Environmental Impacts of Heathrow Airport: Demand Towards a Strategic Sustainable Transport

Introduction

Background

Airport expansion projects pose a challenge on the capacity to realize sustainable environmental protection (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006). Sustainability of environmental protection should be geared towards improving quality of air, waste management, reduction of total suspended particles with regard to PM10 and PM25 that impact negatively on fauna and flora (Campos, 2007). Environmental protection and capacity to implement sustainable strategies for airport community noise forms basis for capability for approval of airport expansion projects by state or federal agencies. The airport expansion strategies should incorporate capacity for reduction of aircraft emissions and decreased noise reduction of aircraft engines. The increased land use restrictions and local zoning regulations have negative impacts on capacity of an airport to expand (Elias, n.d.). Airport expansion construct is a function of resource allocation and capacity for development of sustainable environmental protection. Airport expansion poses challenges in community noise management and management of ground level emissions from both mobile and stationery sources (HACAN NEWS, 1997). The sustainability of airport expansion and environmental management strategies should provide balance between management of environmental problems that emerge post completion of an airport terminal and human health concerns. Airport expansion framework should provide analytical insights as a function of environmental impact assessment detailing principles of environmental management and sustainability (Transport Research Board, 2003). The environment impact assessment should provide descriptive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of outcomes of construction phase of the airport and operational phases of the project.

Thesis statement

The growth of the airline industry has contributed into increased air traffic congestion with airplanes being diverted to airports that are not busy. There has been increased collision of airplanes due to incapacity of airport to accommodate increasing demand for plane take off and landing (CE, 1998). The problem in developed mature economies has stimulated need for expansion of airports through construction of additional terminals. Strategies for airport expansion form a problem that airport expansion has to determine its future direction with regard to environmental impacts of airport activities (CIB, 1998). Expansion of airports is negatively impacted on by community concerns on airport environmental impacts and its sustainability. Airport activities and operations contribute into environmental pollution that include community noise problems and waste management, oil spillage and water management strategies (EIB, 1998). Fuel strategies (Aeronautical Research and Technology for Environmental Compatibility, 2002), emissions control (Benell & Prentice, 1993), contingency plans for fuel and oil spill management and strategies for ongoing monitoring of environmental impacts of airport operations are critical in environmental protection (Environmental Protection Agency, 1993). This study focuses on Heathrow Airport Expansion via construction of fifth terminal and identifies environmental impacts of constructing the fifth terminal, at its construction phase and operational phases and identifies rationale that could be used to manage community noise (Beesley, 1992), managing risks of accidents (ACI, 2003), transport and its role in emission of toxic gases, impact of fifth terminal on plants and animals and sustainability of surface air quality and capacity for emergency preparedness of the Heathrow via contingency management of risks associated with Heathrow fifth terminal (Brenner, 1995).

Goals and objectives of the study

  1. To determine capacity for HAE construction of the fifth terminal to conform to environmental requirements as stated by Clean Air Act or National Environmental Policy Act
  2. To determine capacity for HAE construction of the fifth terminal and its capacity to comply with need for community noise and emissions management
  3. To determine capacity of HAE to meet requirements for sustainable environmental protection with respect to air quality, water quality, waste management and community noise management
  4. To determine if HAE construction of fifth terminal could have meet environmental regulations and rules hence capacity to be construction to completion without construction process being interfered with by environmental issues on land use restrictions or local zoning rules

Hypothesis for testing

Hypothesis 1: incapacity of the HAE to meet minimum requirements for solid waste management, water management or air quality sustainability could have resulted into cancellation of the construction of the fifth terminal

Hypothesis 2: the HAE did not have sustainable measures and mitigation procedures for managing deicing and anti-icing activities that could have affected the quality of environment negatively hence decreased capacity for completion of the fifth terminal construction

Hypothesis 3: The HAE construction of the fifth terminal could negatively have been affected by the land use restrictions and local zoning regulations hence failure to construct the fifth terminal or cancellation of the fifth terminal construction

Hypothesis 4: The HAE construction of the fifth terminal could not have met minimum requirements for community noise management through construction of sound barrier walls, relocation of residents or capacities to implement regulations on aircrafts use of advanced technologies towards reduction of aircraft noise emitted during engine testing, taxing, landing or take off.

Expected outcomes of the study

The study findings will contribute into determination of sustainable air transport demand management strategies with respect to environmental protection and conservation. The study outcomes will provide feasibility analysis that airport expansion projects could utilize in order to develop a sustainable structure for a feasible transport demand strategy that could form basis for managing airport operations and activities and reduce negative impacts of airport activities on environment. The study findings will provide environment for policy development on environmental standards, managing complex issues with respect to conflict of policies and standards on environmental protection and sustainability and provide a way forward for sustainable airport expansion structure and capacity to improve on aircraft engineering towards community noise reduction and emission control. The study will identify structures through which land use restrictions and local zoning regulations impact on airport expansion and capacity for future integration of land use restriction on capacity for airport expansion. The study findings will highlight on need for airport to provide sustainable transport demand management strategies, identify and provide pathway for taping emerging technologies and mechanism they impact on environmental protection. The study will identify mechanism through which waste management, water management, oil spillage management and contingency plans could be integrated towards realization of sustainable environmental protection. The study findings will provide opportunity for future research on quieter aircrafts hence reduces negative impacts of community noise. The study findings will help to identify current status of Heathrow Airport with regard to deicing and anti-icing processes, ground service vehicle, stationery sources of environmental pollution and minimization of distortion of surface quality of water.

Theoretical framework of the study

This study builds on relevance theory with objective interests of determining inter-relationship between airport expansion and environmental impacts of airport activities (Savage et al, 1991; Jensen, 2002). The study integrates inferential process of information and capacity for conceptualization of environmental impacts assessment (figure 1) and sustainability of measures meant to mitigate environmental protection (Brenner, 1995). The study incorporates use of convectional approaches in environmental management and metonymical concepts in environmental sustainability and capacity social theory could be integrated into capacity to decrease environmental pollution (Barton, 2000). Campos interface theory was integrated into the relevance theory in order to establish relationship between capacity for community noise reduction strategies and human health, waste management strategies and feasibility of sustainable surface quality of water management in order to decrease (figure 1) (Jones & