1. Joseph Wantoch
Current Challenges to Major Airport Sustainability
- by Joe Wantoch
Airports may not be the first places people usually associate with sustainability; however,
the sustainable design and implementation of environmentally friendly policies at airports are
extremely important. Airport take up so much space, either inside or right outside the city, that
their effect on living conditions and quality of life indicators must be considered. Airports are so
massive, and involve such a wide array of activities, that almost every aspect of sustainability
must be taken into account. Planning for airport sustainability is not unlike planning for an
entire city. Airports have their own waste management systems, water treatment facilities, storm
water management, and pollution monitoring systems. Almost every major agency with the
executive branch of government has some authority on environmental management. The major
agencies responsible for setting environmental standards and enforcing federal policies are the
FAA, EPA, and DOT. Even though federal laws and standards exist to ensure airports comply
with regulations, airports are largely responsible for monitoring themselves. In recent years,
airports have implemented large-scale sustainable practices—not to comply with federal
guidelines, but rather as economic and social incentives. Most airports are at least partially
funded by public taxes, and these practices are usually thought of as investments in the future
success of an airport, as well as in the future vibrancy of the surrounding community and city at
large. Because sustainable practices at airports can be such a considerable and complex effort,
large consultant and planning agencies exist for the sole purpose of implementing sustainable
practices and managing environmental elements of airports. This paper aims to examine the
1

2. most recent practices of sustainability that are distinctive to airports, and to identify the methods
and scale to which large “Environmental Management Services” are creating innovative
techniques to manage modern large-hub international airports.
Just like the downtown areas of most cities, airports consist of large expanses of concrete
and large buildings that can accommodate thousands of people daily. Recently, water saving
techniques have become extremely prevalent within large hub-airports. San-Francisco’s airport
recycles rainwater and “grey water” for other airport uses, such as maintaining airport grounds.
Also, most medium to large-hub airports in the US employ other common water saving methods,
such as “low-flow fixtures”, “drip irrigation”, and strategically planting native vegetation to
reduce run-off. Portland International airport uses bioswales and a pervious blacktop in parking
lots to absorb rainwater and runoff from adjacent non-porous areas.
Unlike most downtown areas of cities, airports are home to hundreds of aircrafts that
need to be kept clean and in sound mechanical condition. Most aircrafts need to be washed after
3 to 7 days of use. Any water that runs off a runway or aircraft needs to be directed to an
industrial water treatment facility. For this reason, storm water management is a necessary
element of airport design. A sustainable practice that can save and reuse runoff within the airport
can conserve massive amounts of water, and save millions of dollars annually. The chemicals
used in de-icing, most commonly ethylene or propylene glycol, also have an environmental
impact. These chemicals can seep into the ground and contaminate drinking water. According to
the EPA, 21 million gallons of de-icing chemicals are discharged to surface waters every year.
These chemicals pose serious health risks to humans, including cardiovascular disease and death
2

3. if ingested. If discharged into a natural body of water, it will deplete oxygen levels; resulting in
the death of all aquatic life. De-icing agents are also considered a major air pollutant as well.
Many airports have storm water practices that mitigate de-icing chemical impacts that are similar
to city sewage systems, but others have tried other innovative solutions. General Mitchell Field,
in Milwaukee uses potassium acetate, sodium acetate (basically salt-water) instead of glycol
deicers. Some airports use “boot de-icing” methods, which uses a giant inflatable tube that
inflates around the aircrafts wings. Warm air is blown through and causes ices to melt or crack
off. Some smaller airports, such as Chicago’s Midway Airport, uses “infra-red” de-icing, where
a smaller aircraft can drive through a heated hanger before take-off. There are also “hot-air
blast” systems that act like a giant hair dryer for airplanes. Technology such as, ice-sensors and
computer operated de-icing systems can reduce the amount of de-icing liquid sprayed—thereby
reducing the chemical runoff. Zurich Airport (granted it is in Switzerland) is taking a different
approach. They have manages to plant green open spaces that surround the runways and de-
icing areas. The plants naturally break down the chemicals used the de-icing process, thereby
reducing the chemical contamination of surface water by 100%. (1)
Cities that are known for more environmentally sustainable practices usually have
airports that demonstrate leadership in airport sustainability as well. This is exemplified most in
the areas of “green building” and energy conservation. Logan-Airport in Boston, Portland
International, Vancouver International, and Seattle-Tacoma all have various modern sustainable
practices in place. Logan Airport is currently installing solar PV panels in all airport terminals,
totaling an estimated 2,750 kilowatts total. This is only the first stage of implementation, and
three-times this amount is planned for the future. The airport is home to more solar powered PV
3

4. panels than anywhere else in the state. Two of the terminals in Boston are also built to LEED
standards. Seattle-Tacoma Airport has received attention for building the first LEED Gold
accredited terminal in 2006. Both Seattle and Boston were the first of now many airports which
construct their buildings according to LEED guidelines.
Portland’s airport is as sustainable as the city itself, and utilizes innovative energy
conservation practices as well as green building techniques. The airport actually gets a
substantial amount of energy from renewable sources, such as wind power. Solar energy also
supplies partial power to one of the terminals, and supplies 100% of the power to the Nike store
located inside. In 2002, the airport began using bio-diesel in all diesel powered vehicles, and in
2006 they started using “ultra-low sulfur diesel”, which burns even cleaner and uses less fuel.
Portland’s airport also uses hybrid vehicles for all employee business, and shuttles that run
purely on compressed natural gas—which emit less carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and
hydrocarbons. The newly constructed headquarters of the airport is a model in green-building. It
incorporates a green-roof, “high-efficiency energy and plumbing systems”, and 80% recycled,
regional building materials into the eco-friendly design. It also has more than 17 miles of
“geothermal wells” for heating and cooling, and is certified LEED Gold. The carpet in the
airport concourse is made from 65-77% recycles materials, which are carbon-neutral. The
airport extends its sustainable design to the entire city by incorporating bicycle paths and a light
rail system to create multi-modal accessibility
Vancouver International Airport has implemented a practice that saves 34 gallons of jet fuel per
hour. An idling aircraft can use this amount of fuel just to support air conditioning and
4

5. pneumatic pressure. Instead of using fuel, Vancouver installed mobile units that can supply
electricity to idling aircraft. Since implemented in 2002, this system has been duplicated in
airports around the world. In addition to this, in order to minimize the use of jet fuel, they have
also installed carts which can pull aircrafts to the takeoff points. This saves fuel by reducing the
distance the aircraft must taxi.
A large problem inherent to airports is noise pollution. Aircraft noise can be measured
quantitatively, and can have repercussions on human health, while at the same time lowering the
“quality of life,” and reducing property values. Noise can also have an impact on a child’s
education as well. Since zoning laws have been in effect, the leading cause of noise pollution is
aircraft noise. Poor urban planning is responsible for the harmful effects of noise pollution on
the communities surrounding major airports. The word, “noise,” comes from the Latin root
“noxia,” which means sore or wounded. Aircraft noise is greatly a concern of public health, and
it can cause hypertension, anxiety, stress, and disorientation. It can also cause a lack of sleep,
which leads to other problems such as poor memory. Studies have also shown some evidence
that airport noise severely affect the unborn, and cause a higher risk of birth defects. This also
directly affects socio-economic issues such as: job skills relating to reading comprehension,
overall quality of education and performance, quality housing, and general life expectancy. The
FAA regulates the amount of noise an aircraft can produce, but airports are responsible for the
monitoring and reporting of noise levels to the public. Although the amount of aircraft noise has
been dramatically reduced since new laws were passed in the late 1990’s, it still remains a large
issue today. (2)
5

6. The monitoring of aircraft noise is done by place noise level monitors in designated areas
at various distances from the center of the airport. The FAA also regulates departure and arrival
patterns, as well as flight times to minimize the amount of aircraft noise. While the methods to
mediate noise levels by airports are generally consistent across the US, the severities of effects
caused by noise are not. For example, in a comparison between Milwaukee’s Mitchell
International Field and Chicago’s O’Hare, property values see a much larger decline in Chicago
rather than Milwaukee. Below are charts illustrating the effect of aircraft noise on home value.
The average home price by O’Hare is only 41% of the average home price in the Chicago area,
whereas the home price by Mitchell International is 85% of the average home price in the
Milwaukee area. This can be attributed to the density of residences around the airport.
Milwaukee has a fairly low-density compared to Chicago. Federal programs provide funds to
allocate homes which are within an area with a high noise level. Other programs provide sound
insulation for homes located near the airport. Since 1995, over 100 million dollars has been
spent in Milwaukee, and 565 million has been spent in Chicago on noise abatement programs.
The best noise abatement programs are zoning policies which prohibit building near airports.
Some airports have been heavily criticized for wasting taxpayers’ money. The poster-child for
this wastefulness is John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The small airport averages
20 passengers per day, yet has received almost 200 million dollars in Federal money during the
last 16 years. The FAA, in their “Essential Air Service” program, also provides 1.6 million
dollars annually to the airport—which includes monies allotted for noise abatement. Homes that
continue to be built by busy, loud airports will only need more state and federal dollars for noise
abatement.
6

7. Just like a city, airports must have their own comprehensive waste management systems.
Many airports go through great lengths to reduce waste and increase recycling. Zurich Airport in
Switzerland has the highest amount of recycled waste of any airport at 48% of total waste in
2007. Oakland’s airport has reported the highest level of waste reduction at 43% in 2008. As
stated before, reduction of waste saves airports millions of dollars annually, and works as a major
economic incentive.
7

8. An increased passenger load means increased waste, as landfill rates are increasing every
year; airports are constantly trying to find ways to reduce landfill cost. There are several
creative ways that leading sustainable airports have managed to reduce waste. Portland’s airport
actually saves magazines from international flights, and donates them to educational institutions
that speak foreign languages. San Francisco’s airport composts all of their food waste, and even
saves old coffee grounds from flights to use in airport landscaping. In almost all airports, there is
a high re-use rate of building materials, especially concrete and steel.
There is a growing trend towards preserving the natural environment around airports.
Increased green space helps to reduce both air and noise pollution. As previously mentioned in
the case of Zurich’s airport, native plants can absorb toxic de-icing chemicals and act as natural
water management systems. In the case of Tallahassee’s airport, there has been a considerable
effort to maintain the health of wildlife species that surround the airport. They have been
particularly successful in saving the Gopher Tortoise, endangered by destruction of habitat and
urbanization. The implementation of new policy to protect surrounding wetlands has led to a
recent increase in tortoise population. Airports around the country also use sophistication “non-
lethal” bird management systems. Of course birds do pose a hazard to incoming and departing
airplanes, but by reducing the number of bird deaths, airports are also claiming environmental
responsibility. After decades of ignoring such issues, it seems airports are finally taking issues
such seriously.
Sustainability of airports is a multi-billion dollar industry that has led to the growth and
popularity of Airport Environmental Management and Strategic Services, large-scale airport
8

9. planning consultants, private airport waste management firms—all which that involve economic,
social, and environmental development on a large scale. (3) Since large amounts of federal aid
go towards airports every year, these companies have benefited greatly from the allocation of
government funds. There are too many private agencies that participate in the effort of airport
sustainability to simply list, however, there are companies that can be viewed as examples of
typical airport consulting firms.
ARS, Airport Recycling Services, is a consulting firm which helps airports to reduce
waste by creating and implementing a strategic plan. ARS was founded in 1990, and was based
out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where it began managing the waste and recyclables for
Hollywood International Airport (FLL). ARS claims to have implemented the world’s first
airport recycling program in Fort Lauderdale. Currently, ARS removes about 3 million pounds
of materials from landfill-bound waste.
COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL AIRPORT WASTE
Aluminum
1%
Plastics
11
%
Newspaper
14
%
Other Paper
14
%
Cardboard
12
%
Glass
2%
Compostables
20
%
Non-Recyclables
26
%
9

10. (Source: NRDC Report Trash Landings: How Airlines and Airports Can Clean Up Their Recycling
Programs)
To achieve success, ARS actually builds a “Material Recovery Facility, “or “MRF” on
airport grounds, and either trains airport workers, or contracts out other employees themselves.
The MRF makes removal of recyclables materials economically viable for airports, and saves
money. ARS also tailors their services to a particular client. Even is an airport already has a
recycling program, they offer to make it more effective. Overall, ARS aims to enable the airport
to achieve more cost-effective practices.
There are a few large firms that specialize only in Environmental Management Services
to airports. Lochard is one such firm, which operates at a global scale. Lochard’s clients include
130 airports on five continents. Their clients also consist of the airports which have emerged as
leaders of sustainability practices—which may help to explain why Lochard has become so
successful. The impressive resume listings include Vancouver, Portland, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Oakland, and Fort Lauderdale. Lochard compiles information from many
sources in order to create a complete view of airport operations and overall environmental
impact. They are responsible for the latest implementation of technology to achieve optimal
sustainability within airports. Lochard has developed state-of-the-art noise monitoring systems,
and irrigation systems which observe real-time weather data in order to conserve water. This
irrigation system was recently implemented at several airports throughout the US and Canada.
Lochard customizes sustainable practices for each airport and climatic location. For example,
de-icing methods are different in cold-weather cities such as Anchorage and Edmonton. There,
more emphasis is put on reducing the amount of chemical runoff by installing above-ground
tanks which regulate the concentration of the de -icing solution according to the temperature. In
10

