0
Sustainable airport development: implications
for stakeholder engagement
A case study of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
June 2014
Ben Moerkoert
Student number: 5637635
Supervisor: Mark van der Veen
Amsterdam Business School
1 Abstract
Different researches on a new noise system relating to runway usage were imposed by local airport communities, because they had different views and understandings on runway usage. Recently, this led to delay in the advice of an airport consultation committee to the State Secretary of Infrastructure and Environment and, possibly, to less support for the new noise system by local communities. Stakeholder perception gaps and stakeholder inequality could lead to conflict with stakeholders, which could lead to financial and reputational loss.
By engaging local communities on sustainable airport development, their different perspectives, for instance on noise and emissions, can become known to the airport and when interests of different stakeholders are taken into account, as much as possible, mutual agreement – and therefore less conflicts - on sustainable airport development could be reached. A good relationship with local communities could create trust and possibly consensus. Mutual agreement is considered the solution for effective decisions and actions. It should, however, be noted that it may not be feasible to take into account all stakeholder interests, due to different interests and it can, furthermore, be questioned whether airport development is sustainable.
Research on local community engagement on sustainable airport development is limited and, therefore, this exploratory / explanatory case study researches, via literature and questionnaires, how, why and with what results local airport communities are engaged in respect of sustainable airport development of AAS.
Next to dialogue, local communities are engaged, because they receive information. It can, however, be concluded that there should be more frequent contact between AAS and local communities and AAS should proactively and timely provide
2 information to these communities, while these communities would expect to receive complete information on sustainable airport development. Interactive, frequent and balanced communication and complete information on sustainable airport development, where transparency is taken into account, are needed to engage local communities.
3 Table of content
Introduction 4
Chapter 1: Literature review 13
1.1 Why engage local airport communities? 13
1.2 How should local communities be engaged? 17
1.3 Theories on communication on sustainability in the aviation sector 23 1.4 Local communities and sustainable airport development 28
Chapter 2: Methodology and Data 39
Chapter 3: Results and discussion 47
3.1 Community engagement 47
3.2 Sustainable airport development 55
Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations 60
4.1 Community engagement 60
4.2 Other stakeholders 63
4.3 Recommendations 64
References 68
Appendix 1: Recommendations Brewer 80
Appendix 2: Questionnaires 82
Appendix 3: Introduction letter questionnaire 132 Appendix 4: English version questionnaire 133
4 Introduction
Engagement of local airport communities
This explanatory / exploratory case study researches, via literature and
questionnaires, how, why and with what results local airport communities should be engaged by Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) in respect of sustainable airport development. This thesis wants to make a contribution to sustainable airport
development and the role of local communities in close vicinity of the airport. Different airports could possibly benefit when using this study, since if perspectives of local airport communities on sustainable airport development (such as noise and emissions) are known to AAS and different stakeholder interests are taken into account as much as possible, mutual agreement could be reached. Mutual
agreement is considered the solution for effective decisions, actions and planning.
Recently, local communities and local council representatives (representatives of communities in the close vicinity of AAS that experience impact by the operation of AAS) within the airport consultation committees Commissie Regionaal Overleg Schiphol (CROS) and the Alders Platform were informed about and participated in a new noise standards system. According to these standards, runways causing the least amount of disturbance to the surrounding area should be used as often as possible. Runways usage is, however, primarily influenced by weather conditions and air traffic demand. Due to these influences in particular periods, instead of primary runways, secondary runways were used intensively and caused disturbance in populated areas, as Amstelveen and Aalsmeer. Therefore, local communities questioned whether the Alders advice to the State Secretary of Infrastructure and
5 Environment is sufficient to reduce disturbance and opposed to the new noise
standards system as advised by the Alders Platform. They asked for clarification by the aviation sector parties and imposed independent research, which had led to several different researches and outcomes. This has led to time consuming processes and possibly less support in the new noise standard system by local communities and local councils. Whether this information was understandable and sufficient for local communities to understand all aspects of new noise standard system is questioned.
The operations of the airport could lead to conflict with local communities, since airport operation influences environmental quality. Conflicts between local communities and the airport can constrain airport development, such as environmental protest, land occupation or court proceedings (Upham, 2003). Engagement of local airport communities could avoid conflicts and could avoid that the communities impose constraints (Upham 2003, Yates 2009). In addition, local communities could consider AAS accountable for the impact on environmental quality, which could lead to reputational damage and financial loss (Calvano, 2007).
Therefore, it is of interest for AAS to understand the perspectives of local
communities in order to make effective decisions on sustainable airport development and which could lead to less conflicts.
By engaging local airport communities, via communication, providing information and enabling these communities to give feedback, empathy for different perspectives can be created, which can result in support from these communities on sustainable airport development. AAS should know how to communicate and report about emissions and noise (Costa Jordao, 2009 GRI). Stakeholders, such as local
6 the stakeholders and the company where mutual agreement is considered the solution for effective decision and actions (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). It should, however, be noted that it may not be feasible to take into account all stakeholders interests, because their interests can be different.
Local communities are getting more and more involved in their environment (Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, Rli (2013) cites Hajer (2011)). Local
communities, as external stakeholders of an airport, should be involved by the airport to know what expectations they have and how these expectations change (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). It appears that, next to noise reduction, stakeholders consider reduction of emissions important (Janic, 2006 and Rli, 2013). It may, however, be argued whether airport development is sustainable, due to the negative
environmental impacts.
Airport consultation committees
The ministry of Infrastructure and Environment has established the following
consultation committees: Commissie Regionaal Overleg Schiphol (CROS, 2003) and the Alders Platform (Alderstafel, 2006). Within these committees regional partners give advice on airport development and mainly noise reduction. The State, provinces, councils of local communities, local communities representatives and airport sector parties are represented in the CROS and Alders Platform. In the Alders Platform and the CROS the participants intend to find a balance between airport activities and environmental quality for local airport communities. For instance, this can be effectuated by the use of quieter aircrafts and glide approaches which require less fuel, reduce CO₂ emission and cause less noise disturbance for the local community.
7 The CROS has given different advices on route optimization during day and night in order to reduce noise and these advices have been elaborated in legislation (Aviation Act, Wet Luchtvaart).
In 2008 the Alders Platform has given advice on volume restrictions within the stated environmental restrictions of 2007 where quantity of movements for Schiphol are restricted until 2020 (510,000 movements per annum), selective use of the mainport Schiphol for mainport bounded air traffic, a new noise system to accommodate the mainport network until 2020 with minimal noise nuisance for the environment and investments in environmental quality for local airport communities. Emission restrictions as such are not prescribed in the above mentioned advice.
