Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Correspondi

E-mail addre

0969-6997/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.jai

Environmental capacity and European air transport: stakeholderopinion and implications for modelling

Paul Uphama,*, David Raperb, Callum Thomasb, Mark McLellanc, Martin Leverb,Arthur Lieuwend

aTyndall Centre (North), School of Mechanical Engineering, UMIST, Manchester, UKbDepartment of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Centre for Aviation, Transport and the Environment,

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UKcGreenAscent, Warwickshire, UK

dEUROCONTROL, Environmental Focal Point, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium

Abstract

This paper reports on a survey of stakeholder views on airport environmental capacity, commissioned by EUROCONTROL. The

survey found divergent opinion on the role of environmental limits in conceptions of environmental capacity. While there is

widespread agreement that environmental constraints are likely to prove increasingly problematic for European aviation, there is

also a wide range of opinion regarding institutional aspects of their management.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environment; Capacity; Airport; Stakeholder; Air traffic management

1. Introduction

The EU Transport Commission has stated: ‘‘it is theenvironmental capacity of airports, much more thanphysical or financial constraints, which cause imbal-ances and impediments to growth’’ (Coleman, 1999).More generally, a recent European Civil AviationConference and EUROCONTROL (2001) study Con-

straints to Growth shows that major airports acrossEurope are already subject to growth constraints,including constraints arising from environmental fac-tors, and that the level of forecast demand is such thatthese constraints are likely to become critical by 20,unless new infrastructure becomes available.This paper focuses on the environmental component

of European aviation growth constraints. It reportsnotable results from a detailed and extensive survey ofstakeholder views on airport environmental capacity,commissioned by EUROCONTROL, the EuropeanOrganisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, anintergovernmental air traffic management (ATM) orga-nisation with 31 Member States. EUROCONTROL’s

ng author.

ss: p.upham@umist.ac.uk (P. Upham).

front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rtraman.2003.10.016

primary aim is to achieve a seamless, environmentallysustainable, pan-European ATM system that meetsfuture capacity needs. However, local responses toaircraft noise and airport-related gaseous pollution haveresulted in the proliferation of a heterogeneous mix ofsolutions and compromises at airports across Europe.This mix has the potential to cause problems forforecasting and managing ATM system capacity,problems for airlines in planning their operations andfor airports in catering for demand for air travel. Thepurpose of the present study was to establish stake-holder views on the concept and components ofenvironmental capacity, based on a sample of airports,airlines, air navigation service providers (ANSPs),government agencies and non-governmental organisa-tions (NGOs). These opinions would have the potentialto inform any further work on operationalising theconcept of environmental capacity.Work on defining a conceptual framework with which

to assess the environmental capacity of aviation is recentin origin. In September 2001, the concept of environ-mental capacity was used by London Luton Airport, aspart of its Development Brief policy framework(London Luton Airport Operations Ltd., 2000). LutonAirport took the view that setting regulatory planning

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Questions posed to ACI-Europe Environment Strategy Committee

Question

1. At your own airport, is there a present, medium, or long-term

constraint to operations or development due to one or more

environmental issue? If so, which issue(s)?

2. At European level, how are environmental constraints at individual

airports likely to affect European airspace management?

3. What are the most important factors in maximising environmental

capacity?

4. At your own airport, is Air Traffic Control briefed/involved in

dealing with environmental issues and constraints?

5. Is your Terminal Control Area (TMA) at risk of losing capacity due

to environmental constraints at neighbouring airports?

P. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205200

controls for airports in throughput terms, whether airtraffic movements or passengers, provides no encourage-ment for airport operators to minimise environmentalimpact. For the airport, a preferable policy would be theapplication of mitigation techniques to keep localimpacts constant or ‘controlled’ while raising passengerthroughput. The airport proposed that local environ-mental quality standards should be used as a means ofdelimiting its environmental capacity, which it definedas ‘‘the extent to which the environment (and the localcommunity) is able to receive and tolerate, assimilate, orprocess outputs derived from airport activities’’(London Luton Airport Operations Ltd., 2000).Also Upham (2001) set out a theoretical basis for theassessment of global and local aviation environmentalcapacity, showing the extent of the work that would benecessary for reliable assessment. Upham et al.(2003) further discuss factors impinging on the environ-mental capacity of airports by drawing on an interna-tional conference on components of the subject.Recently, Thomas and Lever (2003) have drawnattention to the way in which some of the majorEuropean airports are nearing their environmentalcapacity, and have emphasised the importance ofairport-community relations in mitigating capacityconstraints arising from noise emissions.

2. Method

The results are taken from a study of European ATMstakeholder opinion and literature review conductedover four months in 2002. The methods used to capturestakeholder views were:

* Semi-structured interviews with 14 individual Eur-opean air transport stakeholders and experts (fromindustry, government and NGOs);

* Interviews with the Civil Air Navigation ServicesOrganisation (CANSO), which is the trade associa-tion for semi-privatised (‘corporatised’) air naviga-tion service providers;

* Completion of a questionnaire by 20 ACI EUROPEEnvironmental Strategy Committee members, repre-senting Europe’s major airports;

* Focus group meetings with the stakeholders (exclud-ing NGOs) of five contrasting European airports;

* A questionnaire sent to 209 airports who aremembers of the European region of Airports CouncilInternational (the results of which are not amenableto reporting here).

The stakeholder sample was chosen to be broadlyrepresentative of the air transport industry, includingairlines, airports, ANSPs, regulators and NGOs. Inter-viewees were affiliated to one of each of the followingorganisations: the Swedish Defence Research Agency

(FOI), Dutch Ministry of Transport, European Parlia-ment, Airports Council International Europe (ACI-E),Transport 2000, Association of European Airlines,International Air Transport Association (IATA), EUDirectorate-General for Energy and Transport(DGTREN), EUROCONTROL, Airport OperatorsAssociation, Institute for Public Policy Research,Transport and Environment, and the Aviation Environ-ment Federation. All interviewees can be consideredexperts in particular aspects of environmental capacityand are well placed within their organisational hierarchyto represent their organisation’s views on environmentalcapacity. Nevertheless, the documented views should beconsidered as indicative of organisational thinkingrather than statements of organisational policy. CAN-SO’s views are included in the initial section onstakeholder views.The Airports Council International (ACI) European

Environmental Strategy Committee consists of environ-mental management and planning professionals from 37European airports. During a scheduled period of oneCommittee meeting in April 2002, 20 attending membersgave written responses to the five questions in Table 1.The following airports or airport groups were repre-sented at the meeting, giving a wide geographicaldistribution and range of operation size: Aeroportosde Portugal, Amsterdam–Schiphol, Athens, Bologna,Brussels, Bucharest, Dublin, Hamburg, London Gat-wick, London Heathrow, Milan, Munich, NorwegianAir Traffic and Airport Management, Oslo, Prague,Rome, Salzburg, Spanish Airport Authority, Stockholmand Zurich.

3. Stakeholder views on environmental capacity

The stakeholder interviews showed little consensusamong the stakeholders on the application of environ-mental limits as part of an environmental capacityframework. While some of the industry groups were

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1 (The Airport Operations Unit at EUROCONTROL also viewed

climate change as an issue that is unlikely to significantly impinge on

aviation, although Capacity Management at EUROCONTROL

considered climate change a likely constraint in the longer term).

P. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205 201

keen that a cost–benefit element be included in anyinterpretation of environmental capacity (requiring theapplication of monetary decision criteria), NGOs werein favour of applying environmentally based limits. Thefollowing definitions and interpretations of environ-mental capacity were provided by the stakeholdersample; respondents’ phrasing has been retained.

* The extent to which the environment (and the localcommunity) is able to receive and tolerate, assimilate,or process outputs derived from airport activities.

* The impact of airport operations upon the localenvironment and upon the lives of residents of localcommunities.

* The level of an airport’s operational capacity atwhich those deciding an airport’s future agree thatthe adverse environmental and social disbenefitsarising from its development and operation outweighthe benefits that the airport would otherwise havebrought.

* The component of capacity constraint at airports orairspace described by environmental factors.

* A proxy for environmental limits without anyreference to what that limit might be.

* A concept that allows for a certain amount ofenvironmental impact without overt description.There is a question as to whether or not it can bedefined at all, because it is entirely dependent on thetolerance of communities.

* A point at which the marginal benefit equated to themarginal cost.

* A flexible limit.* Environmental capacity is the limit of environmental

tolerance.* Environmental and human toleration capacity.* Environmental capacity is the traffic volume possible

within environmental load limits, depending onaircraft environmental characteristics (noise, emis-sions) and time distribution of traffic.

* The ability of a specific space, which interrelatesdynamically and can accept pressure from air trafficon the ground, during landing and take-off (LTO)and navigation and can affect the imposed environ-mental limits.

* A balanced combination of operational and environ-mental conditions that do not exceed a specific rangeof values.

* The level of development of air traffic that provideseconomic activity with acceptable environmentalimpact.

