0
Amsterdam Schiphol: The most
sustainable airport hub of
Europe?
A policy evaluation of policies related to enhancing the sustainability of the Dutch
aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol.
1
Colophon
Amsterdam Schiphol: The most sustainable airport hub of Europe? A policy evaluation of policies related to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.
Author:
Tim (T.) van Donselaar s1021464
Master’s thesis Spatial Planning
Specialisation Urban and Regional Mobility Radboud University
Supervisor
Dr. S. Lenferink
Second Reader:
Dr. Ir. D.A.A. Samsura
Data
22 July 2020
Credits photos
Tim van Donselaar
Word Count:
65.658 words (total document)
32.286 words (excluding appendix, preface, summary etc.)
Key words
Multi-level Governance, Policy Evaluation, Hub Function, Sustainability
2
Preface
The presentation of this master’s thesis Amsterdam Schiphol: the most sustainable airport in Europe?
A policy evaluation of policies related to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport means the end of my two year master
thesis programme and the end of my education programme of four years university of applied science and two years of university to become a spatial planner. A great way to end this is by combining spatial planning with my passion for civil aviation. It was interesting to work each day on two things I like. In addition, it also enlarged my knowledge about the aviation sector itself and the important link of the sector with spatial planning.
I would like to thank Sander Lenferink, my supervisor, for the time and support he provided during the process. The several brainstorm sessions, e-mail conversations and other meetings together has provided some suitable input for the research itself, the interpretation of particular things and moral support if necessary. At the same time, I would like to thank everyone else which (in)directly helped me to make this research better, in terms of providing input about the structure of the research, aviation related discussions and more.
I will end with a reference to a famous quote of Nelson Mandela: ‘A winner is a dreamer who never
gives up’. I would like to refer to Mandela’s quote because its indirectly refers to my own life. Nobody,
including myself, would have expected that I should reach the point I am now. However, just like Mandela said, if you have an ambition (dreamer) and you never give up, which I did, you will reach your ambitions (winner).
Hopefully, you will enjoy reading this research. Tim van Donselaar,
3
Summary
The Dutch aviation sector is dealing with a ‘conflict’. The sector wants to expand Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function as well to become more sustainable. However, finding a suitable balance between both goals is difficult. The aim of the research is to evaluate the policies established by the main actors (Dutch Government, Royal Schiphol Group and KLM Group), focussing on Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and sustainability, since the establishment of the Aviation Policy Note 2009. This will contribute to answer the main research question: “Evaluating the current policies on regional and
national level, which lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of the Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol?”
The policies have been analysed to see which policies has been established to enhance the sustainability of Dutch aviation sector, and especially Amsterdam Schiphol, as well as to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and if they were successful? The research will combine multi-level governance and policy evaluation. Those theories have been used to select the main actors and to evaluate their policies.
The results have shown several outcomes. First, Amsterdam Schiphol’s position has been strengthened due to the growing demand of air travel (higher passenger volumes and more movements) while the airport’s hub function became stronger in terms of direct and hub connectivity. However, due to factors such as capacity limits, larger competition and the rise of low-cost carriers, the pressure on the airport’s hub function has been increased.
Simultaneously, the sector has worked hard to make the sector more sustainable. Multiple policy measures (fleet modernisation, regulations to demotivate the use of polluted/noisy aircraft and developing/implementing sustainable innovations) has been used to enhance the sustainability. However, the total amount of CO2-emissions and the nuisance for (local) residents has increased due
to the growing demand of air travel. This shows that the sector still needs to make a major step forward.
Twelve returning policies has been differentiated, including corresponding policy measures. The evaluation of those returning policies has resulted into an advice for the (main) actors to implement several additional policy measures to improve/strength those returning policies (see table 1). Some policies have already been implemented by the Dutch government into the new Aviation Policy Note
2020 – 2050, while the remaining policy measures are still suitable for implementation to establish a
more complete and extensive policy measure toolbox.
Returning policies #1 Applying selective development policy at
Amsterdam Schiphol
#7 Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
#2 Apply biofuel in aviation sector #8 Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol #3 Fleet Modernisation #9 Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at
Amsterdam Schiphol
#4 Creating a Single European Sky (S2ES) #10 Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
#5 Restrictions of the number of movements. #11 Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km).
#6 Improving the living environment of local residents
#12 Optimize route network Table 1: Overview returning policies
4
The results have shown that it is still difficult to establish suitable policies which provide a balanced way to gain the economic benefits as well to reduce the environmental impacts of air travel as much as possible. The new Aviation Policy Note provides tools, but collaboration between different stakeholders is essential. The main actors work already together, but more and large collaborations on multiple levels could result in better policies and measures to achieve the common goals.
Next to starting/extending collaborations, the sector needs to focus, as a collaboration, to achieve three important steps forward into the reduction of CO2-emissions. Those measures are:
• Applying alternative transport modalities to reduce the large amount of (ultra-)short-haul flights.
• Applying biofuel instead of fossil fuels.
• Reducing emissions caused during the LTO-cycle.
Additionally, applying those three measures could result into possible benefits for Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function. Replacing flights results into free slots for hub-related flights, which strengthen the hub function. Meanwhile, reducing CO2-emissions and future development of new
aircraft types could result in additional yearly air traffic movements. In other words, a balance in establishing appropriate policies for strengthening Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and to enhance the sustainability of the aviation sector can be created, resulting in Amsterdam Schiphol as the most sustainable airport hub of Europe!
5
List of abbreviations and terminology
Abbreviations
ATMs Air Traffic Movements
LCCs Low-Cost Carriers
LTO-cycle Landing and take-off cycle
MoE Ministry of Economic Affairs
MoH Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
MoI Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
MoI&W Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management
MoT Ministry of Transport and Water Management
Terminology
Airbus A320ceo Family Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Airbus since 1987. The series consists of the Airbus A318, A319, A320 and A321 (Airways Magazine, 2017)
Airbus A320neo Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Airbus since 2014 as successor of the Airbus A320ceo Family. The series consists of the Airbus A319neo, Airbus A320neo and Airbus A321neo (Airways Magazine, 2017).
Boeing 737 Classic Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing between 1984 and 2006. This series consists of the Boeing 737-300, 400, and 500-series (Boeing, n.d.-a)
Boeing 737NG Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing since 1997 as successor of the Boeing 737 Classis. The series consists of the Boeing 737-600, 700, 800 and 900-series (Boeing, n.d.-a).
Boeing 737 MAX Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing since 2018 as successor of the Boeing 737NG. The series consists of the Boeing 737 MAX 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Boeing, n.d.-a).
Boeing 747-400COMBI Aircraft type which has the possibilities to carry 268 passengers and large amounts of cargo, which are not able to be carried at regular passenger aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 (KLM, n.d.-c).
COVID-19 COVID-19 is an infectious disease which has caused a world pandemic after the outbreak in Wuhan, China (WHO, n.d.)
Feeder flights Feeder flights are flights operated by an airline or its subsidiary to support the mainline operations of the particular airline (Reynolds-Feighan, 2018). KLM and KLM Cityhopper operate feeder flights inside Europe to support the intercontinental network of the KLM.
LTO-cycle The period of a flight between the landing and the take-off, which also includes taxing and ground operations (Postorino, et al, 2019).
Passenger aircraft belly The belly of large passenger aircraft such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, Boeing 747 and Boeing 777 provides space to carry a large amount of cargo, together with carrying hundreds of passengers (Nahum et al., 2018).
6
List of figures and tables
Figures
Main document
Figure 1: Schematic view of the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic 18 Figure 2: Overview of KLM’s intercontinental and European in- and outbound peaks 21
Figure 3: Indication LTO-cycle (below the 3.000 feet line) 22
Figure 4: Schematic overview of the main carbon impacts produced by the airport transport function
23
Figure 5: Indication of the noise production of different aircraft types 24
Figure 6: Overview of the general noise contour around an airport area based on multiple
movements operated by a Boeing 737-800 24
Figure 7: Implementation of the research topics into conceptual model 25
Figure 8: Overview of the four modes of governance 27
Figure 9: Example of the horizontal and vertical dimensions in multi-level governance 27
Figure 10: Overview implementation multi-level governance into conceptual model 30
Figure 11: Policy Cycle 30
Figure 12: Most used policy evaluation criteria 31
Figure 13: Overview Policy Evaluation Theory into conceptual model. 33
Figure 14: Conceptual model 34
Figure 15 Indication of fuel savings due fleet modernisation over the years by airlines part of the Air France – KLM Group
47 Figure 16: Indication of the noise energy reduction achieved by Air France – KLM between
2000-2019 by using more quiet aircraft types
51
Figure 17: Overview of aircraft categories based on noise and pollution level 54
Figure 18: Infographic Single European Sky 54
Figure 19: Indication of the reduction of CO2-emissions per flight/per year on short-haul flights for
Amsterdam to several destinations 59
Figure 20: Indication of the development of total air traffic and CO2-emissions between 2005 and
2019
65
Appendix
Figure 21: Overview of Royal Schiphol Group’s point of view in terms of the airport as hub 98
Figure 22: Overview of the airports located in the Netherlands 121
Figure 23: Infographic Single European Sky 125
Figure 24: Overview of aircraft categories based on noise and pollution level 139
Figure 25: Overview of the seven action themes 141
7
TablesMain document
Table 1: Overview returning policies 3
Table 2: Overview aspects hub function to research into before-after measurement analysis 38 Table 3: Overview aspects sustainability to research into before-after measurement analysis 39
Table 4: Overview of type of actor groups defined by Royal Schiphol Group 41
Table 5: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Dutch Government 42
Table 6: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Royal Schiphol Group 43
Table 7: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies KLM Group 44
Table 8: Key figures hub function Amsterdam Schiphol Airport 2009-2019 46
Table 9: Key figures sustainability 2009 – 2019 48
Table 10: Overview goals/ambitions Dutch Government between 2009-2019 61
Table 11: Overview goals/ambitions Royal Schiphol Group between 2009-2019 62
Table 12: Overview goals/ambitions KLM Group between 2009-2019 62
Table 13: Overview of the returning policies, including existing policy measures and additional policy measures.
69 Table 14: Overview of returning policies established by the three main actors during the period
2009 – 2019 in multiple (policy documents), including existing and additional policy measures.
72 Table 15: Overview additional policies suitable to be implemented into the Aviation Policy Note
2020 - 2050 73
Table 16: Overview returning policies between 2009-2019 77
Table 17: Overview additional policy measures of returning policies between 2009-2019 77
Appendix
Table 18: Overview of types of actor groups defined by Royal Schiphol Group 95
Table 19: Overview key figures hub function 2009 102
Table 20: Overview complains submitted in 2009, including general information about
complainers 103
Table 21: Overview specific and periodical hinder complaints 103
Table 22: Overview of the total number of movements per aircraft level 104
Table 23: Overview key figures sustainability 2009 105
Table 24: Overview movements per airline segment 2014 107
Table 25: Overview key figures hub function 2014 108
Table 26: Overview of complains submitted in 2014 109
Table 27: Overview of movements per aircraft level 2014 110
Table 28: Overview key figures sustainability 2014 111
Table 29: Overview of the movements per airline segment 113
Table 30: Overview key figures hub function 114
Table 31: Overview of complains submitted in 2019 115
Table 32: Overview of movements per aircraft level 116
8
Table of Content
1. Introduction 11
1.1 The Case 11
1.2 The current problems in the Dutch aviation sector 12
1.3 Aim and research question 13
1.4 Scientific Relevance 14
1.5 Societal Relevance 14
1.6 Reading Guide 15
2. Theoretical Framework 17
2.1 Central research topic 17
2.1.1 Hub function 17
2.1.2 Sustainability in the aviation sector 21
2.1.3 Operationalisation/implementation of the research topics into conceptual model 25
2.2 Multi-level Governance Theory 26
2.2.1 Introduction of the theory 26
2.2.2 Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model 29
2.3 Policy Evaluation Theory 30
2.2.1 Introduction of the theory 30
2.2.2 Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model 32
2.4 Conceptual model 33
3. Methods 36
3.1 Research Strategy 36
3.1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of evaluation research 36
3.2 Data Collection 36
3.2.1 Document analysis vs policy analysis 37
3.3 Single Case Study 37
3.4 Before-after measurement 38
3.5 Validity and reliability of the research 39
4. Results 41
4.1 Setting the stage – Actors 41
4.1.1 Which actors are involved 41
4.1.2 The three main actors 42
4.2 Comparison and evaluation of 10 years of Dutch aviation policies 44
4.2.1 Before-after measurement 44
4.2.2 Trends and developments 49
4.2.3 Returning policies 51
4.2.4 Ambitions set by the actors 60
9
5. Looking at the future: Reflection on Draft Aviation Policy 2020 71
5.1 Summary of Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 71
5.2 Evaluation ambitions/policies in relation with evaluation policies 2009 - 2019 71
6. Conclusion 76
6.1 Sub conclusions 76
6.2 Main conclusion 78
7. Discussion and reflection 80
7.1 Implications for academia and the sector 80
7.1.1 Implications for academia 80
7.1.2 Implications for the (Dutch) aviation sector 80
7.2 Recommendations for future research 81
7.3 Reflection of the research 82
Literature list 85
Appendix
Appendix A – Setting the stage – actors 95
Appendix B – Profile sets 2009, 2014 and 2019 101
Appendix C – Goals and Policies 119
Appendix D – Before-after measurement 146
Appendix E – Slot Trading system 155
10
11
Introduction
1.1 – The case
Amsterdam Schiphol is the largest airport in The Netherlands, and Europe’s third-largest airport in terms of the number of yearly travellers (Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). In 2019, the airport handled 496.826 of the 500.000 allowed movements per year, which means around 1,370 take-offs or landings per day. However, the airport and the aviation sector want to increase the number of yearly slots to expand, although due to current legislation, it is currently not possible to increase the number of slots (Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a).
Amsterdam Schiphol currently operates as a hub airport for multiple airports like KLM, EasyJet, Delta Air Lines and SkyTeam members1 (SkyTeam, n.d.). However, there are several definitions to define a
‘hub’. Holloway (2016) notice three definitions of a hub, defined by three different actors:
• FAA: Any (US) airports which generates 0.05% or more of the national enplanement, but which not load the term with any scheduling or other operational implications (Holloway, 2016). • General: Airports which are the home base of particular airlines and/or airports which handle
large volumes of traffic (Holloway, 2016).
• Airlines: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016).
In this research, the third definition will be used. This research is partly focussing how Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function can be strengthen in terms of a larger and extended route network to connect the Netherlands with the world and attracting the maximum number of transfer passenger as possible, which is in line with the third definition.
In the meantime, sustainability becomes more and more important, also in the aviation sector (KLM, 2019a; Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-a). The sector has already started realising its sustainability ambition to become more sustainable by introducing modern and more fuel-efficient aircraft to replace older and less fuel-efficient aircraft and using electric vehicles at the airports (KLM, 2019a; NH Nieuws, 2019; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). Furthermore, the Air France – KLM Group, mother company of the KLM Group, currently stands first at the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in the category ‘Airlines’ for the most sustainable airline (group) across the world, while airline group already stands 15 years in the top three of this index (KLM, 2019c). However, the sector needs to take more steps to become sustainable. The two most common aspect to improve the aviation sector are reducing the CO2
-emissions and nuisance of (local) residents. However, researches (McManners, 2016; Nijkamp, 1999) have shown that the aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to implement sustainable policies. This makes it more interesting for this research to explore which policies the different actors have established and applied to make the sector more sustainable and if it was successful or that changes are recommended.
Lessons learned from the Dutch aviation sector could be applied at European or even global level, which could result in a European or global approach to make the aviation sector more sustainable. The Dutch aviation sector has already shows that the sector is very innovative by applying sustainable innovations to make the (Dutch) aviation sector more sustainable (Forbes, 2019), its large number of (aviation related) knowledge institutions (Broekel & Boschma, 2011) and the national government’s ambitions to take a leading role in the development of sustainable aviation (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Water Management, 2009).
1SkyTeam is an airline alliance, consisting of 19 members (airlines) across the world. Main goal of the alliance is to connect
12
Amsterdam Schiphol, companies, and different levels of governments make their own (aviation related) policies for a longer time period. A perfect example is the Aviation Policy Note 2009, established by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (MoH) and the Ministry of Transport and Water Management (MoT) (2009). This policy document was established in 2009 for a 10 years-period until the new Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 will be established by the Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management (MoI&W) (n.d.).
However, not each established policy works well. This research will take a closer look at the former and current policies established by several actors involved in the aviation sector. Those policies will be evaluated and discussed to see which policies and corresponding policy measures were successful and which policies/policy measures need some changes to become successful. The starting point for the research will be the Aviation Policy Note 2009, followed by other relevant policy documents established by the main actors of this research. Nevertheless, the research will be focussed on the policies itself, especially on the policies related to the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and sustainability. Elements such as the policy-making process will not be addressed in this research. In this research, the connection between the multi-level governance theory and the policy evaluation theory will be made. Multi-level Governance can be defined as ‘the vertical (multiple levels) and horizontal (multiple actors) dispersion of central government authority and refers to both, political structures and decision-making process (Bache & Flinders, 2004; Schafer, 2010). Policy evaluation can be defined as applying ‘evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation or
impact of a policy’ (CDC, n.d.; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009).
As already mentioned, policies on several types of levels will be researched. According to Preston, Lee & Hooper (2012), multiple levels of institutions are involved in the aviation sector. Each institution makes its own policies on their own level(s). Conceivable levels are among others the local, regional, national, continental (EU) and intercontinental level. Looking at the research problem, the most suitable levels to research are the regional and national level, including a short look at the European level in terms of one or two particular policies. Most of the existing policies intendent for the aviation sector are designed for those two levels. Municipalities, provinces, and the national government establish policies on their own level. Furthermore , the Royal Schiphol Group, Amsterdam Schiphol’s owner, also establish its own policies mostly for those two levels. This is the reason why this research will mostly be focussed on the policies established on regional and national level. However, as already mentioned, the emphasis will mostly be on the regional and national level, because most of the relevant policies are written for those two levels. Additionally, the research will also look at the continental level because there are also policies established by the European Union. However, only some particular policies will be discussed such as the Single European Sky, instead of analysing the entire aviation related policies established on a continental level.
1.2 – The current problems in the Dutch aviation sector
The Dutch aviation sector is dealing with a ‘conflict’. On one hand, the sector wants to expand, which results in a hub function under pressure, while on the other hand, the sector also wants to become more sustainable. However, with the current environmental awareness, it is more difficult to obtain both goals. People want to protect the environment by the reduction of (CO2-)emissions and nuisance
caused by aircraft movements such as noise and pollution nuisance. However, weakening Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function results into negative impacts for the Netherlands connectivity and economic, something the Dutch government want to avoid (MoH & MoT, 2009).
Finding solutions to solve both problems are more difficult due to the playing fields where the sector is ‘playing on.’ The sector is playing on different kind of levels (scales) such as the regional and national level, which make it more difficult to set certain goals/policies and achieve them. A clear example of
13
this is the Dutch Government system. This system can be divided into different levels, namely municipalities, regional corporations, provinces, and the national government. Each level has its own goals and ambitions with corresponding policies to achieve this. Those levels also established their own goals for Amsterdam Schiphol and the Dutch aviation sector.
At the same time, those different levels work and coordinate together to help each other to achieve all goals, because some goals/policies are only possible to achieve on higher/lower levels (Maldonado et al, 2010). Daniell & Kay (2018) adds that ‘governance must operate at multiple scales in order to
capture variations in the territorial reach of policy externalities’ (pg. 6). In other words, the interaction
between decision-making on different scales is necessary to create working policies. This is also one of the reasons why the multi-level character of governance needs to analyse in this research. Otherwise, the differences of policy decisions on different levels cannot be found, which results in incorrect outcomes of the research.
The research will look which policies, including corresponding policy measures, are successful and which policies need to change to become successful. At the same time, there are many different actors involved in the sector and not all actors can be analysed in this research. Because of that, a small number of actors will be selected, which together forms the basis of the Dutch aviation sector and which has enough power/tools to create suitable and working changes to achieve the overall goals of all actors active in the sector.
1.3 – Aim and research questions
The aim of the research is to evaluate the most relevant policies of the three selected main actors involved in the Dutch aviation sector, since the establishment of the Aviation Policy Note 2009. The focus will be on two topics, namely strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and making the sector more sustainable. Due to the large number of actors, three main actors will be selected. Those main actors are selected following a couple of criteria, which will further be discussed in chapter 4. The research will answer questions, such as ‘How can the returning policies be improved to make them
more suitable for the three main actors to achieve their future goals?’. With the evaluation of the
relevant policies, the research could provide advice for the main actors for future policies to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector, especially Amsterdam Schiphol, as well as strengthen the airport’s hub function. In addition to this, the research will also reflect the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 briefly.
The research will answer one main research question and multiple research questions. The sub-research questions will contribute in answering the main sub-research question. The main sub-research question will be:
“Evaluating the current policies on regional and national level, which lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol?”
To answer the main research question, the following sub-research questions will be used:
1. What is a hub function and how is this function incorporated in policies at the regional and national level?
2. What are the goals and ambitions on making Amsterdam Schiphol more sustainable and how are these incorporated into policies of the three main actors?
3. What is the performance of Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function at the regional, national, EU-level, and global level?
14
4. What are the ‘returning policies’ established by the three main actors and which consequences does this have for the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and the sustainability ambitions of the airport and the sector?
5. How can the returning policies be improved to make them more suitable for the three main actors to achieve their future goals?
6. Which changes/additions at the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 are recommended to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol.
1.4 – Scientific Relevance
Doing research about existing policies in the Dutch aviation sector, including the Aviation Policy Note
2009, is one of the aims of this research. Additionally, the working connection between the different
actors is also interesting to investigate. In the last years, the government working together with other actors (governance) increased in popularity (Asaduzzaman & Virtanen, 2016). Governance also plays an important role in the policy-making process of the (Dutch) aviation sector (ACM, 2020; Volkskrant, 2017). However, there are several types of governance.
Example of types of governance are ‘public governance’, ‘regulatory governance’, ‘participatory governance’, ‘multi-level governance’ and ‘collaborative governance’. Looking at the aim of the research, a multi-level governance character should be the most suitable type of governance to use. A
multi-level governance analysis makes it possible to analyse which actors are involved in the process,
how they work (together) and on which levels they are involved. Are those actors only involved on one particular level? Or at more than one level? Which influence(s)/power(s) have those actors and which role do they play?
In the current literature, there is low attendance for the connection between multi-level governance and the policy evaluation theory. Most of the literature concerns the connection between multi-level governance and policymaking or policy design, instead of evaluating current/former policies. There is an example of scientific literature talking about this connection, namely De Peuter and De Smedt (2005), which discussed the problem of policy evaluation in a European multi-level Governance context. However, much more scientific literature is currently not published about this connection. The theoretical input of this research could enrich the scientific literature in the context of connecting multi-level governance and policy evaluation, for example by providing an additional method to create a working link between both theories. In the meantime, the research can also provide more insight into how policies are being established at different levels and how they can be evaluated.
This research can also contribute to provide government levels tools to implement sustainable policies. Nijkamp (1999) said that the aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to implement sustainable policies. The results of this research could contribute the scientific world by creating/finding better ways to implement sustainable policies overall and especially for the aviation sector.
1.5 – Societal Relevance
Amsterdam Schiphol is dealing with two conflicting aspects. On the one hand, the airport is one of the economic powers of the Netherlands. Around 65.000 people are working directly for the airport, while around 45.000 people work indirectly for the airport (Manshanden & Bus, 2019; MoI&W, 2020a). Meanwhile, the sector provides around 9 billion of euros for the Dutch economy each year (SEO, 2015).
However, that is only the economic interest. The main idea of an airport hub is a place where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking
15
passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016). Amsterdam Schiphol needs those flights to ‘protect’ its hub function and to strengthen it. In the current situation, the airport is not able to protect its hub function, with all the consequences (IATA, 2019).
On the other hand, the aviation sector is, just like many other sectors, dealing with the current attention for sustainable and environment problems/developments in combination with the current noise and nuisance issues (AD, 2020; Nieuwe Oogst, 2020; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020c). Meanwhile, the demand for air travel is still rising, although there are almost no free slots available for expanding the number of flights at the airport (IATA, 2020; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). The airport needs to create a balance between making the airport more sustainable and to strengthen the hub function of the airport.
The most important policy document for the Dutch aviation sector is the national aviation policy note. The latest version has been established in 2009, which means that this document is not very actual. However, the Dutch government is currently working on the new Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050. The draft document has been published already, while the final document will be established in the second half of 2020 (MoI&W, n.d.). The establishment of a new national policy document for the Dutch aviation sector provides the actors new tools and input for their own policies. At the same time, the results of this research could provide input for this new national policy document in terms of additional policies and policy measures.
During the research period, the world was in the grips of the COVID-19 crisis. Direct consequence of this crisis was an extremely decreasing demand for air travel. Most scheduled flights were cancelled by airlines, flight were banned from countries, passenger numbers decreased extremely, thousands of aircraft were temporary stored at airports during the crisis, more than hundred thousands of people lost their job and airlines needed billions of euros to be saved from bankruptcy (Luchtvaartnieuws, 2020a, 2020b).
At least, the COVID-19-crisis give the opportunity for an ‘evaluation moment’. With the current situation in mind, opportunities are provided to really change things. Which elements can be changed in the current policies to strength Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and how can the airport become more sustainable? Nevertheless, this kind of situations, in words of a moment for change, happened before. People already used evaluation methods during crisis periods in the past, but the outcomes of those researches are not always used to really change something (Nohrstedt et al., 2010). Despite this, looking at the large impact of the COVID-19 crisis, using the findings of this research could be an opportunity to reach the earlier mentioned goals. Due to the crisis, the aviation sector has been pushed back and experts do not think that the sector will become back on the same level as before the COVID-19-crisis before 2023 (Trouw, 2020b). This means that the sector, Amsterdam Schiphol and the government get the opportunity to ‘start all over again’.
1.6 – Reading Guide
This research is divided in a couple of chapters. In the next chapter, the theoretical framework will be discussed. This theoretical framework will outline the different theories used for this research, in combination with explaining the general meaning of the involved research topics: hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector. After this, the methodology of this research will shortly be explained and discussed. Chapter 4 will present the results of the research: Who are the main actors of this research? Which goals and ambitions has been set? Which policies and policy measures has been established to achieve this and what are the results of this? Afterwards, the future Aviation Policy
Note 2020-2050 will briefly be summarized and reflected. At the end, the conclusion of this research
17
Theoretical Framework
The research will make use of two main theories: the multi-level governance theory and the policy
evaluation theory. In this chapter, both theories will be explained by using scientific literature. In
addition to discussing both theories, also the two central research topics hub function and
sustainability in the aviation sector will be explained and defined in this chapter.
2.1 – Central research topics
2.1.1 – Hub function
One of the two central research topics is the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. However, what is the definition of a hub function? Looking at an airport like Amsterdam Schiphol, it is possible to distinguish between a hub function as multimodal (transport)network and a hub function for airlines and their flight network.
Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function: multimodal network vs flight network
Amsterdam Schiphol can be defined as a hub for the Dutch multimodal network as also as a hub for airlines and their flight network. However, the research only focusses on one of those two types of a hub. Before we can select which type is the most suitable for the research, a short overview of both types will be given.
The multimodal (transport)network refers to the combination of three travel modes ‘auto mode’, ‘transit mode’ and ‘P&R mode’ (Liu & Meng, 2012). A hub for a multimodal (transport)network is a place where those three travel modes come together. To travel from/to the hub, it is possible to use the car or transit mode (bus, train, metro) and where it is possible to switch from mobility. For a multimodal hub like an airport, an additional aspect can be added, namely the air transport mode. At airport hubs, travellers are not only able to select the car or transit as its next mobility, but also air travel.
Airports can also be defined as a hub for airlines and their flight network. In the introduction, the definition of this second type of a hub has already been discussed briefly. Holloway (2016) notice three definitions of a hub, defined by three different actors:
1. FAA: Any (US) airports which generates 0.05% or more of the national enplanement, but which not load the term with any scheduling or other operational implications (Holloway, 2016). 2. General: Airports which are the home base of particular airlines and/or airports which handle
large volumes of traffic (Holloway, 2016).
3. Airlines: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying
origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016).
In the case of Amsterdam Schiphol, definition two and three are the most suitable definitions. The airport is the home base of airlines such as KLM, Transavia and TUI Airlines NL while other airlines such as EasyJet and Delta Air Lines uses the airport as base (SEO, 2018; Van Donselaar, 2019). Meanwhile, KLM uses Amsterdam Schiphol as its hub airport for incoming and outcoming flights to transfer passengers (KLM Group, 2018). However, looking at the research purpose and aim, the third definition expresses the definition which will also been used in this research. How do airlines use the airport and for which purpose? Amsterdam Schiphol, the national government and the airlines want to expand / strength the airport’s hub function for reasons as increasing connectivity and economic purpose.
18
In the next paragraphs, several aspects about the hub function will be described, namely:
• Identify the hub function – In the parts above, the definition of the hub function has already been discussed. However, to understand the concept of the hub function better, a closer look at the concept will be given.
• Strategies of hubs – There are different strategies to improve and operate hubs. In this paragraph, several strategies for hubs will be defined.
• Market power – The power of the market is very important for the hub function. The market has a big influence on the aviation sector and on airports.
• Hub competition – Across the world, many airports classify itself as an airport hub. This results in a large competition between those airports. How does this competition look like?
Identify Hub Function
The definition of a hub function used for this research has already been mentioned several times: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016).
However, this is just a brief introduction to the concept of ‘hub function’. Holloway is not the only person which has written a lot about airports and hubs. O’Kelly (1998) said that hubs are specials nodes, which are part of a network. Those hubs are located at particular places to facilitate connectivity between interacting places. Those nodes can associate with one or more of four functions, namely hub, points or origins, gateway and destinations (Pearce, 2001). In the case of airports, the function of hubs is the most suitable. Costa et al. (2010) adds that airport/airline networks are a set of links (routes) and nodes (interchanges or terminals), which are connected. The number of links a node has determines the accessibility and interconnection of a hub. How higher the number, how higher the accessibility and interconnection. Meanwhile, hub airports know several in- and outbound period when (inter)continental flights arrives and departs. Using multiple arriving/departing peaks provide passengers more options for travel, which makes an airline and airport more attractive (Cornelisse, 2016).
Figure 1: Overview of KLM’s intercontinental and European in- and outbound peaks (Cornelisse, 2016) created by (Troquette, 2020)
Another aspect for a good location for a hub is centrality. Airports with a central location compared to other airports has more potential to be a hub than airports which are not located centrally. Together with concentration-distribution characteristics, centrality forms two of the key terms associated with hubs. (Shaw, 1993). Examples of airports which uses the centrality are for example the Gulf Region airports of Abu Dhabi (AUH), Dubai (DXB) and Doha (DOH), which are centrally located between Africa/Europe and Asia/Australia or Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, which mostly are used as hubs for flights between Europe/North America and Australia. In Europe, Amsterdam Schiphol profiles itself as the gateway from North America to Europe and Asia (KLM, 2020; Van Donselaar, 2019). However, airlines also use other criteria to select a particular hub. Dennis (1994) has identified three critical operational factors used by airlines for their decision-making to operate from hubs. Those
19
three factors are the geographical location in relation to the markets, coordination of schedules and good airport facilities.
In addition to this, two other aspects are also important for airports with hub ambitions: direct and hub connectivity. Direct connectivity stands for the total direct weekly flights while hub connectivity stands for the number (number and quality) of reasonable indirect connections offered through the assessed transfers at an airport. Airports with a high direct and hub connectivity preforms better as hub airports than other airports (ACI, 2015; International Transport Forum, 2018).
Strategies of hubs
There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of strategies to realize a hub. Most of those strategies are based on a couple of ideas, designed by a few people. So can most hubs be defined as a clustered area, following the principle of Porter. Porter (2000) defines a cluster as ‘a geographically proximate
group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities” (p. 16). As already mentioned, hub airports provide facilities
and services appropriate for hubbing. (Lee & Mo Yang, 2013). However, to get the airlines to the airports, it is necessary to use the right strategies.
Two types of strategies which are particularly useful for improving the hub function are management and marketing strategies. Lee & Mo Yang (2013) discussed several strategies about improving the hub function of airports, with Seoul Incheon Int. Airport (South Korea) as example. Lee & Mo Yang talks also about the marketing and management strategies. For example, Lee & Mo Yang underline that transport time is currently most of the time the critical factor for choosing a particular route. In addition to that, also costs, quality use and marketing capability are major sources for competitive advantages. Lee & Mo Yang says that it is important for hubs to support their customers in their efforts to reduce costs and to improve customer service by making the total time of the logistics cycle shorter and less uncertain.
However, it is also important for airports to maintain and secure their position of a hub. Important ways to do that is by robust forecasting of capacity requirements and by doing continuous pre-emptive investments. By doing this, the facilities at the airport stayed high, also during bad times in the aviation sector (Lee & Mo Yang, 2013).
As already mentioned, Lee & Mo Yang (2013) uses Seoul Incheon Int. Airport as ‘case study’. The Korean airport already has used some successful strategies to become a major hub for not only air transport, but also for logistics and international economic exchange. In the paper, the writers shortly discuss a couple of ‘critical’ success factors the airport used by their strategies. First, Incheon airport invested a lot in good infrastructure to offer good inter-connectivity of transport modes in combination with integrating the logistics facilities. Second, policies and regulations defined by the government need to afford satisfaction and convenience for the users of facilities and services at the airport hub. Third, airports need to adopt intensive competitive strategies and aggressive marketing strategies to be running the hub. Fourth, adaptation of e-commerce can be a critical tool for the logistics industry. According to Chin & Tongzon (2001), the need for extensive logistics, trade-related databases and the core of information networks to facilitate trade in the region is important for hubs. Last, foreign investments can be attracted by a tenant-friendly atmosphere, where foreign enterprises can operate without restrictions, with possible resulting in the establishing of several foreign companies.
Market Power
As already mentioned, the market has a lot of power at airports. The market determines which airlines are flying, where they fly from/to and how the money will be earned. Polk & Bilotkach (2013) say about this that airports are serving airlines by offering passenger transportation and cargo services.
20
However, although the market has a lot over power, several factors are affecting the power of the market. Polk & Bilotkach (2013) discussed four factors, namely:
• Switching costs: Airlines pays charges to airports to operate routes from/to the particular airport. Due to different factors/influences, the prices can increase or decrease. Another factor of gaining/losing market power by switching costs are the number of competitions between airlines for transfer passengers. How larger the competition, how higher the cost could be. • Capacity and congestion: Capacity at airports, possible resulting in congestion, could influence
the market power. Bottlenecks for airports are terminal capacity, slot availability, runway capacity and noise restrictions. Those bottlenecks could result into degradation of the market power and the hub function of the particular airport.
• Network effects: Airlines operates a large network of destinations. Positive or negative effects on this route network could result in increasing or decreasing market power. Another aspect to consider about this is the fact that larger airline groups like Air France-KLM, the International Aviation Group and the Lufthansa Group operates from multiple hubs, which could result in spread of flights to increase the market power.
• Intermodal competition: The market can also be influences by other types of transport modes, for example the high-speed railway. If those types of transport modes become a serious alternative for flying, airlines and airports could lose their market power.
Another reason why airports can lose/maybe limit its market power is competition among the airlines, in combination with the possibility of airlines to leave the airport and/or deciding to close their hub. Because of that, Polk & Bilotkach (2013) advices to consider the following issues:
• Overlap in destinations served by the current and the competing airports, separately for all defined markets
• Likelihood of hub closure by the hub operator(s)
• Likelihood of non-hubbing airlines serving the area via an alternative airport
• Present and projected future competition between air travel and surface transportation. (2013, pg. 34).
At the end, Polk & Bilotkach (2013) gives an advice for airport hubs and their market power. They said that a careful analysis of the airport-airline relationship is from crucial importance, especially for congested airports like Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. In addition to that, they also say that time dimensions are also important to maintain. The networks of airlines do not change overnight. The nature of competition in the aviation sector may change due to mergers and bankruptcies in the airline industry while infrastructure projects could affect an airport several years.
Hub competition
In the previous paragraph, hub competition between several airports has been discussed already shortly. Redondi et. al (2011) says that hub competition or inter airport competition is based on the competition between different airlines. The competition between hubs goes mostly between neighbouring airports which compete to attract airline services for passengers whose travels originate or terminate in the region. Looking at Amsterdam Schiphol, you can say that the airport is competing with Brussel Airport and Düsseldorf Airport on regional level while it also is competing with London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt Am Main Airport on European level.
