11 research areas.
12
13
14 Article Count by Year
15
16 20
us
17 18
18 16
Number of Articles
19 14
20
12
21
10
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
6
4
2
0
an
dM
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
29 Year
30
31
32
Figure 3: Cumulative articles by year (dotted line = moving average).
33
34
35
36
37 Article Count by Theme
38
14
pte
39
Number of Articles
40 12
41 10
42 8
43 6
44 4
45 2
46 0
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54
55 Figure 4: Cumulative articles by theme.
56
57
10
58
59
60
1
2
3 3.1.1. Synthesis of Research by Category
4
pt
5
6
3.1.1.1. Energy and Atmosphere
7
8 Common themes among the articles featured in the Energy and Atmosphere category include
9 energy management of airport infrastructure, use of renewable energy on-site, and energy-related air
cri
10
11 emissions.
12
Energy Management
13
14 Energy management refers to a process by which airports can characterize and monitor their
15
16 energy consumption and enact measures to reduce it. Airports use both direct (e.g., natural gas, oil) and
us
17 indirect (e.g., electricity) sources of energy to perform various operational requirements like controlling
18
19 the thermal environment of buildings, lighting runways and buildings, and fueling airport ground
20
equipment and vehicles. Using Seve Ballesteros-Santander Airport in Spain as a case study, it is estimated
21
22 that most of the energy consumption at an airport is attributable to the terminal building with heating,
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting being the most energy-intensive practices (Ortega Alba
& Manana, 2017). A best practice for energy management is implementation of an energy monitoring
system (Lau et al., 2010). Although not analyzed from an environmental perspective, airports represent an
dM
opportunity for exploring the implementation of microgrids, which allow for on-site energy generation
29
30 and storage (Heard & Mannarino, 2018).
31
Some literature indicates that if an airport has implemented specific energy management
32
33 practices, then those practices are a marker of sustainability. A sample of practices that are considered
34
35 sustainable and have been implemented at two case study airports (Baxter et al., 2018a, 2018c) is
36 provided in Table 4. An airport that implements a standardized energy management system is considered
37
38 to be sustainable (Uysal & Sogut, 2017). Implementation of specific practices depends upon site
pte
39
characteristics like climate, occupancy level, and operating hours (Malik, 2017). An analysis of energy
40
41 related to the lighting of a Turkish airport terminal indicates that indoor lighting is a critical energy
42
43 consumer (Kiyak & Bayraktar, 2015).
44
45 Table 4: Example energy conservation practices at airports as reported in Baxter et al. 2018a, 2018c.
46
Airport Copenhagen (CPH) Kansai (KIX)
ce
47
48 • Reliance on fixed electrical ground • Control air conditioning
49 power for parked aircraft • Use of ceiling fans
50 • Optimized energy consumption from • Using electricity from
51 airport's ventilation systems renewable sources (solar PV,
Energy Conservation
52 • Energy conservation measures wind)
Practices at Airports
Ac
53 related to tenant and concessionaire • Installation of LEDs