As from 1 January 2015, the CROS and Alders Platform will be integrated in the newly formed Omgevingsraad Schiphol (ORS). The ORS will consist of a local platform (Regioforum) and an advisory body (College van Advisering). In the ORS governmental parties (State, provinces and municipalities), aviation sector parties (AAS, Air Traffic Control (Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland), BARIN (airline
representatives) and KLM), local communities through cluster representatives and members of environmental and economic organizations will be represented. The surroundings of AAS will be clustered, either on the basis of the municipal boundaries or on the basis of the runway usages, and subsequently cluster representatives will be designated. In the local platform there will be dialogue on noise reduction, operational matters, physical planning and information and communication in
connection with development of AAS. Meetings will be held at least four times a year and the meetings are accessible for adherents of the representatives. The advisory body gives advice to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, upon request and without request (Alders advice, 2014).
8 Sustainable airport development
Airport development is of importance for the economy, because it contributes to national and regional economy or socio- economic development, according to different aviation sector parties, such as ACI Europe (Airport Council International Europe, 2004). These parties emphasise the importance of the economic contribution and to a lesser extent the environmental impact. Connectivity to different worldwide destinations contributes to the national and regional socio- economic development as well (Wathern,1988 and Upham, 2001). The economic impact generated by an airport and its stakeholders extends beyond the boundaries of the airport itself. An airport gives on-site employment and employment within the local communities. In addition, an airport plays an important role in positioning a country as tourist destination. An airport enables a competitive international business climate and an attractive region to live and work in (Key elements mainport, 2013).
For instance, with respect to AAS recent research has shown that aviation
contributes more than 26 billion euros to the GDP of the Netherlands (Key elements mainport, 2013). Furthermore, AAS creates approximately 65,000 jobs (annual report Schiphol 2013). The aviation sector employs 120,000 people regionally and up to 290,000 people nationally (Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek Schiphol, 2012).
Besides positive impact, airport development has negative impact on the
environment in the form of among others noise and emission. Different measures are taken to stimulate airports to take sustainable initiatives for among others reduction of emissions and noise, both on European and international level. These initiatives have been included in among others covenants and legislation.
9 Article 8.35 of the Aviation Act (Wet Luchtvaart) provides a basis for the CROS and stipulates that the CROS has the task to ensure that the use of the airport will be stimulated taking into account the different interests of the involved parties. Currently, local community representatives are not included in the Dutch legislation.
The advice of the Alders Platform in relation to restriction of movements until 2020, as set out above, has been elaborated in a mainport covenant between Schiphol Group and the Dutch government in 2008. Pursuant to this covenant, until 2020 for mainport Schiphol there will be a restriction of 510,000 movements per annum, while the estimated required movements until 2020 will be 580,000 per annum. Therefore, air traffic which does not strengthen the mainport function will be diverted to regional airports Eindhoven, Rotterdam the Hague Airport and eventually to Lelystad, being a total of approximately 70,000 movements. Mainport bounded air traffic is air traffic that strengthens the mainport function via connectivity of destinations to economic, political en cultural centres in the world. Next to the aforementioned mainport covenant, two other covenants are agreed upon: the covenant reducing noise and the covenant environmental quality. Both covenants give substance to improvement on local environment, protection of local environment namely the reduction of noise and increase of quality of local environment within the environmental space. Environmental space is described as a balance between the development of mainport Schiphol, reduction of noise, increase of quality of local environment and increase possibilities and use of space around the airport. Pursuant to the covenant environmental quality, the province of Noord-Holland and local municipalities have the obligation to timely and objectively inform the local residents in respect of noise. Therefore, from 15 December 2011, the relevant information is provided through a website of the local community contact centre (Bewoners Aanspreekpunt Schiphol,
10 Bas). In addition, based on the covenant environmental quality, an amount of EUR 30,000,000 has been made available by the national government, province of Noord-Holland and Schiphol Group (AAS) in order to improve the environmental quality for local communities and local residents.
The European Union (EU) introduced in 2012 the Emission Trading System (ETS) for aviation. Airlines have to pay for and can trade their emissions. ETS has been introduced for flights within the European Economic Area. For flights to non-European countries the ETS was postponed until 2020, because there was no agreement at an international level. Since the EU insisted on urgent measures for reducing emission for several years, the EU and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) agreed that a global market-based mechanism should be developed in which international aviation emissions are taken into account and that introduced by 2020.
In addition, emission targets are set by the European Union, which European airports have to follow. Next to legislation, airports are stimulated to reduce carbon emissions and can join the Airport Carbon Accreditation programme of the Airport Council International - Europe (ACI Europe, 2014). The Airport Carbon Accreditation program has four levels. Level 1 is mapping of the carbon footprint of airports, level 2 is reduction and management of the carbon footprint, level 3 is optimisation where other users of the airport or third parties are engaged to reduce the carbon footprint and level 4 is neutrality for CO₂ emissions of airports. Level 4 is difficult to reach for their own operations, therefore airports invest in external funds or projects that reduce
11 At an international level measures are taken in order to reduce environmental impact, such as the Kyoto protocol (1997). In the Kyoto protocol targets for greenhouse gas were set for the period from 2008 until 2012. Countries within the EU needed to follow the targets set by the Kyoto protocol. In respect of emission reduction under the Kyoto protocol for the period as from 2013 no targets have been set (yet).
Airports are stimulated to develop, but the environmental quality for local communities should be taken into account (Alderstafel / CROS).
Research question(s)
In this thesis the following research question will be addressed:
How, why and with what results are local communities engaged in sustainable airport development?
In order to answer the research question, the following sub questions will be answered:
1. What is sustainable airport development?
2. How could sustainable airport development be realized in the view of local airport communities?
3. How and why should local airport communities be engaged?
4. According to the local airport communities, how should they be engaged in respect of sustainable airport development?
5. What are the perspectives on sustainable airport development for local airport communities?
6. What are the effects of differing engagement mechanisms?
12 The structure of this thesis is as follows.
Chapter one contains a literature review concerning engagement of local airport communities in connection with sustainable airport development.
In chapter two the methodology and data gathering are described.
The results and discussions of applied theory, the interviews and benchmark of this study are set out in chapter three.
13 Chapter 1. Literature review
1.1 Why engage local airport communities? Mutual agreement and effective decisions
By engaging local airport communities, empathy can be created, which can result in a mutual solution between the airport and the communities (Yates, 2009). Morsing and Schultz (2006) have the same opinion and state that stakeholders play an important role and that there should be interaction between the stakeholders and the company; mutual agreement is considered the solution for decisions and actions. According to Morsing and Schultz (2006) stakeholders need not only be informed, but it should go further than that. Stakeholders need to be engaged in Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) communication and their (changing) perspectives need to be taken into account. Managers need to continually and pro-actively engage their stakeholders. CSR is the internal and external communication of companies with their stakeholders in which they point out their current situation and activities towards social and ethical goals (Brown and Dacin (1997) as cited by Morsing and Schultz (2006)).
In the sustainable development process engagement of communities is important, since a relationship with local communities creates trust and possibly consensus, engagement of communities enables the communities to provide a reaction or to influence decision making and communities may be able to prevent and manage conflicts.
Pursuant to legislation, companies already have a relationship with their
shareholders, but it should go beyond that and companies should also take into account the interest of all stakeholders because of the long-term value (Andriof et al.
14 (2002) as cited by both Amaeshi and Crane (2005) and Morsing and Schultz (2006)). All stakeholders should be engaged. Amaeshi and Crane (2005) state that by
engaging different stakeholders, their different interests get clear for the
organization. Part of sustainable airport development is that an organization makes choices between different stakeholder interests which could lead to effective
decisions and strategies for the organization (Amaeshi and Crane, 2005). Input from the different groups of stakeholders in determining airport sustainability goals is important to obtain support from the stakeholders (Stokes, 2011).
Conflicts with local communities
Calvano (2007) describes that operations of multinational corporations (MNC’s) like environmental pollution, could lead to conflict with external stakeholders, such as local communities. Calvano refers to a mining company in Ghana, which was accused of illegally dumping waste near a fishing and diving region. This has led to blockades by local communities and court proceedings. Furthermore, Calvano mentions an oil company in Ecuador, which wanted to produce oil in the rain forest. As a result of protest by local communities two pipelines and the local airport were closed and several months later an important oil contract of the company was terminated.
For MNC’s conflict with local communities could lead to reputational damage and financial loss (Calvano, 2007). An example of reputational damage is a situation where local communities express the negative impacts of the operations of the MNC. Financial loss can be the case when MNC’s need to take measures to minimise operational impact for local communities or even worse, shutdown the operation as set out above.
15 When conflict arises, Calvano (2007) states that MNC’s should understand what the cause or causes of conflicts could be. Calvano (2007) distinguishes three
components that could lead to a conflict between a MNC and a local community: stakeholder power inequality, stakeholder perception gaps and cultural context. The substantial power of a MNC could lead to inequality between the MNC and the local community. For instance, local communities may not always be informed by the MNC which could result in perception gaps. Cultural context plays a role in case of cross border conflicts. Local communities should know what kind of action could be taken with respect to their interest(s) and when operations of MNC’s have impact on their community.
Reasons for conflict between the airports and their communities can be adverse environmental impact (see above), lack of understanding of each other’s concerns and interests and insufficient participation of local communities in airport decision making (Burn 2005).
Upham (2003) points out how opposition by local communities needs to be managed. In that respect, according to him, the following is of importance: provision of
information to local residents on which action has been taken to solve the problems they encounter; create a system of public consultation, publicly set goals for
improvement and implementation of monitoring systems showing how the progress has been made. Calvano (2007) and Morsing and Schultz (2006) mention the importance of informing stakeholders as well. According to Calvano (2007) in case of a conflict, stakeholders should be informed about which steps are taken.
Upham (2003) states that conflict between local communities and the airport can constrain airport development. For instance, due to environmental protest, land
16 occupation or court proceedings. Costa Jordao (2009) indicates that opposition by communities can lead to delay and cancellation of airport expansion projects. According to Calvano (2007) conflicts could lead to reputational damage and financial loss for organisations.
Conflict with local communities should be avoided (Freestone, 2009 and Yates 2009). In order to avoid conflicts between an airport and local communities mediation
between the airport and the local communities is needed, that is the concept of sustainable aviation. Sustainable airport development should be linked to planning with communities. In order to bring the airport and the communities together, there should be consultation, collaboration and awareness at a local level that airports are no longer only transportation hubs, but complex diversified (urban) organizations, according to Guller and Guller, 2002, as cited by Freestone (2009).
Not only airport expansion, but also population growth - and therefore increase of number of stakeholders – can lead to more conflicts (Yates, 2009).
Upham (2003), therefore, states that it is important that the airport has a good relationship with its neighbour, where the most important concerns of the local community, are addressed.
Therefore, it is of interest to know what causes conflict with local airport communities, or better, to avoid conflict and involve local communities about sustainable airport development. Local communities, as external stakeholders of an airport, should be involved by the airport to know what expectations they have and how these expectations change (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). It appears that, next to noise reduction, stakeholders consider reduction of emissions important (Janic, 2006 and Rli, 2013). Parties within the Schiphol region should know what the perspectives of
17 the stakeholders (such as local communities) are, in order to come to mutual
agreement and advice and, consequently, effective decision making / legislation of the Dutch government (Rli, 2013).
In summary, in order to sustainably develop an airport, the airport has to know what the different perspectives of local communities are, satisfy them and the airport has to know how to communicate and report these emissions and noise (Costa Jordao, 2009 GRI).
1.2 How should local communities be engaged?
Definition
Engel et al. (1994), as cited by Holm (2006), provide the following definition of communication: “a transactional process between two or more parties whereby meaning is exchanged through the intentional use of symbols”. It is a transaction where the participants are involved and it is symbolic in a way that words, pictures and other stimulants are used to give thoughts (Blythe 2000, as cited by Holm (2006)). In addition, it is intentional, meaning that it is a deliberate effort to provide an answer. There is a dialogue, if individuals share meanings, while they understand each other completely (Holm, 2006).
General
Companies communicate CSR efforts in order to show their positive goals on social and ethical subjects where they feel responsible for. According to Ashforth and Gibbs (1990), cited by Morsing and Schultz (2006), these efforts can also lead to critical stakeholders attention. For instance, the CSR efforts of Royal Dutch Shell have led to conflict with communities in Nigeria. Shell has built schools and hospitals for the
18 communities. On the other hand, actions to reduce negative impacts of their core business, oil production and refinery on the environment (e.g. communities) failed and Shell was accused of failing to meet regulations and unable to clean up oil spills.