The hub competition really started after the liberalization of the air transport market. Carriers decided to spread their hub-and-spoke networks. This means that flights from different origins goes to the same destination and vice versa (point-to-point) are now concentrated by passing through intermediated ‘nodes (also known as hubs) (Redondi et.al, 2011). Together with liberalization, also economic factors and competitive dynamic were the cause that airlines decided to change their operations into a hub-and-spoke system. The advantage of a hub-and-spoke system is that an airline
21
needs a smaller amount of flights to connect each node of the network. This results in a more efficient use of transportation resources and gives airlines the opportunity to use larger aircraft and higher flight frequentations (Borestein, 1989; Pai, 2010). The popularity of the hub-and-spoke system resulted in the increasing number of hubs and also in the increasing hub competition. Each hub has his own main player(s). This could be one airline, several different airlines which uses the same airport as a hub or a hub where airlines from the same airline alliance works together, like SkyTeam does e.g. at Amsterdam Schiphol and Paris CDG. The ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MoI) and Ministry of Economic Affairs (MoE) (2016) has created a schematic view to illustrate the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic:
Figure 2: Schematic view of the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic (MoI & MoE, 2016)
Earlier, the conditions/criteria to be a suitable hub have been discussed. Those conditions/criteria could also be influencing the hub competition. Redondi et al. (2011) said that airports with a hub function loses passengers when the distance and travel time of a journey, compared to a direct connection, increased too much. The task for airports is to limit the additional distance and time travel to keep passenger using the hub. An exception for this is when there are higher frequencies of services of airlines. To increase the usage of the airport by passengers instead of selecting direct connections, hub airports need to meet three criteria. Those three criteria are:
1) The connectivity offered by a specific path
2) The total cost of the travel from the origin to the final destination 3) The quality of service at the airport
Hub competition gives not only benefits to airlines and airports but could also be relevant for local authorities and regulators. The additional demand from transfer passengers, which is the results of creating hubs, could possibly lead to more destinations and higher frequencies to offer by a hub airport. Those additional frequencies and increasing number of destinations could also benefit passengers living in the region of the airport (Redondi et. al, 2011).
2.1.2 – Sustainability in the aviation sector
The second research topic is sustainability in the aviation sector. One of the aims of this research is to analyse the goals and policies established by actors to make the aviation sector more sustainable. But with which aspects can the sustainability in the aviation sector be described and researched?
Sustainability and policymaking
As already mentioned, implementing sustainability into policymaking in terms of establishing policies and corresponding policy measures are very difficult in the aviation sector (Nijkamp, 1999). McManners (2016) substantiated this by saying that the aviation sector is a perfect example of a sector
22
which faces the direct clash between economic and environmental policies. Making a balance in focusing on both fields to establish appropriate policies results mostly on focussing on one of the two fields, while the other field become second and less important. McManners stresses also that the dilemma between continuing to gain the economic benefits of the sector in combination with reducing the environmental impacts as much as possible is difficult to achieve.
McManners (2016) also discussed the period needed to implemented policies to make the enhance the sustainability and environmental aspects of the aviation sector. The best way to implement those policies is by establishing a long-term strategic policy plan which created a balance between sustainability and the economic benefits of the sector. McManners explains that ‘sustainability is about
long-term balanced policy so it is fundamental that the thinking used to formulate such policy must be strategic and long term (2016, pg. 88)
Next to establishing a long-term strategical policy plan, the government also need to support innovation. The aviation sector is one of the world’s most innovated sector, but it deals with substantial research and developments costs. An innovated sector like the aviation sector can provide a large contribution to enhance the sustainability performance of the sector, but the government need to support his, for example with providing financial resources, but also by establishing a framework which provides innovators reasons to search and develop solutions to solve the negative impacts of the aviation sector for the environment (McManners, 2016).
CO2-emissions
The aviation sector produces a lot of CO2-emissions per year, which has a negative impact for the
environment and climate. Most of those emissions are produced by aircraft engines and are causing bad air quality conditions, mostly around airport areas. Most emissions are produced on the ground when the engines operate on the lowest combustion efficiency possible. Furthermore, the production of CO2-emissions per air traffic movement is also dependent from several factors, such as aircraft type,
flight time, flight destination and flight mode (Pagoni et al, 2016). The take-off and landing phase produces for example more emissions than flying on cruising height. Researches has showed that the most important aircraft operations (landing, take-off and in/out taxiing, also known as the LTO cycle) has the highest contribution to the airport carbon emissions (Postorino et al, 2019).
Figure 3: Indication LTO-cycle (below the 3.000 feet line) (Postorino et al, 2019)
In the last years, the scientific world has done multiple researches about the negative impacts for the environment caused by air travel and to find solutions to reduce the emissions, especially for the reduction of emissions on the ground. As already mentioned, most emission are produced during the LTO-cycle. For example, a standard narrow body aircraft (Airbus A320ceo, Boeing 737NG) uses already 5-10% of its fuel during taxiing, which is around 15% of the total flight time. This example shows that improvements on the ground, for example making taxi-procedures more efficient, could result in lower CO2-emissions, which is better for the environment and the climate. Improvements at airports with
23
more movements, like Amsterdam Schiphol, will show more positive results than smaller airports with low number of movements, partly because of the total production of emissions depends on the number of movements on an airport. Also, airports with a high airport congestion and high number of delays has a higher contribution of emissions (Postorino et. al., 2019).
Postorino et al. (2019) created a scheme indicating the main carbon impacts produced by the airport transport function. Which factors are the main cause for the carbon impact and which factors already contributes to reduce the impacts? According to Postorino et al. (2019), the total production of CO2
-emissions during the LTO-cycle can be calculated by three measures: 1) flight operations and environmental issues,
2) catchment area and airport - related environmental issues 3) reducing airport carbon impacts.
The ‘influence’ of those three measures determines how much CO2-emissions are produced at an
airport during the LTO-cycle.