Whilst it is not possible to present all opinions here,there were a number of other notable findings from thestakeholder interviews. Most stakeholders expressedfrustration at the slow pace at which the InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and its Committeeon Aviation and Environmental Protection has been

able to take decisions. ICAO is generally considered tohave limited political capabilities on environmentalissues due to the extent to which it must consult andmeet the conflicting priorities of its member states. It isseen as having left airport-related measures a matter forindividual nations, without an attempt at forging aframework for global harmonisation.CANSO, for example, was of the view that other

organisations will need to take the role of harmonisingand coordinating global measures to minimise theenvironmental impact of air transport activities inimmediate airport vicinities. It is concerned that thepresent situation of each airport designing unique ATCprocedures leads to individual airline operationaldepartments having to design their own solutions tocapacity-related problems, and that this is a potentialsafety risk. CANSO actively encourages air trafficcontrollers, airport authorities and airline operationsto work together. It considers that this has resulted insuccessful ‘‘environmental operations programs’ andimproved airport capacities at locations across Europe,but to date there has been no large-scale co-ordinationof operating rules.IATA was more accepting of ICAO’s political

difficulties and took the view that ICAO should stillbe the priority body for instituting regulation in thisfield, followed by regional bodies such as the EU andthen local and voluntary agreements. For IATA, fiscalmeasures would be the last choice among the policyoptions available for managing aircraft noise andgaseous emissions.ACI-EUROPE indicated that European co-ordina-

tion should begin through a collaborative discussionforum of representative groups such as itself, CANSO,the Association of European Airlines, IATA andEUROCONTROL. It considered that the industryshould also engage representative environmental NGOsin constructive dialogue, though not necessarily in theaforementioned forum.DGTREN considered it essential that air traffic

management takes account of environmental issues. Itsaw noise as the main potential constraint on aviation inthe short to medium term (as did all stakeholdersinterviewed), noting that growth will to some extentcome in the form of larger and hence noisier aircraft.Local air quality was seen as a medium- to long-termconstraint, partly because emissions from other sourcesare likely to reduce. Climate change impacts were notseen by DGTREN as likely to significantly impinge ongrowth, though the interviewee considered this uncer-tain.1 DGTREN also see habitat protection as likely to

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205202

become an increasing problem for European airports. Itconsiders ICAO as probably not best placed to developa framework of rules for managing environmentalcapacity, due to difficulties in gaining internationalconsensus, and views this best done at regional ornational levels. DGTREN anticipate that the expansionof the EU will, over the next 20 years, drive furtherenvironmental legislation relevant to aviation, consis-tent with the objective of achieving the uniform businessconditions required for a single European market.The Airport Operations Unit at EUROCONTROL

anticipates that a common international approach tomanaging environmental capacity, in the form of an‘umbrella’ framework that allows for local flexibility(e.g. regarding infringement penalties), will help memberstates legally by supplying a cohesive set of rules,standards and measures that are less amenable toconflicting interpretations. The European Commissionwas thought a more likely authority for taking thisforward than ICAO.Regarding gaseous emissions, the UK Airport Op-

erators Association took the view that local air quality islikely to become an increasingly salient issue due todeclining public tolerance of pollution. The Institute forPublic Policy Research considered that climate changewould become a major issue for aviation due to therapid growth of its emissions. In accordance with thepriorities of the Swedish government, FOI consideredclimate change particularly significant for the environ-mental capacity of airspace, and anticipate climatechange based restrictions on Swedish aviation in adecade or so from now.

4. Airports Council International European

Environmental Strategy Committee

Questions posed to ACI-Europe Environment Strat-egy Committee are listed in Table 1. A total of 15 of the20 airport representatives present reported that environ-mental capacity constraints already affected the growthof their airports, the primary issue of concern beingaircraft noise, but secondary issues being air quality(three airports), water pollution, third party risk androad traffic access. Of the remaining five representatives,four anticipated such constraints in the medium orlonger term. Only one airport regarded capacityconstraints as unlikely, although this airport wasconcerned over noise and waste management (particu-larly landfill availability). The majority of committeemembers considered that constraints at individual air-ports already do or could have implications forEuropean airspace and airport capacity management.This was stated to be particularly the case at some majorhub airports. Operational consequences of environmen-tal constraints included: difficulties in slot allocation;

scheduling problems caused by night restrictions orcurfews; the proliferation of local solutions and operat-ing rules; and reduced runway capacity.ACI EUROPE Environmental Strategy Committee

respondents also listed the following factors as being themost important in terms of maximising environmentalcapacity (in the sense of maximising air traffic andpassenger throughput within airport environmentalconstraints):

* Effective management (of the environmental factorsdirectly affecting capacity).

* Legislation driving improved environmental qualitystandards.

* EU environmental policy.* Reducing noise levels at source through the use of

new technologies (aircraft, engines).* Phase out of marginally compliant Chapter 3 (older)

aircraft.* Effective land-use planning.* The adoption of abatement procedures (for noise,

gaseous emissions and solid waste).* Co-operation between Air Traffic Control (ATC),

airlines and airport operators.* Stakeholder management programmes (especially

community and local government).

Sixteen of the 20 respondents reported that at theirown airport, Air Traffic Control were briefed orinvolved in dealing with environmental issues andconstraints, mostly in relation to noise management.Of the remaining four respondents, three reportedlimited involvement with ATC, and one reported noATC involvement. When asked whether the TerminalControl Area (local airspace) at their own airport was atrisk of losing capacity due to environmental constraintsat neighbouring airports, 10 of the 20 respondentsreported ‘‘no’’ or ‘‘not presently’’, seven either did notrespond or responded ‘‘unknown’’, and three replied inthe affirmative.

5. Airport focus groups

A series of five focus groups were convened withairline and ATM stakeholders at Manchester, London,Amsterdam, Salzburg and Athens airports, to obtainmore detailed opinion. The following is a summary ofnotable views, areas of agreement and differences ofopinion.At the Manchester and London focus groups,

discussion moved from consideration of environmentalcapacity at a general level to the use of ‘‘environmentalcapacity limits’’. Some participants were resistant to afixed limit concept, concerned by its’ implications foroperations, the difficulties of calculating and gainingconsensus on limits, and the consequences of airports

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205 203

breaching their limits. It was believed that gainingconsensus on limits would be difficult, and that fixedairport limits could have deleterious socio-economiceffects, as well as potentially causing adverse environ-mental effects elsewhere in the air transport network.The group was concerned that socio-economic, regen-eration and other local issues could potentially beignored when determining environmental limits, andthat environmental limits may be a blunt instrument inachieving consensus on development. Broadly similarviews were expressed at the Athens focus group.Accordingly, the UK groups were of the view that

socio-economic factors should be included in determin-ing environmental capacity and limits, especially inachieving the correct ‘balance’ between adverse environ-mental impacts and socio-economic benefits. It wassuggested that a cost/benefit approach might takeaccount of the value of additional employment or newinfrastructure, to be balanced against the associatedenvironmental disbenefit. One view was that theapplication of environmental limits to UK airportswould only be appropriate where it was considered thatthe environmental costs of expansion clearly outweighthe economic benefits. It was also considered that UKpolicy-makers may not find the concept of environ-mental capacity attractive, due to the possibility of suchan approach being thought too rigid and leading to costsoutweighing benefits. A key term that regularly occurredin discussion was tolerance of nuisance or disturbance.Participants noted that some communities are more

Table 2

Results of airport focus groups SWOT analysis (Scenario I)

Strengths Weak

Level playing field Likel

Equitable for EC citizens Airsp

Local air quality and noise may improve Incre

Brings clarity and consistency May

Avoids inter-airport competition on

environmental issues

May

‘‘o

Time to implement change is minimised Too

Predictability Not

Fair competition Chan

Balance

Stability

Opportunities Thre

Ease of access to airports, and more

point-point services

USA

oth

Emissions trading within capacity limits Inflex

Flexible regulations More

Growth at local level Loca

Current regulation could be improved on High

A European-wide transport system view

Stimulate understanding and requirements

Drives creativity and technical development

Scenario I: A regulated federal European system applying environmental ca

tolerant than others, that perceptions change over timeand that such perceptions are subject to economicconsiderations.Participants of the Amsterdam–Schiphol focus group

were more positively disposed to the concept ofenvironmental capacity, including environmental limits,as the airport already formally considers this as part ofits operational capacity when calculating upper trafficlimits. The concept is backed by specific Dutchregulation, where environmental capacity is legallydefined as being of equal importance to technicalcapacity. Legally, increased traffic volume is possiblewithin a given environmental limit, dependent on factorssuch as aircraft type and time of day. Air trafficmanagers, airports and airlines work co-operatively tomaximise operational capacity within environmentallimits and consider that they have learned to be creativewithin those limits.The Salzburg focus group considered aircraft noise

to be the most important environmental capacityfactor, as the airport is only 3 km from the citycentre. The City of Salzburg has decreed that noisecontours must decrease every year, despite increasedtraffic. The group foresaw an increase in environmentalpressures in Europe, depending on local circumstances,and considered it important to secure environmentalcapacity by pro-active management. Air TrafficControl was seen as especially important to achievingthis aim, being a source of particular technical dataand expertise.