Therefore, it is of importance for an organisation to know why stakeholders are critical towards their actions and decision making and even to actions of suppliers, consumers and politicians (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). Organisations need to be aware of stakeholder expectations on CSR, which expectations are changing instantly. In order to continuously be aware of these changing stakeholders expectations, proper CSR communications strategies are needed.
Morsing and Schultz (2006) argue that in order to be aware of stakeholder expectations, theory on sensemaking and sensegiving is useful, a theory which researches communication processes. In case of sensemaking, an individual or organization values what a stakeholder wants and tries to understand the meaning of it and this may result in a productive relationship (Gioia et al.(1994) cited by Morsing and Schultz (2006)). Sensegiving is the ability of an individual or organization to influence others (Morsing and Schultz, 2006).
Morsing and Schultz (2006) state that processes of sensemaking and sensegiving will lead to improvement of CSR efforts, as this optimizes expectations of
stakeholders and the organization.
Different types of stakeholder relations
When communicating on CSR with stakeholders, Morsing and Schultz (2006) distinguish three types of stakeholder relations: stakeholder information strategy (one-way communication), stakeholder response strategy (two-way asymmetric
19 communication) and stakeholder involvement strategy (two-way symmetric
communication).
In case of one-way communication, the organization communicates to its
stakeholders. In the words of Grunig and Hunt (1984) this is “telling and not listening”. Companies with a stakeholder information strategy, for instance, governments, make use of, among others, press releases, brochures and pamphlets. The stakeholders have some influence, in a way that they can oppose for instance by means of striking or boycotting the company.
In the second type of stakeholder relation, the stakeholder response strategy, there is an asymmetric two-way communication from and to stakeholders, but there is an imbalance in favour of the company. The company tries to change the behaviour of its stakeholders, but the company itself does not change as a result of its
stakeholders relations. In this strategy, a company uses, for example, surveys, in order to assess what will (not) be accepted by the stakeholders. Stakeholders have some influence, but they can only respond in a passive way on the initiatives from the company.
In the third type of stakeholder relation, the stakeholder involvement theory, there is a balance between the company and its stakeholders. There is a dialogue between the company and its stakeholders in order to come to mutual agreement. Companies should not only influence its stakeholders, but companies should also be influenced by its stakeholders. Opposed to the stakeholder response strategy, in the stakeholder involvement strategy both the company and its stakeholders are willing to change. Stakeholders expectations may change all the time and in that context
20 Stakeholder participation / engagement
Arnstein (1969) introduced a “ladder of citizen participation” and distinguished the following 8 levels (from less to more participation): manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control.
Manipulation and therapy are considered non-participation, meaning that the goal is not to enable people to participate in planning, but the organizations educate the participants (Arnstein, 1969). Informing, consultation and placation are considered tokenism. Informing and consultation mean that the participants have a voice to hear and to be heard, but they have no influence as they are not able to change. Placation includes the possibilities of participants to give advice, but it is always up to the organization to decide. Partnership, delegated power and citizen control are indicated as degrees of citizen power. Partnership gives the participants the possibility to negotiate and they are engaged. In case of delegated power and citizen control, the participants have the power to make decisions or full managerial power.
As an extension of Arnsteins ladder, it has been argued that, although dialogue is positive, dialogue can also be negative, since it can be expensive, time-consuming and can lead to counterproductive activities which do not create trust and
collaboration (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). Crane and Livesey (2003), as cited by Morsing and Schultz (2006), also mention the adverse effects of dialogue, since it can lead to distrust and cynicism, if the dialogue has not taken place in a good manner.
Bowen et al. (2010) refer to three community engagement strategies in order to engage communities: transactional, transitional and transformational strategies. In the transactional strategy one-way communication is used to communicate and
21 inform communities. This strategy is passive from a community point of view, as organizations give information to the community (Hashagan (2002) as cited by Bowen et al. (2010)). From an organizational or corporate view, one-way communication is sharing information in order to educate and lobby via push communication (Altria inc. (2004) cited by Bowen et al. (2010)).
Transitional strategies, next to giving information an organization, also invest in communities. Under investment in communities from a strategic point of view, Bowen et al. (2010) understand sharing of money, time and skills. Communities participate in this process (Altria inc. (2004) as cited by Bowen et al. (2010)). It is, however, the organization that controls the engagement process.
Unlike transactional engagement, transformational engagement is a more pro-active form of engagement from a corporate point of view, as the organization and
community both share information, learn and make sense (Hart and Sharma (2004) cited by Bowen et al. (2010) and Morsing and Schultz (2006)). Bowen et al. (2010) indicate that transformational engagement leads to results. Without engaging the communities results are difficult to achieve and through communities engagement communities will take the lead in framing problems and managing solutions, community leadership in decision- making, Amnon (2005) and Rasche and Esser (2006) as cited by Bowen et al. (2010).
Best practices for community engagement
According to Ling et al. (2009), cited by Wates 2000, in order to achieve best practices for engagement of communities the following is of importance:
representation (which key people need to be engaged and what are their interests and values), timing (the earlier communities are informed the better), acceptance
22 (different individuals can have different views), active listening (in order to achieve goals and provide advice), collaboration (build networks and relationships), ownership, scale (a smaller group representing more diversities is more valuable than a large group of people with the same interest), inclusiveness, communication and dissemination (publicity and reporting to communities in order to create trust between communities and decision makers), transparency, vision and realism and visualisation. Furthermore, Ling et al. (2009) state that the implementation of a sustainability plan in a community is a dynamic process, which requires negotiation, making of compromises and adaptation of goals. Implementation of a sustainability plan may require change in powers (more powers to the local communities instead of the airport).
Sheppard (2011) states that for stakeholder engagement it is important that the local communities are well informed by organizations on local impact and policy choices. He indicates that this can be realised through two-way communication and
information provision among others through visualisation. A difficulty here is that there can be a gap between the scientific information on the one side and the understanding thereof by the local communities on the other hand. According to Sheppard (2011) in respect of climate change the following is of importance: information should go down to the local level and local stakeholders should be engaged (it should be avoided that local communities only receive fragmented information), scenarios should be complete and understandable and graphics / pictures should be used to maximize engagement, learning and interaction of the local communities.
23 1.3 Theories on communication on sustainability in the aviation sector
General
In general, airports are not leading in respect of corporate sustainability (CS) and corporate sustainability reporting (CSR). The reason is the relative non-competitive character of airports (Yates, 2009).
Communication with stakeholders of an airport is important, in order to identify their perspectives and in order to set mutual sustainable goals and criteria. Definitions of sustainability goals and criteria should be clear in order to measure, manage and report these goals, according to Schaltegger and Wagner (2006a), cited by Costa Jordao (2009). Input from different groups of stakeholders is important in order to define clear sustainability goals. These can lead to support from the stakeholders (Stokes 2011).
Communication methods
In order to engage stakeholders different participatory methods are used, such as leaflets, websites, exhibitions, site visits, surveys, local media, environmental and financial reporting, telephone helplines and interviews. Each of these methods differs in the extent to which they contribute to participation in decision making (Rawson and Hooper, 2012). Rawson and Hooper (2012) refer in their research of different UK airports to the ladder of Arnstein (1969) in this respect. Leaflets, newsletters, reports and presentations are only meant to inform stakeholders and are considered non-participation. Interviews, focus groups, site visits and helplines are considered tokenism, where the participants have a voice to be heard, but it is not sure whether there will be acknowledgement of their opinion. According to Rawson and Hooper (2012) an airport consultation committee can be seen as tokenism, but in the event
24 such committee can make decisions, this can be seen as power in the Arnstein ladder. In most cases, however, an airport consultation committee will not be able to decide (Pearce et al. 2009, as cited by Rawson and Hooper (2012)). This may be different if there would be an obligation for decision making by the consultation committee. It is, therefore, appropriate to consider stakeholder engagement as partnership (Amaeshi and Crane 2006, as cited by Rawson and Hooper (2012)). It is in the interest of the airport to pro-actively approach local stakeholders in order to come to mutual consent and therefore create acceptance by a wider local
community. Participation is often underestimated and therefore not integrated in decision-making (Rawson and Hooper, 2012). According to Therivel (2004), as cited by Rawson and Hooper (2012), there is constructive participation in the event representatives from a wider public, for instance, politicians or pressure groups, represent the views of the community instead of the different individuals of a community.
As indicated above, in the relationship between the airport and its local communities a distinction can be made between one-way and two-way communication. In respect of noise in the airport sector, for instance, noise reduction schemes can be published on a website (one-way communication) and a noise abatement committee can be established where different groups, such as airport operators, airport management and relevant members of the community are represented (two-way communication) (Yates, 2009). Another example of communication with stakeholders is a telephone helpline for questions and complaints. Upham and Mills (2005) state that a
disadvantage thereof is that it is the stakeholder who needs to make contact. They also mentioned some active communication methods, such as holding of employee sustainability days and public house for formal meetings.
25 By means of, for instance, surveys and consultation committees, external
perspectives of stakeholders in respect of sustainability indicators can be tested (Adam and Frost, 2008), as cited by Stokes (2011).
Another method of stakeholder communication is reporting on sustainability by airports. Sustainability reports give airports a communication tool to inform
stakeholders and give them the information to compare with other airports. Reporting can be an important part of the dialogue between the airport and its stakeholders (Upham and Mills, 2005). Furthermore, sustainability reports can be used to create sustainability strategies (GRI, 2007). Upham and Mills (2005) state that stakeholders should to a certain extent agree with the indicators used in the reports and should be able to provide eventual additional indicators.
Upham and Mills (2005) mention some difficulties in respect of reporting. It is often difficult to compare the performance between airports, due to a lack of information in the reports. Reports do not always contain specific tailor made stakeholder
information. There should be more coordination between the stakeholders dialogue and the sustainability report. Another difficulty is that there is no general consensus on the issues which need to be reported.
Relationships with stakeholders
In the relationship between the airport and its stakeholders the following conflicts can arise: adverse environmental effects (e.g. noise), lack of understanding of each other (e.g. no stakeholder awareness in respect of the airport’s operation) and insufficient public participation in decision-making (institutional barriers should be moved) (Burn, 2005). Surveys showed that airports and communities have different goals. An airport tends to educate by convincing the public that it can continue its business (one-way
26 communication), while the community seeks co-operation and communication (two-way communication) (Burn, 2005).
Although stakeholder engagement is mostly considered positive, there are also concerns that consultation of stakeholders leads to conflict with communities, delays and termination of airport development plans (Rawson and Hooper, 2012).
Best practices for communication / stakeholders engagement
Based on surveys, the practices for effective communication between the airport and its local communities are the following: build a good relationship between the airport and the local community which creates trust based on two-way communication, good attitude of senior management of the airport, use of graphics by the airport to
illustrate, have a transparent process (otherwise conflicts might arise), select service orientated staff (e.g. successful communication programs) and be ahead with communication (e.g. take future into account) (Woodward, 2009).
The aforementioned outcomes of the surveys are also mentioned by different authors. Amaeshi and Crane (2005) also state that stakeholder engagement is very effective when two-way communication is used. Engagement of stakeholders should be far reaching, inclusive and balanced and this should be included in the
organization (Amaeshi and Crane, 2005). In respect of stakeholders engagement two-way communication is important. According to Campbell Jackson (2002), “we vs. they” or “decide, announce, defend” one-communication approach has failed. There should not be a focus on the sole delivery of information, but on the building of a relationship of trust. Sheppard (2011), as stated above, emphasises the importance of two-way communication and visualisation as well. Furthermore, Amaeshi and Crane (2005) and Ling et al. (2009) also indicate that the engagement process should be transparent.
27 Good stakeholder engagement practice, according to Amaeshi and Crane (2005), consists of the following four components: (i) identification of stakeholders and (prioritization of) their issues, Mitchell et al., (1997), (ii) implementation of the stakeholder engagement strategy, both preparation, during and post, Gable et al., (2005), (iii) evaluation on whether engagement goals are met and (iv) continuous relationship management, which mostly will have more social value than a one-off contact with a stakeholder.
In respect of the first component the following variables can be distinguished in order to determine how an organization will respond on stakeholders: power (a stakeholder has the power to impose its will on the company), legitimacy (the stakeholders issues are in line with norms and beliefs) and urgency (how important the stakeholders consider the issue and how long it takes before the company deals with the relevant stakeholder issue). As the different issues can change in time, this is a dynamic process. Because different stakeholders can have different interests it can be difficult to balance the demands of all stakeholders. In order to balance these different demands, the issues of the stakeholders need to be prioritized based on power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). By means of a platform where government and communities can participate, these groups could be brought together (Thomas and Lever 2003).