24
(Noise) Nuisance
The reduction of air pollution (CO2-emissions, noise) is not the only example of making the living
environment more sustainable. Airports and aircraft movements have a large negative impact for the (local) residents in terms of nuisance. The most common form of nuisance caused by the aviation sector is noise nuisance. Researches (Lu & Morrel, 2006) has indicated that noise nuisance also results in negative health effects. Because of the negative impacts, governments forces airports more and more to reduce the (noise) nuisance of airport operations and aircraft movements by applying e.g. limited noise regulations and noise reduction measures.
The noise production of each movement is dependent of a couple of factors, namely aircraft type, number of engines, engine types and (maximum) take-off weight. Older aircraft like the Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 737-300 produces much more noise than newer and modern aircraft such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A320neo (Grampella et al, 2013). The figure below shows the development of the noise reduction by aircraft types over the year.
Figure 5: Indication of the noise production of different aircraft types (Air France – KLM, n.d.-c)
At the same time, aircraft produces the most noise during the landing and take-off procedures. The NASA (2008) names the landing gear of an aircraft as the primary source of noise production by aircraft. At the same time, wing flaps and slats also has a large contribution to the noise production during take-off and landing. Additionally, the noise production during take-take-offs and landings are also higher than during the flights because the engine are mostly on full power during the take-off to generate enough lift to take-off, while the thrust reverse of engines used by aircraft to brake after touch-down also produce a lot of noise (Civil Aviation Authority, 2010). Figure 6 shows an example of the general noise contour around an airport area, based on multiple movements operated by a Boeing 737-800, which indicates the possible noise nuisance cause by aircraft movements during the take-off and the landing. This figure shows that the most
noise nuisance is caused during the take-off.
Figure 6: Overview of the general noise contour around an airport area based on multiple movements operated by a Boeing 737-800 (Filippone, 2014).
25
To reduce the (noise) nuisance produced by airport operations and aircraft movements, the ICAO has aligned a balanced approach, which includes four types of measurements, namely:
• Reduce noise at the source (f.e. aircraft and engines)
• Applying improvements in the urban developments and land use • Applying improvements of the flight procedures
• Setting restrictions on total number of operations (quatas)
Meanwhile, the aviation sector continues to work on the developments of new and modern aircraft types, such as the Airbus A320neo, Airbus A350, Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which all are lighter, more energy-efficient and quieter, which all contributes to the reduction of nuisance (Filippone, 2014).
2.1.3 – Operationalisation/implementation of the research topics into conceptual model
The research topics hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector stands central into this research. The evaluation of the selected policies will mostly be focussing on both research topics. In the previous paragraph, several aspects about both topics has been discussed. However, not all aspects will directly be used into the research. If we are looking at the topic hub function, the following aspects will come back into the research:• Connectivity: How well is the hub connected with other places/regions across the world in terms of direct and hub connectivity?
• Hub conditions: How does the hub conditions of the hub looks like in terms of passenger and cargo volumes,
• Hub competition
• Network development/effects
From the research topic sustainability of the aviation, the following aspects will come back into the research
• CO2-emissions
• (Noise) nuisance
Most of the aspects discussed above will come back in(directly) into the selected policies as well in the before-after measurement analysis, especially the topics about sustainability. The topics part of the
hub function and sustainability are mostly to clarify both research topics.
Both research topics are the starting point of the conceptual model and the research. On the basis of both research topics will be determined which actors are the most important to become one of the main actors. In the figure below, an overview of this part of the framework is visible.
26
2.2 – Multi-level Governance Theory
2.2.1 – Introduction of the theory
The multi-level governance theory is one of the two main theories used in the research, together with the policy evaluation theory. The multi-level governance theory can be defined as the ‘vertical (multiple levels) and the horizontal (multiple actors) dispersion of central government authority and refers to political structures and the decision-making process (Bache & Flinders, 2004; Schafer, 2010). In general, three main aspects can be distinguished, namely the aspects of governance, the multi-level character (horizontal/vertical dimensions) and policy objectives.
Governance
Governance plays a central role in the multi-level governance theory. Because of that, it is important to understand the aspect of governance. Stoker (1998) discusses that there are a variety of ways and meanings used in (scientific) literature to define governance. However, Stoker said that people made a baseline agreement to use one particular definition: ‘Governance refers to the development of
governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred’ (pg. 1).
Stoker (1998) continues his explanation with mentioning the essences of governance. He uses a citation from Kooiman and Van Vliet (1993), which says that ‘the governance concept points to the
creation of a structure or an order which cannot be externally imposed but is the result of the interaction of a multiplicity of governing and each other influencing actors’ (pg. 64). The statement of
Kooiman and Van Vliet shows the main idea of governance and can be used as a starting point to understand governance better, and later-on also multi-level governance.
Stoker (1998) explains governance by means of five propositions. Those five propositions are:
1) Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond government
2) Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues.
3) Governance identifies the power dependence involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective action.
4) Governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors
5) Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of government to command or use its authority. It sees Government as able to use new tools and techniques to steer and guide (Stoker, 1998, pg. 2).
It is also possible to differentiate four different type of governance modes. Howlett (2009) did summarized those four modes, including adding the corresponding overall governance aim and implementation preferences. Looking at the research topics, the legal governance and network governance modes should be the two most suitable modes. The government aims to achieve goals by using the legal system (legal governance) but in collaboration with other stakeholders (network governance).
27
Figure 8: Overview of the four modes of governance (Howlett, 2009)Horizontal (actors) and vertical dimensions (scales)
One of the aspects of the multi-level governance theory is the horizontal and vertical dimensions, which already had been mentioned in the definition of multi-level governance. According to Daniell & Kay (2017), multi-level governance can be described as a system of ‘continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’ (pg. 6). In this system, the authority is not only dispersed between levels of administration (vertical dimension), but also across different sectors of interests and spheres of influence like markets, non-government actors and civil society (horizontal dimensions).
Figure 9: Example of the horizontal and vertical dimensions in multi-level governance (Jänicke, 2015)
Figure 9 shows a model created by Jänicke (2015) which shows an example how the horizontal and vertical dimensions of multi-level governance work. On the vertical axis, the different types of scales are visible (from local level to global level), while the arrows indicate the interaction between the different scales. The horizontal axis shows the different sectors of interests and spheres of influences, which also can be describes as actors. Also, the horizontal arrows show that interaction between different actors are possible.