nesses

y to require new airports and/or sub-optimal site development

ace complexity

ased costs (including regulatory costs)

adversely affect climate change

lead to unnecessary capacity constraints, and some airports being

ver-regulated’’

strict for some, too weak for others

adaptable to local needs

ges take a long time

ats

would take over global aviation and negative competition issues with

er world regions

ible regulations

airports

l development blocked by European level decisions

er costs

pacity limits.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Results of airport focus groups SWOT analysis (Scenario II)

Strengths Weaknesses

Local certainty, acceptability and flexibility Difficulties in scheduling aircraft

Less anarchic provided guidance is provided Delays could be generated

Bigger airports with more concentrated traffic Inequitable treatment of affected local citizens

More flexible New agreements affected by previous agreements

No regulation necessary Reduced competition

Control at national level Business constrained by slow agreements

Would allow for cultural/‘affluence’ differences in different parts of Europe (relating to

environmental impact) to be reflected in local regulation/ controls

Growing airspace capacity systems problem

Wasted capacity

Unfair competition within Europe

Difficult for airlines to plan

System trusted less

More vulnerable to local pressures

Incrementalism in planning decisions

Opportunities Threats

To manage the proliferation (framework required) Complex rules

Guidance to government Getting the balance correct

European framework, local rules Precedent setting

Community interaction Airports limits reached

Resolve constraints by mitigation Politicians choose most restrictive elements

For certain airports within Europe to grow, i.e. less well regulated countries Under-utilising physical capacity

To promote responsible environmental management whilst growth occurs More local NGO campaigning

Resolve constraints by mitigation

Scenario II: No European framework on environmental capacity, continued proliferation of local rules.

P. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205204

5.1. Regulatory scenario analysis

The London, Manchester and Amsterdam focusgroups also examined two regulatory scenarios forenvironmental capacity in terms of their strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats (i.e. a SWOTanalysis). These scenarios were as follows and theresponses are collated in Tables 2, 3:

* Scenario I: a regulated, federal European systemapplying environmental capacity limits.

* Scenario II: no European framework on environ-mental capacity, continued proliferation of localrules.

Manchester and London airports expressed a slightpreference for Scenario II, although neither scenario wasfelt to represent an ideal outcome. In Amsterdam–Schiphol, the first scenario was regarded as preferable,but far from ideal. A third, intermediate scenario thatemerged during subsequent discussion, was for aEuropean framework allowing local rules. This waspreferable to both groups and would echo the approachtaken in Directive 2002/30/EC, which sets a frameworkfor noise-related operating restrictions at Communityairports, but does not establish particular noise exposurelimits (European Commission, 2002).

6. Conclusion

Survey research conducted for EUROCONTROL hasdemonstrated that while environmental factors are a realconstraint on the capacity of the European air trafficsystem, the concept of environmental capacity is subjectto a range of interpretation and understanding atdifferent airports and by different stakeholders. Inparticular, the environmental limits implicit in the termcause concern at some major airports, which considercost–benefit analysis for mitigation measures to beimportant. In general, focus groups have demonstratedthat there is a diversity of opinion among airports,airlines and Air Traffic Control over how this issueshould be managed effectively.

References

Coleman, R.J., 1999. Environmentally sustainable capacity. In:

Proceedings of the ECAC/EU Dialogue with the European Air

Transport Industry: Airport Capacity—Challenges for the Future,

European Civil Aviation Conference, Salzburg 15–16 April.

Neuilly sur Seine Cedex, France, pp. 118–125, http://www.

ecac-ceac.org.

European Civil Aviation Conference and EUROCONTROL, 2001.

Study on constraints to growth. European Civil Aviation

Conference and EUROCONTROL, Vols. 1 and 2, Brussels,

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatmp/library/strategydoc.html.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Upham et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 199–205 205

European Commission, 2002. Directive 2002/30/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the

establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the

introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community

airports. Official Journal of the European Communities, 28.3.2002,

L 85/40, Brussels.

London Luton Airport Operations Ltd., 2000. Development brief. London

Luton Airport Operations Ltd., Terence O’Rourke plc, Dorset.

Thomas, C., Lever, M., 2003. Aircraft noise, community relations and

stakeholder involvement. In: Upham, P., Maughan, J., Raper, D.,

Thomas, C. (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Aviation, Earthscan,

London.

Upham, P., 2001. Environmental capacity of aviation: theoretical

issues and basic research directions. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management 44, 721–734.

Upham, P., Thomas, C., Raper, D., Gillingwater, D., 2003. Environ-

mental capacity of airports: an overview of the issues and multi-

sector views of research directions. Journal of Air Transport

Management 9, 145–151.