54 activities • Driving low-emission
55 • Use of solar PV vehicles
56 • Use of LEDs
57
11
58
59
60
1
2
3 • Monitor energy consumption • Reliance on fixed electrical
4 • Utilize sensor-controlled escalators ground power for parked
pt
5 • Use of groundwater for heating and aircraft
6 cooling • Reducing vehicle idling times
7 • Reduce voltage for site’s equipment
8
9
cri
10
11
12 Renewable Energy
13
14 Implementation of on-site renewable energy is another typical indicator of sustainability as
15
16
discussed in the literature. There are safety concerns (e.g., glare, radar interference) with some forms of
us
17 renewable energy like solar and wind (S. B. Barrett et al., 2014), but airports are ideal candidates for
18
19 employing on-site renewables because of their expansive land areas (Lau et al., 2010). Metrics for
20 evaluating the efficacy of on-site renewable energy like solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, include
21
22 percentage of energy demand met by on-site renewables (Dehkordi et al., 2019) and exergy (B. Kilkis &
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Kilkis, 2017; Sukumaran & Sudhakar, 2018). Exergy, as it relates to provision of on-site solar PV, refers
to the quality of the energy delivered; solar power tends to have high thermal losses unless cooling
intervention is taken. In assessing the emissions impact from different energy sources in a district heating
dM
system at Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands, it is argued that GHG emissions should be estimated by
29
30 accounting for both the first and second laws of thermodynamics (B. Kilkis & Kilkis, 2017). Accounting
31 for GHG emissions from both the quantity (first law) and quality (second law) of energy provides a more
32
33 realistic analysis of the feasibility for achieving practices that are considered sustainable (e.g., net zero
34
carbon airport terminal buildings). Another metric for assessing environmental impacts from renewable
35
36 energy at airports is absolute reduction of fossil fuel consumption, which is applied to evaluate a solar PV
37
38 and battery storage project at Cornwall Airport Newquay in the United Kingdom (Murrant & Radcliffe,
pte
39 2018). Modeling of a solar PV farm at a rural U.S. airport indicates that this form of renewable energy
40
41 can meet both the airport’s and local community’s electricity needs without compromising pilot or
42
airspace safety (Anurag et al., 2017). A groundwater source heat pump was found to meet indoor thermal
43
44 requirements in a more energy-efficient manner (i.e., a higher coefficient of performance) than
45
46 conventional heat pumps for a Tibetan airport (Zhen et al., 2017). LCA is used to inventory the GHG
ce
47 emissions from using a biomass combined heat and power plant at London Heathrow Airport to meet
48
49 terminal building heating needs (Tagliaferri et al., 2018).
50 Energy-Related Emissions
51
52 Recommended GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy use at airports pertain to
Ac
53
designing building envelopes to be more energy efficient, using energy efficient equipment and fuels,
54
55 relying on renewable energy, and managing use of refrigerants (ACRP, FAA, McKee, Dresser & Camp,
56
57
12
58
59
60
1
2
3 et al., 2011; S. Barrett, 2019). GHG emissions from annual airport energy consumption is a typical
4
pt
5 sustainability evaluation metric (Baxter et al., 2018a, 2018c; Monsalud et al., 2015). In practice, GHG
6
emissions are often inventoried according to a framework developed by ACI, which recognizes that an
7
8 airport is under direct control of GHG emissions from Scope 1 sources (e.g., on-site power generation)
9
cri
10 and Scope 2 sources (e.g., purchase from grid electricity), and only able to influence Scope 3 sources
11 (e.g., emissions from an airline’s GSE) (ACRP, FAA, McKee, Dresser & Camp, et al., 2011; Ozdemir &
12
13 Filibeli, 2014). The ACI framework accounts for the annual amount of electricity and natural gas
14 consumed and the amount of fuel used to power airport ground vehicles. A similar method allocates
15
16 emissions to each macro unit (e.g., GSE) at an Italian airport (Postorino & Mantecchini, 2014). A more
us
17
holistic approach for measuring an airport’s energy consumption accounts for the loss of a carbon sink
18
19 from the deforestation of the site on which Istanbul International Airport was built (Kılkış, 2014).
20
21 3.1.1.2. Comfort and Health
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Building Occupant Comfort an
The Comfort and Health themes in the literature include building occupant comfort and health
impacts related to ambient and indoor air quality.
Passengers and airport/airline employees spend a considerable amount of time inside airport
dM
29 buildings like terminals, maintenance facilities, and control towers. Occupant comfort in these buildings
30 is relevant for environmental sustainability because aspects of comfort (i.e., thermal, ventilation, lighting)
31
32 are directly related to metrics such as energy consumption. Research into novel air conditioning and
33 heating systems in terminals in Chinese airports indicates that thermal and ventilation comfort can be
34
35 satisfied while saving energy (Meng et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2013; K. Zhao et al., 2014; Liu et al.,
36
2019). An investigation of preferences at airports in the U.K. demonstrates that occupants tolerate higher
37
38 thermal levels and prefer natural lighting, which have energy-saving implications (Kotopouleas &
pte
39
40 Nikolopoulou, 2018). Designing airport buildings to emphasize natural lighting should incorporate the
41 functional operational characteristics of air travel (i.e., operational peaks occur in the early morning and
42
43 early to late evening) (Clevenger & Rogers, 2017).
44 Indoor Air Quality
45
46 Exposure to air pollutants is known to cause negative human health impacts like increased risk
ce
47
48
of respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and death (Apte et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015). Indoor air
49 quality (IAQ) research focuses on the pollutants and factors (e.g., ventilation systems, building design)
50
51 that contribute to occupant exposure while inside facilities like terminals and control towers. Research on
52 exposure in indoor settings at airports has been limited to the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Ac
53
54 and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in a maintenance room at a Lebanon airport (Mokalled et al.,
55
2019), PM in a terminal building at a Chinese airport (Ren et al., 2018), VOCs, PM, odorous gases, and
56
57
13
58
59
60
1
2
3 carbon dioxide (CO2) at an Italian airport terminal (Zanni et al., 2018), and CO, VOCs, and PM in a
4
pt
5 control tower at a Greece airport (Helmis et al., 2009; Tsakas & Siskos, 2011). One study linked IAQ at
6
eight large Chinese airports with passenger satisfaction, finding that IAQ satisfaction is correlated with
7
8 CO2 concentration (Z. Wang et al., 2015).
9
cri
10 Ambient Air Quality
11 Ambient, or outdoor, air quality at airports is a function of both aircraft and non-aircraft
12
13 operations. Sources of non-aircraft emissions include the equipment used to clean, load, or reposition
14 parked aircraft (i.e., GSE) or used to provide power to parked aircraft (i.e., ground power units or GPUs).
15
16 Another source of emissions from parked aircraft is the auxiliary power unit (APU), an external rear
us
17
engine on the aircraft which provides electrical power and thermal conditioning (ACRP, FAA, &
18
19 Environmental Science Associates, 2012; Lobo et al., 2013). Other outdoor sources include emissions
20
21 from construction (Kim et al., 2014) and operation of airport ground access vehicles (e.g., maintenance
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
trucks, firetrucks). Much of the exposure to pollutants like black carbon (a component of PM), occurs on
the airfield’s apron where aircraft are often positioned for passenger boarding and luggage loading
(Targino et al., 2017). Outdoor exposure to VOCs near a U.S. airport revealed higher than expected
concentrations of toluene (Jung et al., 2011). Construction of a terminal building at a major airport in
dM
29 Spain was a critical contributor to ambient levels of PM (Amato et al., 2010).
30 A review of airport contributions to ambient ambient air pollution suggests that research on
31
32 emissions related to GSE, GPU, and APU operations is more limited relative to research on emissions
33 from aircraft (Masiol & Harrison, 2014). Concentrations of CO2, CO, PM, hydrocarbons, NOx, sulfur
34
35 dioxide, sulphate, and black and organic carbon, are estimated for APU and GSE use at 20 United
36
Kingdom airports (Yim et al., 2013), emissions of CO, hydrocarbons, and NOx from APUs and GSE are
37
38 calculated for turnaround operations at major European airports (Padhra, 2018), and concentrations of
pte
39
40 NOx and PM for APUs and GSE at Copenhagen Airport are calculated (Winther et al., 2015). Provision of
41 fixed-electrical power and external air conditioning units is considered a sustainable solution for
42
43 mitigating PM and NOx emissions from APU, GPU, and GSE operation (ACRP, FAA, CDM Federal
44 Programs Corporation, et al., 2012; Padhra, 2018; Preston et al., 2019; Winther et al., 2015; Yim et al.,
45
46 2013). Use of alternative fuel (i.e., hydrogen) for powering GSE is considered another sustainable
ce
47
48
measure to improve ambient air quality on the airport apron (Testa et al., 2014).
49 3.1.1.3. Water and Wastewater
50
51 The major themes related to Water and Wastewater in the reviewed articles include water
52 conservation strategies at airports and water quality concerns related to airport activities.
Ac
53
54 Water Conservation
55
56
57
14
58
59
60
1
2
3 Airports consume water for indoor operations such as toilet-flushing, food preparation, and
4
pt
5 HVAC systems and for outdoor operations including irrigation and aircraft/infrastructure washing and
6
maintenance (Krop et al., 2016). The amount of water that major airports consume is not insignificant,
7
8 and is on par with consumption patterns of small and medium-sized cities (Carvalho et al., 2013). A
9
cri
10 typical metric for assessing airport water consumption is volume per day (Baxter et al., 2019), but this
11 metric fails to offer a broader picture of what sources of water are consumed and what management
12
13 practices yield the best results (Carvalho et al., 2013). The water conservation techniques proposed for
14 airports include monitoring of water consumption, use of water efficient fixtures/fittings, reducing
15
16 irrigation demand, and use of alternative water sources (e.g., rainwater, grey water, recycled wastewater).
us
17
An important point in the literature is that much of airport water consumption is for activities that
18
19 do not require potable water. There is an opportunity for airports to rely upon alternative sources of water
20
21 which has been studied for: rainwater harvesting at an Australian airport (Somerville et al., 2015);
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
wastewater reclamation for a Brazilian airport (Ribeiro et al., 2013); grey water usage in a Brazilian
airport (Couto et al., 2013, 2015); seawater and greywater use at an airport in Hong Kong (Leung et al.,
2012). These studies assess the efficacy of alternative sources in terms of demand met.
Water Quality
dM
29 Water quality concerns related to airport activity can be categorized as persistent, seasonal (e.g.,
30 from de-icing operations), and accidental (e.g., fuel spills) (Baxter et al., 2019). Airports make efforts to
31
32 prevent hazardous pollutants and fluids from entering groundwater or surface water bodies. Stormwater
33 management strategies include use of bioretention basins, green roofs, harvesting, porous pavement, sand
34
35 filters, and wetland treatment systems (Jolley et al., 2017). The academic literature focuses on water
36
quality issues stemming from de-icing activities, a necessary operation for aircraft and runways in cold-
37
38 weather climates. De-icing fluid runoff can create negative surface water quality effects that impact
pte
39
40 aquatic flora and fauna by causing higher levels of chemical oxygen demand and lower levels of
41 dissolved oxygen (Fan et al., 2011; Mohiley et al., 2015). Potential mitigation measures for managing
42
43 aircraft de-icing include utilization of novel soil filters (Pressl et al., 2019) and treatment with constructed
44 wetlands (Higgins et al., 2011). Most studies assess the water quality impact of de-icing fluid, but one
45
46 article examined the GHG impact from forgoing collection and treatment of de-icing fluid at a wastewater
ce
47
48
treatment plant and instead using on-site recycling (Johnson, 2012).
49 3.1.1.4. Site and Habitat
50
51 Major themes of the Site and Habitat category in the literature refer to the impact airport
52 construction and operation has on existing natural ecosystems, the effects from on-site and public
Ac
53
54 transportation options, and the implications of airport resilience to climate change.
55
Site
56
57
15
58
59
60
1
2
3 Airport development and operation requires suitable land area. In regions where existing land is
4
pt
5 not suitable, land reclamation is used to create a suitable airport environment. Research into the effects of
6
land reclamation on existing ecosystems focus on impacts to soil, water, air, and animal species (Yan et
7
8 al., 2017; B. Zhao et al., 2019). Another indicator in the literature refers to efficiency of airport land
9
cri
10 utilization, or how many aircraft operations occur per given unit area (Janic, 2016). Airport operation and
11 its impacts on wildlife populations is another area of research, with the goal of finding specific strategies
12
13 to discourage and accommodate wildlife populations on airfields, airport water resources, terminal
14 buildings, and control towers (Belant & Ayers, 2014). Work done in the academic literature focuses on
15
16 identifying the factors that attract avian species to green roofs (Washburn et al., 2016), on the impacts of
us
17
solar arrays on avian species (DeVault et al., 2014), and on the effects of airport expansion on bat
18
19 populations (Divoll & O’Keefe, 2018).
20
21 Transportation
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Sustainable transportation, as it relates to airports, refers to the modes of transportation for
shuttling passengers from terminals to parked aircraft and for bringing passengers to airports. Common
sustainability practices for on-site transportation include: use of alternative vehicles (e.g., electric
vehicles); restriction of vehicle idling; reducing number of empty trips (Kolpakov et al., 2018). One study
dM
29 examined the use of an underground rapid transport system (URTS) for transporting airport passengers
30 the long distances from main terminal buildings to satellite and midfield concourse terminals (M.-B. Liu
31
32 & Liao, 2018). This study did not include specific environmental indicators, but noted that use of URTS
33 is sustainable because it frees up congestion from passenger transport on the airfield concourse.
34
35 Sustainable public transport options might include using automated vehicles (Y. Wang & Zhang, 2019),
36
encouraging passengers to use existing public transport options by enhancing their capacity, discouraging
37
38 private vehicle use, integrating the with other transport hubs (Budd et al., 2016), or installing dedicated
pte
39
40 electric vehicle charging infrastructure (Silvester et al., 2013).
41 Resilience
42
43 The resilience of airports to climate change impacts is a significantly under-researched subject.
44 Relevant risks that airports in coastal locations will face include impacts from sea-level rise and increased
45
46 frequency of flooding events (Burbidge, 2016; Marchi, 2015; Poo et al., 2018). Another site implication
ce
47
48
related to climate change is that increased mean air temperatures will make it harder for aircraft to
49 generate lift, thereby necessitating the construction of longer runways (Coffel et al., 2017).
50
51 3.1.1.5. Materials and Resources
52 Themes from the literature for Materials and Resources center around selection of materials for
Ac
53
54 the construction of airfield (e.g., runway, taxiway, apron) and terminal building infrastructure, as well as
55
management of waste from airport construction and operation.
56
57
16
58
59
60
1
2
3 Airfield Materials
4
pt
5 Estimation of environmental effects of airfield pavements is a fairly well-researched subject area,
6
relative to other airport infrastructure. Airfields are either made from asphalt or concrete, which are
7
8 known major sources of GHGs (Horvath, 2004; Santero et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2016). The
9
cri
10 sustainability of airfield pavements is constrained by structural integrity requirements and safety
11 standards (Pittenger, 2011).
12
13 Evaluation metrics for sustainable airport pavement can be general, such as implementing
14 suggested best practices, including: using recycled aggregate in pavement mixes; using locally-sourced
15
16 construction materials; reducing idling times of construction equipment (Hubbard & Hubbard, 2019).
us
17
More specific critical factors of a sustainable airport pavement relate to its construction (i.e., the raw
18
19 materials and equipment used, transportation, waste management) and its operation, which is a function
20
21 of the pavement’s structural characteristics (Babashamsi et al., 2016). Table A4 in Appendix A highlights
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
the specific sustainable practices and assessment methods/metrics found in the literature as they pertain to
different parts of the airfield. Example sustainable practices include use of supplementary cementitious
materials (SCM) in concrete runways and use of recycled aggregates in taxiway and apron construction.
LCA is frequently used in measuring the environmental sustainability of airfield pavements. The scope of
dM
29 most of the LCAs is limited to impacts from the raw material and construction phases of the airfield.
30 Building Materials
31
32 Relative to the airfield, environmental impact analysis of other airport infrastructure (e.g.,
33 terminal buildings) is much more limited. LCAs have been performed to determine the optimum level of
34
35 thermal insulation for terminal buildings at two Turkish airports with a focus on selecting a design that
36
reduces GHG emissions (Akyuez et al., 2017; Kon & Caner, 2019). An extensive overview of
37
38 construction methods and building materials that are standard practice (e.g., using locally-sourced
pte
39
40 materials) among the green building community is applied for airports (ACRP, FAA, Ricondo &
41 Associates, et al., 2011). It is common practice, as mentioned in the ACRP literature, for airports to aim
42
43 for green building certification from groups like U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership and Energy in
44 Environmental Design (LEED). A certification system like LEED provides a checklist framework where
45
46 building owners (municipalities in the case of airports) earn points for choosing “green” building
ce
47
48
materials and design attributes, among other criteria. There are over 200 LEED certified airport buildings
49 worldwide (USGBC, 2020), with SFO’s Terminal 2 the first LEED Gold airport terminal in the U.S.
50
51 (SFO, 2011).
52 Waste Management
Ac
53
54 Analysis of waste management at airports is another emerging research area. Waste sources at
55
airports include food waste from retailers/concessionaires, construction waste, and aircraft-related waste
56
57
17
58
59
60
1
2
3 (Turner, 2018). Metrics applied for analyzing waste at a major international airport include quantity of
4
pt
5 waste, waste source fraction, and waste amount per operation (Baxter et al., 2018b). One article assessed
6
the life-cycle impact, in terms of air emissions, of six waste management scenarios at Hong Kong
7
8 International Airport determining that on-site incineration with heat recovery yielded optimal results.
9
cri
10 (Lam et al., 2018).
11 3.1.1.6. Multidimensional Studies
12
13 Sustainability, as expressed in ACRP reports (ACRP, FAA, & Brown, 2012; Delaney &
14 Thomson, 2013; Lurie et al., 2014; Malik, 2017; Prather, 2016), encompasses many categories like energy
15
16 and climate, water, waste, natural resources, human well-being, transportation, and building design and
us
17
materials. Many of the metrics that the ACRP literature use to assess the specific categories of
18
19 sustainability mirror those described in the academic literature. A theme among the ACRP work is the
20
21 evaluation of sustainability practices from an economic and practical perspective, recognizing that
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
implementation can yield economic benefit but takes concerted, coordinated effort.
Table 5 identifies metrics used for quantifying impacts and strategies used to reduce impacts.
These metrics and strategies are extracted from the multidimensional journal articles included in the
systematic review. Each metric or strategy is prioritized to the one of the five categories of interest. While
dM
29 the focus of this review paper pertains to metrics/strategies that evaluate the sustainability of physical
30 airport infrastructure, and not does focus on environmental impacts related to the aircraft LTO cycle,
31
32 some of the multidimensional papers include indicators for evaluating those specific environmental
33 impacts (e.g., noise from near-airport aircraft operations). The indicators in Table 5 range from explicit,
34
35 quantifiable metrics (e.g., tonnes CO2 per passenger) to more vague best practices (e.g., conserve energy
36
in airport buildings). The metrics and strategies that are explicit and quantifiable are more informative for
37
38 enacting policy measures than are vague strategies such as “conserve energy” or “reduce emissions”. It is
pte
39
40 also more effective for metrics and strategies that connect environmental impacts to operational outcomes
41 and level of service (e.g., number of passenger-miles traveled). Connecting impacts to level of service
42
43 allows for airports to track how efficiently they are managing their impacts as numbers of operations
44 increase.
45
46 Indicators from each multidimensional paper do not always span all five categories of
ce
47
48
environmental sustainability, suggesting that consensus building on the definition of environmental
49 sustainability needs to occur. The Energy and Atmosphere category dominates with metrics often related
50
51 to reducing airport building and airfield energy consumption and air pollutant emissions. Of the 8 journal
52 articles included in Table 5, all include metrics for addressing noise pollution in the Comfort and Health
Ac
53
54 category, but none provide explicit metrics for assessing indoor air quality for airport buildings. The
55
indicators in the remaining three categories vary in level of specificity. As an example, in the Materials
56
57
18
58
59
60
1
2
3 and Resources category, four of the articles suggest airports use “green building materials” but only one
4
pt
5 article (Ferrulli, 2016) identifies in some detail what that means.
6
A theme that emerges from the multidimensional papers are the different methods utilized in
7
8 determining the overall sustainability of an airport. Utility-based methodologies are utilized in two of the
9
cri
10 multidimensional articles (Chao et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2018) in the ranking of the most critical indicators
11 by weights applied from expert opinion. Another method for assessing an airport’s environmental
12
13 sustainability is the application of a checklist-based point system where the most sustainable airport
14 implements the most indicators with the highest level of points (Gomez Comendador et al., 2019). One
15
16 method incorporates cost-benefit analysis where each environmental indicator for an airport development
us
17
project is transformed into a financial amount and the highest benefit-cost ratio yields the most
18
19 sustainable outcome (Li & Loo, 2016). A composite ranking indicator is created by normalizing
20
21 indicators across all categories to compare the environmental sustainability of multiple airports (S. Kilkis
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
& Kilkis, 2016). Only one method applies life-cycle assessment in inventorying the environmental impact
from the LTO cycle, APU and GSE operation, de-icing activities, lighting, and construction of an airport
terminal, airfield, and parking lot (Chester & Horvath, 2009).
dM
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pte
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
19
58
59
60
c
1
us
2
3 Table 5: Sustainability indicators from multidimensional papers.
4
5 Citation Energy and Comfort and Health Water and Site and Habitat Materials and
6 Atmosphere Wastewater Resources
7 • • • • •
an
Control emissions Create noise map & Control water Integrate with Treat hazardous
8 of NOx, Sox, CO, mitigation plan consumption public/private waste from
9 PM, VOCs, • Take steps to • Reduce transport maintenance
10 CO2Limit use of isolate community indoor/outdoor • Select a site that activities
11 APUs & GPUs buildings from water consumption meets aeronautical • Recycle waste
12 • Use ecological cars noise pollution • Reduce water safety requirements • Implement a
13 • • •
dM
Offer infrastructure Acoustic efficiency consumption in Measure soil construction/mainte
14 to support biofuels (number of people handling quality nance/demolition
15 use exposed per annual • Manage stormwater • Protect native flora plan for
16 Gomez Comendador et al. • Manage energy number of aircraft runoff & fauna infrastructure
17 2019 consumption movements) • Treat wastewater • Reduce light • Choose green
18 • Use renewable • Restrict engine pollution building materials
19 energy testing during • Reduce heat island
20 • Control air certain time periods effect
21 conditioning • Monitor indoor air
22 equipment for quality
23 energy
pte
24 conservation
25 • Use efficient
26 indoor lighting
27 • Carbon emission • Prevention & • Green Building
28 Lu et al. 2018 reduction & energy monitoring of noise Practices
29 conservation
30 • Conserve energy in • Monitor noise • Install water-saving • Practice ecological • Use green building
31 buildings devices conservation materials
ce
32 • Use ground power • Use recycled water • Engage in waste