In respect of the second component, in the preparation phase of the stakeholder engagement there can be an internal stakeholder team and externally there can be preparation in order to understand the stakeholders concerns and to let them participate in the engagement process (setting out plans etc.).
In respect of the third component, it is important that engagement goals are met. In that respect, performance measurements objectives should be clear (Malvey et al.,
28 2002 cited by Amaeshi and Crane 2005). Objectives for good stakeholder
engagement practice, actual airport policy and practice on sustainability should be clear (Upham, 2001). Measures on material waste in- and output to air, water and land should be set.
There are also factors that can prevent an effective participation of stakeholders. Hooper and Mills (2003), as cited by Rawson and Hooper (2012), identify the following factors: imbalance in knowledge and power (less knowledge and power of the community in comparison with the airport), organizations which are not willing to spend time and money for communication with stakeholders, assumed homogeneity of stakeholder groups and no good attitude, behaviour and training of the people who arrange for the stakeholder communication and exclusion of some stakeholders by using a certain type of communication (for instance, timing of meetings).
1.4 Local communities and sustainable airport development Local communities
Bowen et al. (2010) state that communities can be based on geography, interaction and identity or a combination thereof. A geographic community is a community where people live in the same geographic area, but do not necessarily interact with each other. For instance, at an airport, communities that are near the runways. Kivits et al. (2009) distinguish two groups of local airport communities that experience impact by the airport operation. In the first place, communities closest to the airport and in the second place communities on a distance of up to 20 km from the airport (Kasarda, 2001, cited by Kivits et al. 2009). Kasarda (2010) cited by Yates (2009) refers to communities on a distance of up to 30 km from the airport both in the residential and the commercial atmosphere. An interaction based community is a community with social relationships, which is not always bound to a specific geographic area. An
29 identity based community is a community of people with shared values who do not necessarily live in the same area.
Like Bowen et al.(2010), Dunham et al. (2006) distinguish different types of communities. The first type consists of communities of place or within a specific geographic area. These communities are located in close proximity of a company’s activities. The second type is a community of interest, where people have the same goal or interest. The third type of communities are the virtual advocacy groups having more than one interest and being active on short term bases to reach and get
interested as many people as possible, for instance anti- globalization protests. Last type of local communities are communities of practice, containing groups of
professionals sharing the same general identity. Both Bowen et al.(2010) and Dunham et al. (2006) refer to a geographic and an identity based community. Bowen et al.(2010) refer to an interaction community with social relationships and similarly Dunham et al. (2006) mention a community of groups with one or more shared interests.
Yates (2009) indicates that the definition of an airport community is far reaching, since it does not only relate to a geographic area, but also extends to different stakeholder groups.
Crane et al. (2004) do not refer to a specific geographic community, but state that communities are organized individual citizens or a group of citizens with a common interest. Bowen et al.(2010) mention a group based definition, like an association, and an individual citizen based definition, such as the public generally.
A local community can be considered an external stakeholder of the airport (Calvano, 2007). Neufville and Odoni (2003) cited by Schaar et al. (2010) argue that most
30 airports are owned and operated by public authorities, such as cities, counties, national governments and local airport authorities. Local government representatives of cities and counties are elected by local communities and therefore should take the interests of the local communities into account. Kivits et al. (2009) state that an airport has the following stakeholders: airport operators, airlines, airplane
manufacturers, government and community (both close to the airport and within a broader region).
Different communities may interact with each other (Bowen et al. 2010, cited Neville and Menguc 2006). Schaar et al. (2010) state that the interests of communities could be different for different local community members (Calvano, 2007). One member could have an economic interest, such as job creation, while another member could consider environmental issues, like noise, more important.
Economic versus environmental interests
According to Schaar et al. (2010) interests of local communities can be positive from an economic point of view and negative from an environmental point of view.
Button and Stough (2000), as cited by Schaar et al. (2010), mention four economic benefits in respect of airports: (i) short term impact of construction, maintenance and change of infrastructure of airports, (ii) sustained impact of onsite employment and offsite airport employment, (iii) stimulus of local economy as firms and individuals have the accommodation of an airport in the proximity and (iv) other economic development on a broader scale than regionally, which can lead to economies of scale, scope and density.
Negative environmental impacts of airports are noise, air- and water quality,
31 2003). These environmental issues have a negative effect on health and value of property within the community, according to Lu and Morell (2006), as cited by Kivits et al. (2009). Airport development leads to reactions like Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) effects within surrounding areas, and these effects not only relate to the development of the airport but finally even to more general subjects as climate change, which lead to conflicts (Freestone, 2009). According to Upham (2001), in respect of environmental sustainability it is of importance that material input and waste output to air, water and land are measured (waste output means all unwanted emissions to air, water and land). Increase of input and output, leads to less
environmental sustainability.
Sustainable airport development
Prior to addressing sustainability in connection with airport development, a general definition of sustainable development is set out below.
A definition for sustainable development is provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): “the development that meets the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Brundtland report, 1987).This definition of the WCED is criticized as being self-contradicting, since from a resource perspective, it is clear that the earth contains limited resources. In addition, the needs of present and future are not determined (Norton 2003, cited by Van Oortmerssen, 2008). According to Upham et al. (2003, cited by van Oortmerssen (2008)), especially on detail level meanings differ and consensus is difficult to find. Van Oortmerssen (2008) states that it is difficult to give one definition for the concept of sustainability as there is no consensus in academic research for it.
32 A more commonly used general definition of sustainability is used by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, where sustainability is described as negative and positive effects of a company on society, considered from three perspectives or three pillars: economic, environmental and social pillars (the three pillar model). The three pillar model was formulated by the EU at its Copenhagen Summit and the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997.