11. San Francisco, more effort is made to use sustainable concessionary practices. Lochard has
implemented systems there that compost all food waste. There is also a “slow food” theme
throughout the airport’s food establishments, where all ingredients are grown locally—including
vegetables that are produced with on-site eco-friendly gardens. It is Lochard’s policy and
practice to consult with airport businesses, and implement practices that are consistent with the
image of sustainability and the location as a whole. That being said, Lochard also works in
conjunction with local, state, and federal governments to make sure all environmental standards
and regulations are being met. that is represented in the city in which it is located.
Lochard also has several environmental monitoring systems which are offered only
through its company. These are sophisticated tools that usually have high upfront costs; so
consequently, the airports that implement these systems are ones within a larger market, or ones
with a higher sustainability budget. Two examples of these tools are “Air-Trak Carbon
Manager™” and “NoiseOffice©”. Air-Trak Carbon Manager measures aircraft carbon emissions
and an airports carbon footprint. Basically, this is a computer program in which multiple inputs
are measured and carbon emission numbers are produced with a complex formula. Other
programs like this one exist, however it seems Lochard was first to corner the market and brand
the software. To the program’s credit, it is one of the only ones that use actual “flight-track
data”, so the measuring is more accurate than programs that rely on averages. According to
Lochard, it is also in the airports financial interest to use this program, as emissions “tend to be
over-estimated” and could possibly cause money to be spent on unneeded aircraft modifications
to comply with FAA standards. NoiseOffice consists of its own computer server that runs data
from various flights, radar systems, and noise-monitoring terminals. According to “Civil Air and
11

12. Navigational Services Journal” (4), this an expensive and unique system that incorporates data
from different sources to give the most accurate measure of noise technology can currently
produce. It is used in the US, Europe, and Austrailia.
V3 Companies, located in Woodbridge, Illinois, is a firm which offers everything from
construction and planning services, to environmental impact assessments. The massive
corporation fuses the disciplines of engineering, planning, and science to create sustainable
practices for businesses and municipalities on a large scale. Not limited to airport planning, V3
has projects in 12 “market sectors” in Phoenix, Chicago, and Denver. They have been
responsible for several airport infrastructure improvements at Denver’s airport, and the planning,
design, and construction of downtown corridors in Phoenix—as well as Chicago freeway
construction. It is these types of huge firms that are also hired to improve sustainability practices
at mid-to large hub airports; however, the leading firms in sustainable technology innovation are
the ones which are highly specialized to manage only airports.
As these sustainable practices are at least partially, if not mostly publicly funded, many
cities have a vested interest in airport sustainability practices. This is not merely for the future of
our environment, but to create the potential for attracting industry and residents. One way this
idea is manifested is in the creation of pleasing aesthetics and well-designed indoor
environments. Some airports have no doubt done this in an attempt to create a “green” or
sustainable image. Many of the sustainable building designs lead to the notion of a city “on the
cutting edge” of technology, and this can leave a lasting impression since the only memory an
individual might have of a particular city or place, is the inside of an airport— while waiting out
an in-between flight layover.
12

13. Bibliography:
1. Carol Lurie, Principal, VHB; and Sarah Townsend, Environmental Planner VHB;
“How Do Airports Stack Up? – A Measure of Airport Sustainability; 2008 Council on
Airport Consulting
2. John R. Bartle; The Sustainable Development of U.S. Air Transportation; Public Works
Management & Policy, Vol. 10, No. 3, 214-224 (2006)
3. Callum Thomas; Paul Upham; David Gillingwater; David Raper; “Sustainable Avaiation”
Journal of Air Transport Management Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2003, Pages 145-151
4. Goater, Pijper, and Thompson, CANSO, the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation;
The 2008 Yearbook Review and Directory, Transpolis Schiphol Airport Netherlands;
2009
4. ow do Airports Stack Up? – Measuring Environmental Performance;
5. !
13