33 units over auxiliary • Recycle wastewater reduction, reuse, &
34 power units recycling
35 • Use low-emission
36 Chao et al. 2017
vehicles
37 • Use energy-savings
Ac
38 control devices
39 • Use renewable
40 energy
41 • Monitor air quality
42
20
43
44
45
46
47
c
1
us
2
3 • Shorten runways to
4 reduce queuing
5 time
6
7 • Design airside • Design airside • Landscape & • Reduce parking • Design for storage
an
8 layout to minimize layout to reduce design to reduce footprint & collection of
9
aircraft emissions noise impact water use • Integrate recyclables
10 • Design • Provide physical • Design for water infrastructure for • Design for
infrastructure & mitigation barriers efficient use public transport deconstruction,
11
buildings to between operating • Design to • Avoid destruction reuse & recycling
12
minimize CO2 areas & maximize water of sensitive habitats • Use recycled, bio-
13
dM
emissions surroundings harvesting, • Avoid attracting based, & rapidly
14 Ferrulli 2016
• Reduce building- recycling, reuse certain species renewable
15 level energy • Design to reduce • Design to reduce materials
16 consumption stormwater heat island effect • Use materials with
17 • Reduce outdoor quantity • Design to reduce a high design
18 energy • Design to improve service life
light pollution
19 consumption stormwater quality
20 • Use alternative &
21 renewable energy
22 • Energy • Noise abatement • Water Withdrawal • Amount of • ISO 14001
23 Consumption (toe) for decibels ≤ 60 (m3) Conserved Area Certificationc
pte
24 • Energy Consumed • Percentage of (hectares)
25 per Passenger utilized recycled
26 (toe/Passenger) water
27 • ISO 50001
28 Certificationa
29 • Implementation of
30 Energy-Saving
31 Kilkis & Kilkis 2016 Measures
ce
32 • Use of On-site
33 Energy
34 • CO2 Emissions
35 (tonnes)
36 • CO2 per Passenger
37 (tonnes/Passenger)
Ac
38 • CO2 Emissions per

39 Unit Energy
40 (tonnes /toe)
41
42
21
43
44
45
46
47
c
1
us
2
3 • Recognition under
4 ACI's Airport
5 Carbon
6 Accreditationb
7 •
an
Aiming for CO2
8 Neutrality
9 • Concentration of
10 PM10 (µg/m3)
11 • Use of low-
12 emission ground
13 vehicles
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Li & Loo 2016
Janic 2010
dM
•
•
Mass of CO2, SO2,
NOx, PM, VOCs,
HC, NH3 per
annual operations
Energy Efficiency
(Energy
consumption per
annual WLUd)
•
•
Level of Noise
Pollution
Noise Efficiency
(Number of
households,
population, or area
• Amount of Water
Pollution
•
•
Amount of Habitat
Loss
Land Use
Efficiency
(Number of aircraft
operations per unit
• Waste Efficiency
(Amount of waste
generated per
annual WLU)
22 • Air Pollution exposed to area per year)
23 Efficiency (Total specified noise
pte
24 air pollution per level per year)
25 annual WLU)
26 • CO2 emissions per • CO2 emissions per
27 passenger- passenger-
28 kilometer-traveled kilometer-traveled
29 Chester & Horvath
(PKT) (PKT)
30 • Energy • Energy
2009
31 consumption per consumption per
ce
32 PKT PKT
33 • CO, SO2, NOx per • CO, SO2, NOx per
34 PKT PKT
35
36
37
Ac
38
39
40
41
42
22
43
44
45
46
47
c
1
us
2
3
4
5
6
7 a ISO 50001 Certification = International Standard Organization’s Energy Management System
an
8
9
10 b Airport Carbon Accreditation = ACI certification that recognizes an airport’s efforts to manage CO2 emissions
11
12
13
dM
14
c ISO 40001 Certification = International Standard Organization’s Environmental Management System
15
16
17 d WUL = Work Load Unit, a standardized metric for airport operations in terms of number of passengers processed or mass of
18 freight handled
19
20
21
22
23
pte
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ce
32
33
34
35
36
37
Ac
38
39
40
41
42
23
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 The multidimensional articles that include case study airports are listed in Table 6, along with
4
pt
5 each airport’s location. All of the case study airports are considered major international hubs, averaging
6
millions of passengers per year. Their locations span the primary airport markets including Asia, Europe,
7
8 and the United States, but do not reflect the emerging markets of Latin America and Southeast Asia. By
9
cri
10 comparing airports of a similar operational capacity, the multidimensional papers offer some insight into
11 how varying regions influence environmental impact. However, more case study airports are necessary to
12
13 capture local impacts. Insight is lacking on whether the sustainability indicators developed in these
14 multidimensional articles result in distinct environmental outcomes for disparate levels of airport service
15
16 (e.g., small, regional airports; medium hub airports). Modeling environmental impacts from an average
us
17
airport ( Chester & Horvath, 2009) allows for generalization of results, which might yield more far-
18
19 reaching outcomes (i.e., sustainability indicators can be applied to a greater range of airports).
20
21 Table 6: Case study airports/locations from multidimensional papers.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Citation
Chao, Lirn, &