Elkington (1994) uses the three pillars as well. He states that, if organizations want to be sustainable for the future, they should meet societal expectations, the
organization should be financially secure and its operation should have little or even better no environmental impact. The approach of Elkington (1994) is called the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL) or people, profit, planet approach. In line with this is Upham’s view (2001). The Triple Bottom Line approach (Elkington, 1994) as set out above, is used in connection with sustainability in the aviation sector as well. For instance, Air Transport Action Group (ATAG, cited by Walker and Cook 2009) uses the “three-legged-stool” or Triple Bottom Line approach for sustainability in the aviation sector. The aforementioned lobby group states, for instance, that aviation contributes to job creation and growth (economic pillar), safety in aviation has social impact (social pillar) and climate change has environmental consequences (environmental pillar). On the basis of the Triple Bottom Line, Sgouridis et al. (2010) refer to a sustainable airport system as a system which has a minimum environmental impact, which contributes to connectivity with world society and which provides sufficient revenues on investment to attract investors and employees. In its annual report 2013 Schiphol states in connection with sustainability, that its strategic objective is to ensure a careful balance in the relationship between economic, social and environmental
33 values: people, planet and profit. People refers to the social value, planet to the environmental value and profit to the economic value..
In connection with airport development, a four pillar model is used as well. Neufville and Odoni (2003, cited by Van Oortmerssen, 2008) not only refer to economic, social and ecological elements, but also to technical elements when referring to an airport system. They state that nowadays, due to economic growth and globalisation, an airport is not only a technical transport facility, but also a system where technical-, economic-, environmental- and social systems interact. The same type of four pillar sustainability model is used by ACI –North America (2005). ACI North America’s model refers to economic, environmental, social and operational elements. When referring to operational elements of airports, among others the airport transport system efficiencies, safety and security are meant and are crucial for the airport business (Stokes, 2011). Walker and Cook (2009) also state that much of the research in connection with sustainable aviation has a positive focus on more efficient operations and technology. Upham and Mills (2005) also include an operational element, when providing operational and environmental indicators for airports. They mention the following 10 core indicators: number of surface access vehicles, aircraft movements, static power consumption, gaseous pollution emissions, aircraft noise emissions, terminal passengers, surface access
passengers, water consumption and waste water emissions, solid waste, land take and biodiversity.
Upham (2003) mentions three conditions for sustainable transport: (i) “rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed their rates of generation”, (ii) “rates of use of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed” and (iii) “rates of pollution emission do not exceed the
34
assimilative capacity of environment”. Greene and Wegener (1997), as cited by Amaeshi and Crane (2006), use the same definition. For instance, by using various sustainable generation methods and solar energy, Schiphol aims to boost the market for biofuel and aims to generate 20% of the required energy in a sustainable manner in 2020 (annual report 2013).
Klostermann and Cramer (2006), cited by Walker and Cook (2009), make a
distinction between a weak and a strong version of sustainability. A weak version of sustainability is one where there is a minimum stock of natural resources that should be preserved. In the strong version of sustainability substitution of resources is possible.
According to Berry et al. (2008, cited by Stokes, 2011) the drivers for sustainability practices on airports are the following: climate change, a stronger expression of stakeholder concerns, government regulations, airport policy and corporate
responsibility. Freestone (2009) states that, in order to have sustainable aviation the following is of importance: improvement of local air quality, energy saving measures reducing carbon footprints, engagement of local communities and other stakeholders and sharing of environmental best practices.
Upham and Mills (2005) noted that it is difficult to relate sustainability to one specific economic sector or one specific company, such as aviation or an airport. They mention three difficulties in particular: unclear constrains of global environmental systems, lack of protocols for emission restriction for sectors, specific companies for example in the aviation industry and different views on which resources should be sustained.
35 Thomas and Lever (2003), cited by Amaeshi and Crane (2005), consider that airport growth e.g. airport development, should improve economic and social well-being of local and national communities and that their views are taken into account. According to Thomas and Lever (2003), cited by Amaeshi and Crane (2005), airport
development is sustainable in the following three events: when different interests of stakeholders are taken into account and lead to joint agreement on sustainable issues, when stakeholders are part of the process on sustainable airport
development and their consensus is obtained and when local communities consider the development process as a transparent, responsive and accountable process.
Sustainability reporting
AAS reports annually on sustainability on the basis of the sustainability reporting guidelines provided by US-based non-profit organisation Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). GRI identified several sustainability indicators for the airport sector, which should be taken into account when reporting on sustainability. These indicators are based on the Triple Bottom Line: environment, economic and social, or the three P’s: profit, people and planet, as introduced by Elkington (1994).The airport industry is an industry where sustainability reporting is fairly new, in comparison to the automotive industry (Costa Jordao, 2009). This automotive industry has industry specific
reporting indicators, such as social sustainability indicators for employees (e.g. working hours) and product sustainability indicators (e.g. carbon emissions). For the airport sector Upham and Mills (2005) provide among others the following examples of airport core indicators: water consumption of the whole site and bio-fuelled electricity consumption.
36 According to Costa Jordao (2009), four European airports (Athens, Frankfurt, Munich and AAS) have made progress in connection with environmental sustainability as this appears from their sustainability reports. Costa Jordao (2009) concludes that only AAS has taken the GRI guidelines into account in its sustainability report.
Furthermore, Costa Jordao (2009) argues that airports should not only evaluate on sustainability indicators as provided by GRI, but should also improve on indicators. Stokes (2011) also takes the view that not only the sustainability indicators are of importance. According to Stokes (2011), who cited Mog 2004, not only indicators of sustainability and whether such indicators are achieved should be taken into account, but also how continuous learning and adaptation can be achieved. This is reflected in the reform model, which involves changes in policy and lifestyle (for instance, of importance in the long term). Costa Jordao (2009) makes a distinction between environmental issues, social issues and economic issues (Elkington, 1994). Within environmental issues, for instance, a decrease in energy consumption and noise emissions should be notifiable. Within social issues there should be improvement in respect of affective safety measures, decrease in complaints by customers and local residents, increase of employment, training of employees and their salaries. Within economic issues, improvement should be made on performance of revenues of passengers, employees, amount of passengers, air traffic movements and dividend to shareholders.Furthermore, he states that not only GRI guidelines should be taken into account when reporting on sustainability, but also other stakeholder specific indicators. Expectations of all stakeholders should be taken into account in the decision making process. By reporting to the stakeholders improving on indicators, airports could enhance a licence to operate and further develop (Costa Jordao, 2009).