Lin 2017
•
•
•
an
Case Study Airport
(Code)
Narita (NRT)
Incheon (ICN)
Kaohsiung (KHH)
•
•
•
Location
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
dM
• Istanbul (IST) • Turkey
29
• Miami (MIA) • United States
30
• Amsterdam (AMS) • the Netherlands
31
• Ataturk (IST) • Turkey
32
• Barcelona (BCN) • Spain
33
• Frankfurt (FRA) • Germany
34 Kilkis &
• Gatwick (LGW) • United Kingdom
35 Kilkis 2016
36 • Heathrow (LHR) • United Kingdom
37 • Munich (MUC) • Germany
38 • San Francisco (SFO) • United States
• Seoul (ICN) • South Korea
pte
39
40 Li & Loo • Hong Kong (HKG) • Hong Kong
41 2016
42 • Average airport • United States
43 Chester & modelled after Dulles
44 Horvath 2009 International Airport
45 (IAD)
46
ce
47
3.1.2. Summary of Trends in Existing Research
48
49 Figure 5 shows a word cloud diagram of the article titles included in each of five sustainability
50
51 categories and the multidimensional category. Frequently used words appear larger relative to less
52 frequently used words. Figure 5 provides a visual representation of the key themes for each category. A
Ac
53
54 summary of key trends in the five sustainability categories and the multidimensional category include:
55
56
57
24
58
59
60
1
2
3 • Energy and Atmosphere: Articles focus on investigating the efficacy of on-site renewable energy
4
pt
5 at various case study airports. Common sustainability indicators are total energy consumed and
6
mass of GHG emissions from energy consumption. Best practices are considered as: monitoring
7
8 of energy consumption; utilization of energy efficient HVAC equipment and lighting; installation
9
cri
10 of on-site renewable energy. There is some effort, particularly in the ACRP literature, to evaluate
11 best practices from a practical perspective (e.g., addressing the safety implications of solar). Use
12
13 of LCA in this category is limited.
14
• Comfort and Health: Most of the research is focused on indoor comfort and health indicators like
15
16 preferences for thermal and lighting conditions and concentrations of PM, VOCs, CO, and CO2.
us
17
18 Studies on exposure to ambient air pollutants from non-aircraft sources are limited. Most of the
19 research on ambient air quality aggregates emissions from all sources so it is difficult. There is
20
21 recent effort to investigate the impact from non-aircraft sources like APUs, GSE, and GPUs and
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
conditioning units).
an
to identify possible solutions for these equipment (e.g., use of external electrical power and air
Water and Wastewater: Articles focusing on estimating the potential utilization of alternative
water sources at airports dominate. Water quality research pertains to impacts from stormwater
dM
29 and de-icing fluids. A typical article in the Water and Wastewater category includes annual water
30 consumption per passenger or flight operation. There is discussion in the literature on whether a
31
32 disaggregated metric (e.g., indoor water consumption per passenger, outdoor water consumption
33
34
per passenger) might be a more effective performance indicator.
35 • Site and Habitat: This category is the least explored in the literature. Few articles offer
36
37 measurable indicators, with most of the quantifiable metrics relating to land use efficiency and
38 destruction of wildlife habitat. There is need for quantifiable indicators for research in on-site and
pte
39
40 public/private transport and for climate change adaptation practices.
41
42
• Materials and Resources: Research on the environmental sustainability of airfield pavements
43 dominates this category. LCA is the most frequently used assessment methodology, with life-
44
45 cycle GHG emissions and energy consumption the most common assessment metrics.
46 • Multidimensional: Research that investigates airport sustainability from a multidimensional
ce
47
48 perspective is grouped according to efforts by ACRP and by the academic community. ACRP
49
50
largely defines environmental sustainability across the five categories (i.e., Energy and
51 Atmosphere, Comfort and Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, Materials and
52
Ac
53 Resources), but often focuses on economic and practical factors of implementing sustainability
54 best practices. These best practices are often identified through interviewing and surveying U.S.
55
56 airports. Sustainability indicators in the academic literature predominantly focus on energy
57
25
58
59
60
1
2
3 consumption and GHG emissions. Sustainability is assessed with a number of methodologies
4
pt
5 (e.g., utility-based theories, cost-benefit analysis, LCA), suggesting that within the academic
6
community there is a lack of consensus on what attributes and indicators make an airport
7
8 sustainable.
9
cri
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
us
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
dM
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pte
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ce
47
48
49
Figure 5: Word cloud diagram of article titles included in systematic review. Frequently used terms appear larger relative to less
50
frequently used terms.
51
52 3.2. Application of an Airport Sustainability Assessment
Ac
53
54
55
This section reviews the application of the SFO environmental sustainability framework on an
56 existing infrastructure project at the airport.
57
26
58
59
60
1
2
3 3.2.1. Selection of Case Study Airport
4
pt
5
6
San Francisco International Airport (SFO is one of the United States’ large hub airports and it
7 serves major domestic and international routes. The airport ranked seventh among busiest airports in
8
9 2018, with enplanements totaling close to 28 million (FAA, 2020b). The airport was an early adopter in
cri
10 implementing sustainability efforts and in developing metrics to assess the sustainability of construction
11
12 and operation of airport infrastructure projects (FAA, 2020a; SFO, 2020). A review of the
13
implementation of SFO’s sustainability framework answers two critical questions: (1) how sustainability
14
15 efforts practically get implemented at airports and (2) how their implementation is or is not effective in
16
us
17 yielding measurable benefits. Featuring SFO as a case study offers stakeholders (e.g., regulators, airport
18 operators, the public) insight into what is considered best practices, or acceptable methods, for managing
19
20 environmental impacts for major international airports. Additionally, it provides some understanding of
21 how sustainability measures at an airport like SFO might not work as well for other airport types (e.g.,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
small hub, regional, general aviation etc.).
3.2.2. Development of Sustainability Indicators an

SFO is redeveloping their Terminal 1 as part of a capacity-enhancement upgrade for the entire
dM
29 airport; the upgrade will increase the terminal’s total number of annual enplanements to 8.8 million.
30
31 Sustainability indicators were developed in conjunction with SFO’s planning, design, and construction
32 guidelines as a measurable index for determining whether the Terminal 1 project will comply with the
33
34 airport’s overarching environmental goals (e.g., achieving GHG emission reductions relative to a baseline
35 year). Each sustainability indicator is grouped according to relevant themes in the five categories of
36
37 Energy and Atmosphere, Comfort and Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, and Materials and
38
Resources. Indicators are either considered “Mandatory Requirements” or “Expanded Requirements”.
pte
39
40 “Mandatory Requirements” outline metrics and practices that must be achieved according to applicable
41
42 federal, state, regional building codes and city-wide mandates (e.g., meeting LEED requirements).
43 “Expanded Requirements” are voluntary metrics and practices that project participants (i.e., contractors)
44
45 are obligated to implement where feasible. For example, a city-wide “Mandatory Requirement” in the
46 Energy and Atmosphere category mandates 40 percent reductions below 1990 GHG emissions by 2025.
ce
47
48 An example “Expanded Requirement” calls for reduced GHG emissions from natural gas consumption by
49
50
using automated HVAC systems.
51
52 3.2.3. Implementation of Indicators
Ac
53
54 The indicators are intended to be used for the planning, design, construction, and
55
56 operation/maintenance phases of airport facilities. An additional level of evaluation is applied to each
57
27
58
59
60
1
2
3 “Expanded Requirement”. Requirements are rated as either “Baseline”, “Baseline Plus”, or “Exceptional
4
pt
5 Project Outcome”. Per the previous “Expanded Requirement” example, “Baseline”, “Baseline Plus”, or
6
“Exceptional Project Outcome” ratings would be given to 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent
7
8 reductions in GHG emissions, respectively. Such a rating system allows SFO to discern between project
9
outcomes that are more “sustainable” than others.
cri
10
11
12 The results of an analysis of the projected reduction in annual GHG emissions per square meter
13
from implementing Energy and Atmosphere “Expanded Requirements” in SFO’s Terminal 1 project are
14
15 shown in Figure 6. The specific “Expanded Requirements” include practices that rely on reduced natural
16
us
17 gas and electricity consumption in terminal buildings (e.g., energy-efficient escalators, dynamic glazing,
18 radiant heating and cooling). It is projected that these “Expanded Requirements” will reduce Terminal 1’s
19
20 energy use intensity (EUI). The EUI indicates how much site natural gas and electricity is consumed by
21 buildings. By converting the EUI to an equivalent amount of GHG emissions per square meter, it can be
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
shown that the GHG intensity of Terminal 1 project will be less than the average of other SFO buildings.
The blue bars in Figure 6 show the amount of GHG emissions per square meter, while the dotted outline
indicates the amount of annual GHG savings per square meter in the Terminal 1 project. The GHG
emissions account for the upstream processes related to natural gas production and electricity generation.
dM
29 See Appendix B for the complete methodology in producing Figure 6. The savings represent an
30
31 approximate 57% reduction relative to the average GHG intensity for all SFO airport building
32
infrastructure.
33
34
35
36
Change in GHG Intensity with Expanded
37 Requirement Implementation
38 80
pte
39
GHG Intensity (kg CO2/m2/year)
40 70
41 60
42
43 50
44 40
45
30
46
ce
47 20
48
10
49
50 0
51 SFO Average T1 Expanded Requirements
52
Ac
53 Figure 6: Reductions in GHG Intensity associated with implementing energy reducing "Expanded Requirements" in Terminal 1
54 (T1) project relative to the SFO average. Savings are relative to 2018 data.
55
56 4. Discussion
57
28
58
59
60
1
2
3 4.1. Limitations and Gaps of Existing Research
4
pt
5
6
With few exceptions on airport energy (B. Kilkis & Kilkis, 2017; Tagliaferri et al., 2018), overall
7 sustainability (Chester & Horvath, 2009; Chester & Horvath, 2012; Taptich et al., 2016), and airfield
8
9 pavements, much of the research fails to holistically analyze the environmental impacts through supply
cri
10 chains and regional variations. While the ACRP literature provides a sample representation of current best
11
12 practices at airports, its analysis is sometimes limited by the responses it receives from case study
13
airports. For both the ACRP and academic literature, analysis of sustainability indicators is often limited
14
15 by the scope of a case study airport, so it is difficult to link research results with suggested practice or
16
us
17 policy outcomes.
18 The literature in the Energy and Atmosphere category lacks a broader understanding of how
19
20 much energy is used at different airports, what that energy is used for, and where that energy comes from.
21 Current estimates are limited by the number of existing case study airports. With an exception (Ozdemir
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
& Filibeli, 2014), the academic literature limits its characterization of GHG emissions according to Scope
1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. This limitation in the literature indicates that there is a slight disconnect between
the academic research community and the airport industry and stakeholders, as the Scope characterization
is how the industry thinks about and manages GHG emissions. Research that investigates different energy
dM
29 sources (e.g., solar; bioenergy) and energy provision strategies (e.g., grid versus on-site storage) are just
30
31 beginning, and more effort in this area is needed. Additional gaps in the research include:
32
33 • Environmental impacts of energy consumption in terms of other pollutants besides GHG
34
35 emissions
36 • Environmental assessment of airports and supply chains using local and regional models and
37
38 data (Cicas et al., 2007)
pte
39
40 • Characterization and environmental impact assessment of energy consumption patterns for
41 specific airport infrastructure and equipment by region (e.g., U.S. airport terminals are
42
43 focused on food consumption; European/Asian airports serve as retail/recreational shopping
44 centers)
45
46 • Energy consumption impacts from construction of new airport expansion/retrofitting projects
ce
47
48 As with the Energy and Atmosphere category, research in the Comfort and Health category
49
50 could be broadened to include more research and innovative and exploratory case studies. In light of
51
COVID-19, more research is urgently needed to investigate how terminal building design and ventilation
52
Ac
53 equipment might influence spread of infectious diseases. Ambient air quality research tends to aggregate
54
55 sources, which makes it difficult to determine if mitigation policies are effective. Additional gaps in the
56 research include:
57
29
58
59
60
1
2
3 • More human health-focused exposure studies related to operation of non-aircraft equipment,
4
pt
5 such as GSE, GPUs, APUs, and ground access vehicles
6
7 • Investigation of air pollutant concentrations related to landside operations, such as passenger
8 pick-up and drop-off
9
cri
10 • Research on human health impacts from airfield and terminal building maintenance, retrofit,
11 and construction
12
13 • Air quality impacts related to selection of different building materials and cleaning/daily
14
15 maintenance procedures
16
us
17 As suggested in the Water and Wastewater literature, assessing an airport’s water consumption in
18
terms of volume per day provides minimal insight. More research should be conducted to provide a
19
20 thorough overview of disaggregated water consumption at the airport level so that sustainable practices
21
22 can be implemented appropriately. A major gap in the literature is the complete lack of research into the
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
linkage between water consumption, water quality, energy needed to convey, treat and heat water, and the
resulting GHG and other environmental emissions and impacts. This water-energy nexus is particularly
relevant in examining the environmental sustainability of using alternative sources of water at airports,
especially with respect to potable versus non-potable demands and options.
dM
29
30 Much of the literature in the Site and Habitat category lacks explicit, quantifiable sustainability
31
32 indicators and there is vast room for investigation into the following gaps:
33
34 • Energy and environmental implications of constructing resilience infrastructure, such as sea
35
36 walls and stormwater systems
37 • Environmental impacts of onsite transportation systems, such as underground rapid transit
38
pte
39 systems
40
41
• Overview of the types of suitable, environmentally efficient transportation modes within and
42 outside of the airport boundary, which is dictated by airport configuration and location
43
44 • Environmental trade-offs between site selection and terminal building orientation and layout
45 of runways
46
ce
47
48 Research in the Materials and Resources category is predominantly focused on environmental
49 impacts of airfield pavement construction and maintenance, with life-cycle energy consumption and GHG
50
51 emissions common metrics. Within the theme of airfield pavements, more research regarding innovative
52 designs and maintenance techniques are warranted. There is a lack of understanding on what sustainable
Ac
53
54 pavement practices can be implemented at airports of different operational capacities. Small and
55
medium-sized airports might be good candidates for testing out innovative practices because their load or
56
57
30
58
59
60
1
2
3 volume requirements tend to be smaller than those of larger airports. In terms of sustainable materials and
4
pt
5 design for airport buildings, research results are limited. In practice, it is more common for airports to
6
strive for LEED certification of airport buildings. LEED, for practical purposes, is a relatively easy
7
8 standard to implement and track, but is not sufficient for meeting quantified performance goals
9
cri
10 throughout the life cycle of airports. Additional gaps in the research include:
11 • Environmental impact of conventional and alternative construction materials in terminal
12
13 building infrastructure
14
• Sustainability impacts of supply chains and sourcing of airport construction materials
15
16 • Deeper understanding leading to defensible actions on waste generation and waste
us
17
18 management techniques at airports, especially in the context of waste-management policies
19 such as “zero-waste” and bans of single-use plastics
20
21
22
A review of articles in the Multidimensional category indicates that there is no cohesive, agreed-
23
24
25
26
27
28
• an
upon definition of airport environmental sustainability. Gaps in the research include:
Determining optimal methods for achieving overall environmental sustainability at an airport,

also integrated with achieving specified city, regional-level, airline, or civil aviation targets
dM
29 • Integration of life-cycle, or holistic, thinking within a specified time horizon into decision
30 making (e.g., should an airport implement an electricity-based strategy if the electricity is
31
32 generated by fossil fuels?)
33
• Specifying environmental sustainability indicators in the context of airport operational safety
34
35 • Investigating the overlap between environmental sustainability and airport resilience
36
37 • Rigorous analysis of environmental sustainability and operational parameters
38
• Integration of actions in achieving societal sustainable development (economic,
pte
39
40 environmental, social) with airport, airline, air traffic control, and in general, civil aviation
41
42 goals
43
44 4.2. Efficacy of Case Study Application
45
A projected 57% reduction in annual GHG emissions per square meter from consuming natural
46
ce
47 gas and electricity on-site within the airport terminal buildings suggests that SFO’s sustainability
48
49 assessment indicators have the potential to be effective. A more meaningful expression of results would
50 relate saved GHG emissions to the airport’s level of service (e.g., GHG emissions per passenger or per
51
52 revenue dollar). There are limitations to stating one airport’s efforts as “best practice”. It should be
Ac
53 emphasized that applicability from the results of the case study are dependent upon local factors. For
54
55 SFO, implementing energy-efficient strategies saves more GHG emissions because SFO’s electricity is
56
57
31
58
59
60
1
2
3 supplied from hydropower, which is less carbon-intensive relative to the state average. Utilizing low
4
pt
5 carbon-intensive energy is a key sustainability performance indicator. While post-facto analysis would be
6
able to confirm actual GHG reductions from implementing “Expanded Requirements,” the project is still
7
8 ongoing. Some important observations can still be made regarding SFO’s sustainability indicators.
9
cri
10 In discussions with parties involved with the Terminal 1 reconstruction projects, having
11 sustainability criteria at the outset of project development is crucial. All involved parties must be aware of
12
13 their specific commitments. It is a good practice going forward for project contracts to incorporate strong
14 sustainability performance indicators. SFO plans to integrate language more thoroughly into the
15
16 Architectural and Engineering standards and guidelines that specifically align with two of SFO’s guiding
us
17
environmental priorities, namely climate change and human and ecological health. Regarding the former,
18
19 the new contract language will explicitly require that decarbonization be reflected in project design and
20
21 procurement. For example, instead of a voluntary consideration as part of an “Expanded Requirement,”
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
low-carbon structural steel would have to be selected as a building material.
The voluntary aspect of the framework (i.e., the “Expanded Requirements”) and the evaluation of
“Expanded Requirements” as baseline, baseline plus, and exceptional project outcome are rather
subjective. Such subjectivity does not necessarily result in a completed project with the best
dM
29 environmental performance. Additionally, the SFO framework relies upon building codes that while they
30 are “state of the art” compared to building codes outside of California, represent a minimum standard. If
31
32 interested in attaining a facility or project that meets a specified, quantifiable environmental outcome, the
33 subjectivity of a rating system or checklist is not the most effective approach.
34
35 SFO’s sustainability indicators do not explicitly consider the tradeoffs that potentially occur with
36
prioritizing one criteria over the other; it is a rather static framework that could benefit from incorporating
37
38 spatial and temporal factors. For example, electing to use a decentralized recycled water source (which is
pte
39
40 an “Expanded Requirement” in the Water and Wastewater category) is sometimes an energy intensive
41 process which can result in increased GHG emissions while enhancing resilience. In this anecdotal
42
43 example, there is a potential tradeoff between achieving water conservation and reducing GHG emissions.
44 While the SFO framework might work well for an airport that explicitly prioritizes overarching goals
45
46 (e.g., reducing GHG emissions and climate change impact), it might need to be reevaluated for airports
ce
47
48
that must equally consider sometimes conflicting environmental priorities.
49 4.3. Suggestions for Direction of Future Research
50
51 The roadmap for future research of airport environmental sustainability emphasizes increased
52 stakeholder involvement, more life-cycle based analysis, linkage of environmental impacts with
Ac
53
54 operational outcomes, and addressing major challenges such as adaptation to climate change and
55
mitigation of infectious diseases like COVID-19.
56
57
32
58
59
60
1
2
3 Airport environmental sustainability is often addressed at project scale. There is a need for
4
pt
5 investigating the larger role that airports have in impacting the environment, especially in the context of
6
achieving city and regional-level environmental outcomes that lead most directly to environmental quality
7
8 of people and ecosystems. This ties in with stakeholder involvement because for sustainability indicators
9
cri
10 including GHG emissions, an airport only claims responsibility for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
11 Airports often exclude ownership of Scope 3 emissions (e.g., emissions from an airline’s GSE, without
12
13 which there are no airports). The outcome of an airport excluding ownership of Scope 3 emissions is
14 twofold: (1) it is more difficult to manage Scope 3 emissions, and (2) it is difficult to understand an
15
16 airport’s total GHG impact at the city/regional/state/national level, which is important for meeting larger-
us
17
scale climate performance targets. Therefore, a broader analysis of how different stakeholders should be
18
19 included in addressing environmental sustainability efforts is necessary.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Society faces important challenges such as adapting to climate change, mitigating the spread of
pandemic-causing diseases, and enhancing environmental quality of people and ecosystems. An airport’s
role in addressing these challenges is largely undefined, but sure to be a significant one. It is imperative
that thorough research on an airport’s role in managing these challenges gets organized.
dM
29 5. Conclusion
30
31
A comprehensive, systematic review of 108 peer-reviewed articles and technical reports related to
32
33 assessing and measuring aspects of airports’ environmental sustainability has been conducted. Articles
34
35 have been characterized according to the following categories: Energy and Atmosphere, Comfort and
36 Health, Water and Wastewater, Site and Habitat, Materials and Resources, Multidimensional. Along with
37
38 a systematic review of academic literature, a review has been undertaken of the application of an existing
pte
39
airport sustainability assessment framework for a case study airport, SFO.
40
41 A broad conclusion from the systematic review is that interest in airport environmental
42
43 sustainability as a research topic is steadily increasing, but that there is ample need for more investigation.
44 Prominent research themes within the scope of airport environmental sustainability include analyzing the
45
46 environmental impacts (namely GHG emissions) from airfield pavements and energy management
ce
47 strategies for airport buildings, but not from other components of airports and for other environmental
48
49 emissions and impacts. There is a dearth of research on the impacts of indoor air quality at airports. In the
50
academic research community, there appears to be a lack of consensus about the scope of environmental
51
52 impacts that should be included when evaluating the overall sustainability of airports. GHG emissions
Ac
53
54 from energy consumption is one of the most commonly used metrics in research focused on overall
55 airport sustainability.
56
57
33
58
59
60
1
2
3 Methods for evaluating environmental impacts vary. Systems like the World Resource Institute’s
4
pt
5 Scope 1, 2, and 3 designation for GHG emissions and the LEED system for buildings are well-
6
represented in airport-industry practice. The Scope designation primarily divides responsibility for
7
8 mitigating emissions between airports and airlines, creating a gap whereby airports cannot directly control
9
cri
10 all emission sources. LEED is a minimum standard that is not sufficient for meeting quantified
11 performance goals throughout the life cycle and supply chains of airports.
12
13 Moving forward, the increased use of assessment methodologies such as LCA will be useful in
14 guiding decision-makers and policy outcomes in a more robust, granular direction. In the academic
15
16 literature, LCA is primarily used for evaluating the environmental impact of airfield pavement
us
17
construction. However, LCA can and should be applied to evaluate all components of airport construction
18
19 and operational activities and to guide decision-making as to what practices will yield optimal results.
20
21 LCA is the only comprehensive, systematic methodology (defined in ISO 14040 and 14044) that
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
estimates the entirety of life-cycle environmental impacts of a product, process, or service. This method is
very useful for accounting for regional differences in impacts, for comparing among alternative strategies,
and for identifying weak points or activities that result in the greatest environmental burdens. There are
also economic and social aspects of LCA that are helpful for decision-makers. One LCA approach,
dM
29 Economic Input-Output LCA, can be used to evaluate the resources, energy, and emissions resulting from
30 economic activity throughout a product’s supply chain (Hendrickson et al., 1998). There are efforts to use
31
32 a life-cycle approach to focus on the social aspects of a product’s impacts (Grubert, 2018). While
33 addressing the economic and social impacts from airports is beyond the scope of this review, the
34
35 economic and social implications of airports are likewise very important and demand thorough
36
investigations and actions.
37
38 In conjunction with LCA, future research should apply analysis that connects environmental
pte
39
40 impacts with operational parameters for specific airport occupant groups (e.g., ground handlers), airport
41 infrastructure (e.g., apron), and airport scale (e.g., small, medium, large hubs). Accounting for operational
42
43 parameters at different scales will provide a better understanding of how environmental sustainability
44 efforts impact different stakeholders and the airport’s primary function (i.e., processing passengers and
45
46 cargo).
ce
47
48
A key aspect of addressing the environmental sustainability of airports is the involvement of
49 different stakeholders. As identified in Figure 1, the airport is comprised of airside and landside
50
51 components. Historically, these components have been managed by distinct stakeholders. Understanding
52 the relationship among the airport components, their respective environmental impacts, and their ways of
Ac
53
54 managing stakeholder groups is critical because it leads to identifying who must act to mitigate
55
environmental impacts. Figure 7 depicts an annotated version of the airport system boundary with
56
57
34
58
59
60
1
2
3 suggested best practices for major airport components. Based on the literature review and the application
4
pt
5 of the SFO case study, effective sustainability practices that airports can implement in the short term are:
6
(1) supply electricity from renewable, low-carbon sources whether on-site or from local utilities; (2)
7
8 electrify transportation vehicles (e.g., shuttles, maintenance trucks) within the airport system boundary;
9
cri
10 (3) electrify all gate and ground service equipment; (4) implement water conservation practices like
11 installation of water-efficient faucets and toilets; (5) install energy-efficient fixtures like LED lighting in
12
13 all airport infrastructure; (6) select durable interior building materials for improved maintainability and
14 reduced waste production.
15
16
us
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
dM
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pte
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54 Figure 7: Suggested best practices for improving airport environmental sustainability.
55
56
57
35
58
59
60
1
2
3 These six suggested sustainability practices can result in prompt, substantive environmental
4
pt
5 benefits without significant tradeoffs. For example, relying on low-carbon electricity reduces GHG as
6
well as other emissions. Electrifying ground service equipment and other airport vehicles results in
7
8 reductions of air pollutants (NOx, PM) within the airport vicinity, which is a human health benefit. These
9
practices are considered implementable in the “short term” as opposed to longer-term projects such as
cri
10
11 changing the material composition of the airfield or installing on-site, decentralized wastewater treatment.
12
13 These measures cover activities and operations that essentially occur at all airports, but to varying degrees
14 of scale (e.g., all airports consume electricity). In that vein, ease of strategy implementation depends upon
15
16 airport type, the resources (e.g., cost, accessibility, expertise) available to the airport for successful
us
17
implementation and the controlling stakeholder. Further analysis of those distinctions is needed in future
18
19 research.
20
21 One common tendency is for airports to adopt a perceived “best practice” based upon another
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
airport’s successful implementation. Progress is needed to ensure that every airport considers all relevant
environmental sustainability indicators systematically to account for regional and supply-chain effects.
This ties in with the further need to connect all relevant environmental impacts with local human health
and ecosystem effects as communities living within proximity of airports bare a greater burden for airport
dM
29 operation. Future research should concentrate on the development of quantifiable indicators, or
30 performance metrics. Research and applied practice that increases stakeholder involvement, incorporates
31
32 life cycle assessment, and links environmental impacts with operational outcomes will help airports as
33 well as the aviation industry to address their roles in major global challenges (e.g., climate change
34
35 adaptation, mitigation of infectious diseases).
36
37
38
Acknowledgments
pte
39
40 FG and JR acknowledge the financial support of the Sustainability Office at Groupe ADP.
41
42
43 Data Availability Statement
44
45
46
Any data that support the findings of this study are included within the article.
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
36
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
pt
5 References
6
7 ACA. (2020). Airport Carbon Accreditation—Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from
8
9 https://www.airportcarbonaccreditation.org/airport/4-levels-of-accreditation/ghg-protocol.html
cri
10
11 ACC. (2020). Airport Council Consultants—Capital Development Report Overview. Retrieved June 15,
12
13 2020 from
14
15 https://acconline.org/ACC/Resources/Industry_Report/ACC/Resources/Industry_Report/Industry
16
us
17 _Report_Overview.aspx?hkey=1c1774c3-01ec-46a8-bc4b-49bb976ef3b7
18
19 ACRP, FAA, & Brown, L. &. (2012). Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability Into Traditional
20
21
Airport Projects (Vol. 80). Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22698
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
ACRP, FAA, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, KB Environmental Sciences, I., & Ricondo &
Associates. (2012). Airport Ground Support Equipment (GSE): Emission Reduction Strategies,
Inventory, and Tutorial (Vol. 78). Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22681