37 Sustainable airport development: a contested concept?
There has been a rapid growth in the aviation sector last decades. This growth has led to an economic benefit, since the aviation sector creates jobs (both on the airport itself, in the vicinity of the airport and in the chain of suppliers of the airport), attractive business opportunities and tourist opportunities (Costa Jordao, 2009) or employment and revenues (Upham, 2001). On the other hand, the growth of the aviation sector has negative social and environmental impact (Costa Jordao, 2009 and Walker and Cook, 2009). Upham (2001) mentions the following negative impacts: contribution of hydrocarbons and consumption of land for airport expansion. To address this, sustainable aviation is referred to as “balanced strategy”, creating a balance between economic benefit on the one hand and environmental and social impacts on the other hand (Walker and Cook, 2009). The concept of “balanced” sustainability in aviation is contested by, for instance, environmental organisations (Walker and Cook, 2009). According to Freestone (2009) and Van Oortmerssen (2008), due to the negative environmental consequences of aviation, the concept of sustainability within the aviation sector is contested as well.
Upham and Mills (2005) also take into account the environment as an important element. They cited Tunstall- Pedoe et al. (1996) as they noticed the environmental impact and social responsibility of airports and Janic (1999), who described the following environmental factors of aviation: safety, air pollution and noise.
Van Oortmerssen (2008) researched the performance of AAS in terms of
sustainability and concluded that it is not a sustainable process, since an airport is a consumer process and does not create real wealth, due to the negative
environmental impact. Walker and Cook (2009) and Freestone (2009), as set out above, also refer to the environment as an important element, as they state that the
38 concept of “balanced” sustainability in aviation is contested by environmental
organisations. Expectations Based on the literature review, it is expected that the following subjects could be relevant in respect of community engagement by AAS. Perspectives
• Perception gaps and stakeholder inequality could lead to conflicts (Calvano, 2007).
• Lack of understanding and insufficient participation in decision making could be a reason for conflicts (Burn, 2005).
• Different stakeholder interests should be taken into account in order to come to mutual agreement and, therefore, effective decisions (Morsing and Schultz, 2006 and Amaeshi and Crane, 2005).
• Support from stakeholders can be obtained, if input from different groups of stakeholders in determining airport sustainability goals is given (Stokes, 2011).
Relationship • Balance:
o Transformational strategy where there is a balance and the organization is willing to change as well (Bowen et al., 2010) and similar stakeholder involvement theory (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). o Imbalance could prevent effective participation of
stakeholders (Rawson and Hooper 2012). • Trust and transparency are important for a relationship
(Thomas and Lever, 2003, Amaeshi and Crane, 2005, Ling et al. 2009, Woodward 2009).
Communication • Two-way communication between the organization and its stakeholders (Morsing and Schultz, 2006).
• Possible adverse effects of dialogue, if the dialogue does not take place in a good manner:
o distrust and cynicism (Crane and Livesey, 2003, as cited by Morsing and Schultz, 2006).
o expensive, time-consuming and counterproductive activities (Morsing and Schultz, 2006).
Information • Local communities should receive complete (not fragmented) information (Sheppard, 2011).
Sustainability • Contested concept of sustainability (Van Oortmerssen, 2008)
• Unclear lack of protocols (Upham and Mills, 2005).
• Broader aspects than noise related environmental aspects (Rli, 2013).
39 Relevance of community engagement
Recently, different local communities in the proximity of AAS questioned whether the Alders advice on the new noise standard system is sufficient to reduce disturbance. Local community representatives and councils of these communities asked for clarification and imposed independent researches. This has led to time consuming processes and possibly led to less support/ trust in the new noise standard system by local communities and councils. Mutual support is important for sustainable
development of AAS, because local communities and local councils can delay or even constrain airport development. Therefore, engagement of local communities and councils is (considered) for importance.
For AAS it is important to understand what the interests are of local communities and local councils on sustainable airport development. When communicating and
providing the relevant information to local communities and local councils, mutual agreement could be reached and time consuming processes or possible constrains could be restricted to a minimum. Different interests of local communities and local councils could be divers.
This study researches the implications for AAS on local community engagement, in order to get better insight in the subject under study, since little research on this subject for AAS is available.
Representatives of the CROS local communities and local councils are asked to contribute to this research. Access to information and contacts with local community representatives and local councils of the CROS is available through the researchers’ employer and profession at local community contact centre `BAS` (Bewoners Aanspreekpunt Schiphol).
40 Explanatory and exploratory case study
The type of research used in this study is an exploratory case study and intends to give an in- depth study of AAS with respect to the engagement of local airport communities on sustainable airport development.
According to Yin (2003), the appropriateness of a case study depends on (i) “the type of research questions posed”, (ii) “degree of control the investigator has over the behavioral events” and (iii) “the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events”. The research question is “How, why and with what results are local communities engaged in sustainable airport development?”
Yin (2003) states that for research questions that emphasize “how” and “why”, the advised methodology is an explanatory case study. Explanatory case study is useful to explore and describe an phenomenon. For “what” questions Yin (2003) advises an exploratory case study. An exploratory case study is advised when little research is available on the subject (Mayer and Greenwood, 1980). The research question in this study uses the best of both an exploratory and explanatory case study, as the
research question consists of how, why and what questions.
In this study the research question “How, why and with what results are local communities engaged in sustainable airport development” is very specific related to AAS. On the other hand, theory on sustainable airport development, communication, and engagement of local communities is mainly general. Since there is little theory available, this case study is an explorative one.
There are no statistical data for underlining the outcomes, nor proof of validity. As this study is an explorative one and a case study of AAS, it is possibly not representative
41 for a whole population, but it could give a direction (in) how local communities of AAS should be engaged in sustainable development of the airport.
For AAS, this study could contribute to understand what local communities interests are on sustainable airport development, what kind of information on sustainable airport development should be provided, how should be communicated between the airport and local communities, how local communities should participate and how the relationship with the local communities should be. It should, however, be noted that different views of the local communities on sustainable airport development could lead to different outcomes of interviews. These outcomes could lead to different approaches from AAS towards its local communities. This case study tries to develop grounded theory that is useful for other airports.
Opposed to quantitative research, qualitative research like a case study has certain difficulties with respect to validity and reliability. This does not mean that qualitative research cannot develop certain criteria to assess research. An alternative for validity and reliability is credibility. Leinenger (1994) states that criteria used for validity and reliability (quantitative research) can be applied to qualitative research. Therefore, validity and reliability criteria like stability, consistency and equivalence can be used in qualitative research. Schultz (1962) has developed an approach to assess credibility of qualitative research. Within this approach the research findings, descriptions and explanations should be recognizable and understandable by the people researched. In line with Schultz, Brewer (1994) states that researchers should give confidence to the reader that the findings of the research are adequate and reflect the nature of the social world. This depends on the researchers integrity and good practice. Brewer (1994) lists six recommendations for good practice, as