dM
29
30 ACRP, FAA, & Environmental Science Associates. (2012). Handbook for Evaluating Emissions and
31
32 Costs of APUs and Alternative Systems (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board.
33
34 https://doi.org/10.17226/22797
35
36 ACRP, FAA, McKee, Dresser & Camp, & Synergy Consulting Services. (2011). Handbook for
37
38 Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports (Vol. 56).
pte
39
40
Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/14616
41
42
43 ACRP, FAA, Ricondo & Associates, R. &, Center for Transportation, C. for, & Ardmore Associates.
44
45 (2011). Sustainable airport construction practices (Vol. 42). Transportation Research Board.
46
ce
47 https://doi.org/10.17226/22925
48
49 Agarwal, R. K. (2010). Sustainable (Green) Aviation: Challenges and Opportunities. Sae International
50
51 Journal of Aerospace, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-3085
52
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
37
58
59
60
1
2
3 Akyuez, M. K., Altuntas, O., & Sogut, M. Z. (2017). Economic and Environmental Optimization of an
4
pt
5 Airport Terminal Building’s Wall and Roof Insulation. Sustainability, 9(10), 1849.
6
7
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101849
8
9
cri
10 Amato, F., Moreno, T., Pandolfi, M., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Delgado, A., Pedrero, M., & Cots, N.
11
12 (2010). Concentrations, sources and geochemistry of airborne particulate matter at a major
13
14 European airport. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(4), 854–862.
15
16 https://doi.org/10.1039/b925439k
us
17
18 Anurag, A., Zhang, J., Gwamuri, J., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). General Design Procedures for Airport-Based
19
20 Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Energies, 10(8), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10081194
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Appold, S. J., & Kasarda, J. D. (2013). The airport city phenomenon: Evidence from large US airports.
Urban Studies, 50(6), 1239–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012464401
Apte, J. S., Bombrun, E., Marshall, J. D., & Nazaroff, W. W. (2012). Global intraurban intake fractions
dM
29 for primary air pollutants from vehicles and other distributed sources. Environmental Science &
30
31 Technology, 46(6), 3415–3423. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204021h
32
33 ASCE. (2017). Aviation Infrastructure | ASCE’s 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. Retrieved June 15,
34
35 2020 from https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/aviation/
36
37 Babashamsi, P., Yusoff, N. I. M., Ceylan, H., Nor, N. G. M., & Jenatabadi, H. S. (2016). Sustainable
38
pte
39 Development Factors in Pavement Life-Cycle: Highway/Airport Review. Sustainability, 8(3),

40
41 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030248
42
43 Barrett, S. (2019). Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. ACRP Synthesis of Airport Practice, 100,
44
45
Article Project 11-03, Topic S02-20. https://doi.org/10.17226/25609
46
ce
47
48
Barrett, S. B., Devita, P. M., Lambert, J. R., Ho, C. K., Miller, B., Zhang, Y., & Vigilante, M. (2014).
49
50 Guidebook for Energy Facilities Compatibility with Airports and Airspace (Issue Project 02-38).
51
52 https://doi.org/10.17226/22399
Ac
53
54 Baxter, G., Srisaeng, P., & Wild, G. (2018a). SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT ENERGY MANAGEMENT:
55 THE CASE OF KANSAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. International Journal for Traffic &
56 Transport Engineering, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.7708/ijtte.2018.8(3).07
57
38
58
59
60
1
2
3 Baxter, G., Srisaeng, P., & Wild, G. (2018b). An Assessment of Airport Sustainability, Part 1-Waste
4
pt
5 Management at Copenhagen Airport. Resources-Basel, 7(1), 21.
6
7
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010021
8
9
cri
10 Baxter, G., Srisaeng, P., & Wild, G. (2018c). An Assessment of Airport Sustainability, Part 2-Energy
11
13
14 https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7020032
15
16 Baxter, G., Srisaeng, P., & Wild, G. (2019). An Assessment of Airport Sustainability: Part 3-Water
us
17
19
20 https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030135
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Belant, J. L., & Ayers, C. R. (2014). Habitat Management to Deter Wildlife at Airports (Issue Project
A11-03, Topic S10-10). https://doi.org/10.17226/22375
Berry, F., Gillhespy, S., & Rogers, J. (2008). Airport sustainability practices (Issue Project 11-03, Topic
dM
29 S02-02). https://doi.org/10.17226/23644
30
31 Blakey, S., Rye, L., & Wilson, C. W. (2011). Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: A review.
32
33 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 33(2), 2863–2885.
34
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.09.011
36
37 Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. (1987). Our common future. New
38
pte
39 York, 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783
40
41 Budd, L., Ison, S., & Budd, T. (2016). Improving the environmental performance of airport surface access
42
43 in the UK: The role of public transport. Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger
44
45
Transport (Selected Papers from the Thredbo 14 Conference), 59, 185–195.
46
ce
47
48
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.04.013
49
50 Burbidge, R. (2016). Adapting European airports to a changing climate. Transportation Research
51
52 Procedia, 14, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.036
Ac
53
54 Carvalho, I. de C., Calijuri, M. L., Assemany, P. P., Freitas Machado e Silva, M. D., Moreira Neto, R. F.,
55
56 Santiago, A. da F., & Batalha de Souza, M. H. (2013). Sustainable airport environments: A
57
39
58
59
60
1
2
3 review of water conservation practices in airports. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 74,
4
pt
5 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.016
6
7
Chao, C.-C., Lirn, T.-C., & Lin, H.-C. (2017). Indicators and evaluation model for analyzing
8
9
cri
10 environmental protection performance of airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 61–
11
12 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.007
13
14 Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2012). High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce
15
16 environmental impacts in California’s future. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034012.
us
17
18 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034012
19
20 Chester, M. V., & Horvath, A. (2009). Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), 024008.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008
CIA. (2016). World—The World Factbook—Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
dM
29 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
30
31 Cicas, G., Hendrickson, C. T., Horvath, A., & Matthews, H. S. (2007). A regional version of a US
32
33 economic input-output life-cycle assessment model. The International Journal of Life Cycle
34
35 Assessment, 12(6), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.318
36
37 Clevenger, C. M., & Rogers, Z. (2017). Managing Daylight in Airports. Journal of Architectural
38
pte
39 Engineering, 23(3), 04017006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000245

40
41 Coffel, E. D., Thompson, T. R., & Horton, R. M. (2017). The impacts of rising temperatures on aircraft
42
43 takeoff performance. Climatic Change, 144(2), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-
44
45
2018-9
46
ce
47
48
Couto, E. de A., Calijuri, M. L., Assemany, P. P., da Fonseca Santiago, A., & de Castro Carvalho, I.
49
50 (2013). Greywater production in airports: Qualitative and quantitative assessment. Resources,
51
52 Conservation and Recycling, 77, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.004
Ac
53
54 Couto, E. de A., Calijuri, M. L., Assemany, P. P., Santiago, A. da F., & Lopes, L. S. (2015). Greywater
55
56 treatment in airports using anaerobic filter followed by UV disinfection: An efficient and low cost
57
40
58
59
60
1
2
3 alternative. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 372–379.
4
pt
5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.065
6
7
Dehkordi, E. R., Karimi, A., Karimi, R., & Beygi, M. A. (2019). Sustainable design for airport terminals,
8
9
cri
10 by integrated photovoltaic (PV) system (adopting bench-marking approach). International
11
12 Journal of Green Energy, 16(15), 1611–1616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2019.1681425
13
14 Delaney, E., & Thomson, B. (2013). Environmental Management System Development Process (Vol. 44).
15
16 Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22588
us
17
18 DeVault, T. L., Seamans, T. W., Schmidt, J. A., Belant, J. L., Blackwell, B. F., Mooers, N., Tyson, L. A.,
19
20 & Van Pelt, L. (2014). Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: Implications for
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
aviation safety. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.017
Divoll, T. J., & O’Keefe, J. M. (2018). Airport Expansion and Endangered Bats: Development and
dM
29 Mitigation Actions Near the Indianapolis International Airport. Transportation Research Record,
30
31 2672(29), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118799711
32
33 Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for
34
35 sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.
36
37 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41165746
38
pte
39 FAA. (2020a). Airport Carbon Emissions Reduction – Airports. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
40
41 https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/air_quality/carbon_emissions_reduction/
42
43 FAA. (2020b). Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports – Airports.
44
45
Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
46
ce
47
48
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/
49
50 Fan, H., Tarun, P. K., Shih, D. T., Kim, S. B., Chen, V. C. P., Rosenberger, J. M., & Bergman, D. (2011).
51
52 Data mining modeling on the environmental impact of airport deicing activities. Expert Systems
Ac
53
54 with Applications, 38(12), 14899–14906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.057
55
56
57
41
58
59
60
1
2
3 Ferrulli, P. (2016). Green Airport Design Evaluation (GrADE)–methods and tools improving
4
pt
5 infrastructure planning. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 3781–3790.
6
7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.463
8
9
cri
10 Gomez Comendador, V. F., Arnaldo Valdes, R. M., & Lisker, B. (2019). A Holistic Approach to the
11
12 Environmental Certification of Green Airports. Sustainability, 11(15), 4043.
13
14 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154043
15
16 Grubert, E. (2018). Rigor in social life cycle assessment: Improving the scientific grounding of SLCA.
us
17
18 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 481–491.
19
20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1117-6
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Heard, R., & Mannarino, E. (2018). Microgrids and Their Application for Airports and Public Transit
(Issue Project A11-03, Topic S01-16). https://doi.org/10.17226/25233
Helmis, C. G., Assimakopoulos, V. D., Flocas, H. A., Stathopoulou, O. I., Sgouros, G., & Hatzaki, M.
dM
29 (2009). Indoor air quality assessment in the air traffic control tower of the Athens Airport,
30
31 Greece. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 148(1–4), 47–60.
32
33 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-0138-9
34
35 Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., & Lave, L. (1998). Peer reviewed: Economic input–output
36
37 models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 32(7),
38
pte
39 184A-191A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es983471i
40
41 Higgins, J., Wallace, S., Minkel, K., Wagner, R., Liner, M., & Meal, G. (2011). The design & operation
42
43 of a very large vertical sub-surface flow engineered wetland to treat spent deicing fluids and
44
45
glycol-contaminated stormwater at Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Water Practice and
46
ce
47
48
Technology, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2011.044
49
50 Horvath, A. (2004). Construction materials and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 181–
51
52 204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102215
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
42
58
59
60
1
2
3 Hubbard, S. M. L., & Hubbard, B. (2019). A review of sustainability metrics for the construction and
4
pt
5 operation of airport and roadway infrastructure. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 6(3),
6
7
433–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0052-1
8
9
cri
10 IATA. (2018). IATA Forecast Predicts 8.2 billion Air Travelers in 2037. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
11
12 https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2018-10-24-02/
13
14 IATA. (2020). Don’t Make A Slow Recovery More Difficult with Quarantine Measures. Retrieved June
15
16 15, 2020 from https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-05-13-03/
us
17
18 IEA. (2019). Aviation – Tracking Transport – Analysis. IEA. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
19
20 https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-transport-2019/aviation
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Janic, M. (2010). Developing an Indicator System for Monitoring, Analyzing, and Assessing Airport
Sustainability. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(3), 206–229.
https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.3.2889
dM
29 Janic, M. (2016). Analyzing, modeling, and assessing the performances of land use by airports.
30
31 International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 683–702.
32
33 https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2015.1104566
34
35 Johnson, E. P. (2012). Aircraft de-icer: Recycling can cut carbon emissions in half. Environmental Impact
36
37 Assessment Review, 32(1), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.08.001
38
pte
39 Jolley, J. W., Tuccillo, M. E., Young, M. L., Barrett, M., & Lantin, A. (2017). Green Stormwater
40
41 Infrastructure-Volume 1: Primer. Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/24817
42
43 Jung, K.-H., Artigas, F., & Shin, J. Y. (2011). Personal, indoor, and outdoor exposure to VOCs in the
44
45
immediate vicinity of a local airport. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173(1–4), 555–
46
ce
47
48
567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1404-9
49
50 Kilkis, B., & Kilkis, S. (2017). New exergy metrics for energy, environment, and economy nexus and
51
52 optimum design model for nearly-zero exergy airport (nZEXAP) systems. Energy, 140, 1329–
Ac
53
54 1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.129
55
56
57
43
58
59
60
1
2
3 Kilkis, S., & Kilkis, S. (2016). Benchmarking airports based on a sustainability ranking index. Journal of
4
pt
5 Cleaner Production, 130, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.031
6
7
Kim, B., Nakada, K., Trendowski, J., Vigilante, M., Raps, V., Jones, A., & Stonefield, D. (2014).
8
9
cri
10 Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions (Issue Project 02-33).
11
12 https://doi.org/10.17226/22437
13
14 Kim, B., Nakada, K., Wayson, R., Christie, S., Paling, C., Bennett, M., Raper, D., Raps, V., Levy, J., &
15
16 Roof, C. (2015). Understanding Airport Air Quality and Public Health Studies Related to
us
17
18 Airports (Issue Project 02-42). https://doi.org/10.17226/22119
19
20 Kiyak, E., & Bayraktar, N. F. (2015). Transforming lighting system for more greener: Applying to the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2015.070370
an
terminal building. International Journal of Sustainable Aviation, 1(3), 218–233.
Kılkış, B. (2014). Energy consumption and CO2 emission responsibilities of terminal buildings: A case
dM
29 study for the future Istanbul International Airport. Energy and Buildings, 76, 109–118.
30
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.049
32
33 Kolpakov, A., Sipiora, A. M., & Huss, J. E. (2018). Clean Vehicles, Fuels, and Practices for Airport
34
35 Private Ground Transportation Providers (Issue Project 11-03, Topic S02-19).
36
37 https://doi.org/10.17226/25193
38
pte
39 Kon, O., & Caner, I. (2019). The life cycle assessment related to insulation thickness of external walls of
40
41 the airport. International Journal of Sustainable Aviation, 5(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/
42
43 10.1504/IJSA.2019.101748
44
45
Kotopouleas, A., & Nikolopoulou, M. (2018). Evaluation of comfort conditions in airport terminal
46
ce
47
48
buildings. Building and Environment, 130, 162–178.
49
50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.031
51
52 Krop, R. A., Young, M. L., Jolley, J., & Davis, W. (2016). Water Efficiency Management Strategies for
Ac
53
54 Airports (Issue Project 02-59). https://doi.org/10.17226/23534
55
56
57
44
58
59
60
1
2
3 Lam, C.-M., Yu, I. K. M., Medel, F., Tsang, D. C. W., Hsu, S.-C., & Poon, C. S. (2018). Life-cycle cost-
4
pt
5 benefit analysis on sustainable food waste management: The case of Hong Kong International
6
7
Airport. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 751–762.
8
9
cri
11
12 Lau, C. R., Stromgren, J. T., & Green, D. J. (2010). Airport Energy Efficiency and Cost Reduction. ACRP
13
14 Synthesis of Airport Practice, 21, Article Project 11-03, Topic S10-04.
15
16 https://doi.org/10.17226/14413
us
17
18 Leung, R. W. K., Li, D. C. H., Yu, W. K., Chui, H. K., Lee, T. O., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., & Chen, G.
19
20 H. (2012). Integration of seawater and grey water reuse to maximize alternative water resource
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
for coastal areas: The case of the Hong Kong International Airport. Water Science and
Technology, 65(3), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.768
Li, L., & Loo, B. P. Y. (2016). Impact analysis of airport infrastructure within a sustainability framework:
dM
29 Case studies on Hong Kong International Airport. International Journal of Sustainable
30
31 Transportation, 10(9), 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1149647
32
33 Liu, M.-B., & Liao, S.-M. (2018). A case study on the underground rapid transport system (URTS) for the
34
35 international airport hubs: Planning, application and lessons learnt. Tunnelling and Underground
36
37 Space Technology, 80, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.004
38
pte
39 Liu, X., Liu, X., Zhang, T., & Li, L. (n.d.). An investigation of the cooling performance of air-
40
41 conditioning systems in seven Chinese hub airport terminals. Indoor and Built Environment,
42
43 UNSP 1420326X19891645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19891645
44
45
Lobo, P., Whitefield, P. D., Hagen, D. E., Miake-Lye, R. C., Herndon, S. C., Franklin, J. P., Fortner, E.
46
ce
47
48
C., Timko, M. T., Knighton, W. B., & Webb, S. (2013). Measuring PM Emissions from Aircraft
49
50 Auxiliary Power Units, Tires, and Brakes (Issue Project 02-17). https://doi.org/10.17226/22457
51
52 Longhurst, J., Gibbs, D. C., Raper, D. W., & Conlan, D. E. (1996). Towards sustainable airport
Ac
53
54 development. Environmentalist, 16(3), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324760
55
56
57
45
58
59
60
1
2
3 Lu, M.-T., Hsu, C.-C., Liou, J. J. H., & Lo, H.-W. (2018). A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced
4
pt
5 scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports.
6
7
Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008
8
9
cri
10 Lurie, C., Humblet, E., Steuer, C., & Lemaster, K. (2014). Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating
11
12 System—Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options (Issue Project 02-28).
13
14 https://doi.org/10.17226/22233.
15
16 Malik, K. (2017). Assessment of Energy Consumption Pattern and Energy Conservation Potential at
us
17
18 Indian Airports. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 22, 97–119.
19
20 https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2017.22.supp1.6
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
airports. https://doi.org/10.17226/23461
an
Marchi, R. (2015). Climate change adaptation planning: Risk assessment for
Martin-Nagle, R., & Klauber, A. (2015). Lessons learned from airport sustainability plans (Issue Project
dM
29 A11-03, Topic S02-11). https://doi.org/10.17226/22111
30
31 Masiol, M., & Harrison, R. M. (2014). Aircraft engine exhaust emissions and other airport-related
32
33 contributions to ambient air pollution: A review. Atmospheric Environment, 95, 409–455.
34
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.070
36
37 Meng, Q., Li, Q., Zhao, L., Li, L., Chen, Z., Chen, Y., & Wang, S. (2009). A Case Study of the Thermal
38
pte
39 Environment in the Airport Terminal Building under Natural Ventilation. Journal of Asian
40
41 Architecture and Building Engineering, 8(1), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.8.221
42
43 Miller, S. A., Horvath, A., & Monteiro, P. J. (2016). Readily implementable techniques can cut annual
44
45
CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%. Environmental Research Letters,
46
ce
47
48
11(7), 074029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074029
49
50 Mohiley, A., Franzaring, J., Calvo, O. C., & Fangmeier, A. (2015). Potential toxic effects of aircraft de-
51
52 icers and wastewater samples containing these compounds. Environmental Science and Pollution
Ac
53
54 Research, 22(17), 13094–13101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4358-1
55
56
57
46
58
59
60
1
2
3 Mokalled, T., Gerard, J. A., Abboud, M., Liaud, C., Nassreddine, R., & Le Calve, S. (2019). An
4
pt
5 assessment of indoor air quality in the maintenance room at Beirut-Rafic Hariri International
6
7
Airport. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 10(3), 701–711.
8
9
cri
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.11.008
11
12 Monsalud, A., Ho, D., & Rakas, J. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation strategies within the
13
14 airport sustainability evaluation process. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 414–424.
15
16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.08.003
us
17
18 Murrant, D., & Radcliffe, J. (2018). Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-criteria
19
20 decision analysis-based framework. Applied Energy, 231, 788–802.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.170
Ortega Alba, S., & Manana, M. (2017). Characterization and Analysis of Energy Demand Patterns in
Airports. Energies, 10(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010119

dM
29 Ozdemir, G., & Filibeli, A. (2014). Basic principles of CO2 emission calculations at airports: A case
30
31 study from Turkey. International Journal of Global Warming, 6(2–3), 315–324.
32
33 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2014.061026
34
35 Padhra, A. (2018). Emissions from auxiliary power units and ground power units during intraday aircraft
36
37 turnarounds at European airports. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
38
pte
39 63, 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.015

40
41 Pittenger, D. M. (2011). Evaluating Sustainability of Selected Airport Pavement Treatments with Life-
42
43 Cycle Cost, Raw Material Consumption, and Greenroads Standards. Transportation Research
44
45
Record, 2206, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.3141/2206-08
46
ce
47
48
Poo, M. C.-P., Yang, Z., Dimitriu, D., & Qu, Z. (2018). Review on Seaport and Airport Adaptation to
49
50 Climate Change: A Case on Sea Level Rise and Flooding. Marine Technology Society Journal,
51
52 52(2), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.52.2.4
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
47
58
59
60
1
2
3 Postorino, M. N., & Mantecchini, L. (2014). A transport carbon footprint methodology to assess airport
4
pt
5 carbon emissions. Journal of Air Transport Management, 37, 76–86.
6
7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.03.001
8
9
cri
10 Prather, C. D. (2016). Airport Sustainability Practices—Drivers and Outcomes for Small Commercial and
11
12 General Aviation Airports. https://doi.org/10.17226/23486.
13
14 Pressl, A., Pucher, B., Scharf, B., & Langergraber, G. (2019). Treatment of de-icing contaminated surface
15
16 water runoff along an airport runway using in-situ soil enriched with structural filter materials.
us
17
18 Science of the Total Environment, 660, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.440
19
20 Preston, K. B., Nagy, J., Crites, J. M., & Barrett, S. (2019). Optimizing the Use of Electric Preconditioned
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
76). https://doi.org/10.17226/25623
an
Air (PCA) and Ground Power Systems for Airports (Issue ACRP Project 02-
Ren, J., Cao, X., & Liu, J. (2018). Impact of atmospheric particulate matter pollutants to IAQ of airport
dM
29 terminal buildings: A first field study at Tianjin Airport, China. Atmospheric Environment, 179,
30
31 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.02.019
32
33 Ribeiro, E. N., de Sousa, W. C., de Julio, M., Irrazabal, W. U., & Nolasco, M. A. (2013). Airports and
34
35 Environment: Proposal of Wastewater Reclamation at SAo Paulo International Airport. Clean-
36
37 Soil Air Water, 41(7), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201100682
38
pte
39 Santero, N. J., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011). Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I: Critical
40
41 review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(9–10), 801–809.
42
43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.010
44
45
Sarlioglu, B., & Morris, C. T. (2015). More Electric Aircraft: Review, Challenges, and Opportunities for
46
ce
47
48
Commercial Transport Aircraft. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION
49
50 ELECTRIFICATION, 1(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2015.2426499
51
52 Setiawan, W., & Sadewa, R. A. (2018). Guidance for Sustainable Airport Building Design: A Review.
Ac
53
54 Advanced Science Letters, 24(12), 9223–9228. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.12131
55
56
57
48
58
59
60
1
2
3 SFO. (2011). SFO’s Terminal 2 Certified LEED® Gold | San Francisco International Airport. FlySFO |
4
pt
5 San Francisco International Airport. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
6
7
https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-releases/sfos-terminal-2-certified-leed%C2%AE-gold
8
9
cri
10 SFO. (2018). SFO Announces Landmark Agreement for Use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels | San
11
12 Francisco International Airport. FlySFO | San Francisco International Airport. Retrieved August
13
14 7, 2020 from https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-releases/sfo-announces-landmark-agreement-
15
16 use-sustainable-aviation-fuels
us
17
18 SFO. (2020). San Francisco International Airport—Sustainability Facts and Figures. FlySFO | San
19
20 Francisco International Airport. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
https://www.flysfo.com/environment/sustainability-facts-figures
Silvester, S., Beella, S. K., Timmeren, A. [van, Bauer, P., Quist, J., & Dijk, S. [van. (2013). Exploring
design scenarios for large-scale implementation of electric vehicles; the Amsterdam Airport
dM
29 Schiphol case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 211–219.
30
32
33 Somerville, A., Baxter, G. S., Richardson, S., & Wild, G. (2015). SUSTAINABLE WATER
34
35 MANAGEMENT AT MAJOR AUSTRALIAN REGIONAL AIRPORTS: THE CASE OF
36
37 MILDURA AIRPORT. Aviation, 19(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.3846/16487788.2015.1057992
38
pte
39 Sukumaran, S., & Sudhakar, K. (2018). Performance analysis of solar powered airport based on energy
40
41 and exergy analysis. Energy, 149, 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.095
42
43 Tagliaferri, C., Evangelisti, S., Clift, R., & Lettieri, P. (2018). Life cycle assessment of a biomass CHP
44
45
plant in UK: The Heathrow energy centre case. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 133,
46
ce
47
48
210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.03.022
49
50 Taptich, M. N., Horvath, A., & Chester, M. V. (2016). Worldwide greenhouse gas reduction potentials in
51
52 transportation by 2050. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(2), 329–340.
Ac
53
54 http://doi.org/10.1111.jiec.12391
55
56
57
49
58
59
60
1
2
3 Targino, A. C., Machado, B. L. F., & Krecl, P. (2017). Concentrations and personal exposure to black
4
pt
5 carbon particles at airports and on commercial flights. Transportation Research Part D-Transport
6
7
and Environment, 52, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.003
8
9
cri
10 Testa, E., Giammusso, C., Bruno, M., & Maggiore, P. (2014). Analysis of environmental benefits
11
12 resulting from use of hydrogen technology in handling operations at airports. Clean Technologies
13
14 and Environmental Policy, 16(5), 875–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0678-3
15
16 Tsakas, M. P., & Siskos, P. A. (2011). Indoor Air Quality in the Control Tower of Athens International
us
17
18 Airport, Greece. Indoor and Built Environment, 20(2), 284–289.
19
20 https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X10381108
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Turner, M. E. (2018). Airport Waste Management and Recycling Practices (Issue Project 11-03, Topic
S02-18). https://doi.org/10.17226/25254.
Upham, P. J., & Mills, J. N. (2005). Environmental and operational sustainability of airports Core
dM
29 indicators and stakeholder communication. Benchmarking-an International Journal, 12(2), 166–
30
31 179. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770510593103
32
33 USGBC. (n.d.). Projects | U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from
34
35 https://www.usgbc.org/projects
36
37 Uysal, M. P., & Sogut, M. Z. (2017). An integrated research for architecture-based energy management in
38
pte
39 sustainable airports. Energy, 140, 1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.199

40
41 Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Impacts of Automated Vehicles on Airport Landside Terminal Planning,
42
43 Design, and Operations. Transportation Research Record, 2673(10), 443–454.
44
45
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119850473
46
ce
47
48
Wang, Z., Zhao, H., Lin, B., Zhu, Y., Ouyang, Q., & Yu, J. (2015). Investigation of indoor environment
49
50 quality of Chinese large-hub airport terminal buildings through longitudinal field measurement
51
52 and subjective survey. Building and Environment, 94, 593–605.
Ac
53
54 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.10.014
55
56
57
50
58
59
60
1
2
3 Washburn, B. E., Swearingin, R. M., Pullins, C. K., & Rice, M. E. (2016). Composition and Diversity of
4
pt
5 Avian Communities Using a New Urban Habitat: Green Roofs. Environmental Management,
6
7
57(6), 1230–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0687-1
8
9
cri
10 Winther, M., Kousgaard, U., Ellermann, T., Massling, A., Nojgaard, J. K., & Ketzel, M. (2015).
11
12 Emissions of NOx, particle mass and particle numbers from aircraft main engines, APU’s and
13
14 handling equipment at Copenhagen Airport. Atmospheric Environment, 100, 218–229.
15
us
17
18 Yan, H.-K., Wang, N., Wu, N., Song, N.-Q., & Zhu, D.-L. (2017). Estimating environmental value losses
19
20 from earth materials excavation and infilling for large-scale airport construction: A case of Dalian
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Offshore Airport, Dalian, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(26), 21168–
21179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9760-4
Yim, S. H. L., Stettler, M. E. J., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2013). Air quality and public health impacts of UK
dM
29 airports. Part II: Impacts and policy assessment. Atmospheric Environment, 67, 184–192.
30
32
33 Zanni, S., Lalli, F., Foschi, E., Bonoli, A., & Mantecchini, L. (2018). Indoor Air Quality Real-Time
34
35 Monitoring in Airport Terminal Areas: An Opportunity for Sustainable Management of Micro-
36
37 Climatic Parameters. Sensors, 18(11), 3798. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18113798
38
pte
39 Zhang, T., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Jiang, J., Zhou, M., & Jiang, Y. (2013). Performance analysis of the air-
40
41 conditioning system in Xi’an Xianyang International Airport. Energy and Buildings, 59, 11–20.
42
43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.044
44
45
Zhao, B., Wang, N., Fu, Q., Yan, H.-K., & Wu, N. (2019). Searching a site for a civil airport based on
46
ce
47
48
bird ecological conservation: An expert-based selection (Dalian, China). Global Ecology and
49
50 Conservation, 20, e00729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00729
51
52 Zhao, K., Liu, X.-H., & Jiang, Y. (2014). On-site measured performance of a radiant floor cooling/heating
Ac
53
54 system in Xi’an Xianyang International Airport. Solar Energy, 108, 274–286.
55
56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.07.012
57
51
58
59
60
1
2
3 Zhen, J., Lu, J., Huang, G., & Zhang, H. (2017). Groundwater source heat pump application in the heating
4
pt
5 system of Tibet Plateau airport. Energy and Buildings, 136, 33–42.
6
7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.008
8
9
cri
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
us
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
dM
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
pte
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ce
47
48
49
50
51
52
Ac
53
54
55
56
57
52
58
59
60

Airports and Environmental Sustainability A Compre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airports and Environmental Sustainability A Compre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Research Letters

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS

Airports and environmental sustainability: a comprehensive review

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 45.40.126.207 on 03/09/2020 at 04:12

53 Table 1: Airport industry concept of sustainability or EONS, as defined by Prather, 2016.

47 Access Road Transport passengers/employees to/from Airport/Local

53 Waste Manage waste from airport operation Airport/Local

53 related to tenant and concessionaire • Installation of LEDs

32 • Use ground power • Use recycled water • Engage in waste

38 • CO2 Emissions per

Chao, Lirn, &

3.2.2. Development of Sustainability Indicators an

Determining optimal methods for achieving overall environmental sustainability at an airport,

Inventory, and Tutorial (Vol. 78). Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22681

Urban Studies, 50(6), 1239–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012464401

39 Development Factors in Pavement Life-Cycle: Highway/Airport Review. Sustainability, 8(3),

A11-03, Topic S10-10). https://doi.org/10.17226/22375

39 Engineering, 23(3), 04017006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000245

(Issue Project A11-03, Topic S01-16). https://doi.org/10.17226/25233

Sustainability. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(3), 206–229.

Technology, 65(3), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.768

Airports. Energies, 10(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010119

39 63, 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.015

39 sustainable airports. Energy, 140, 1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.199

You might also like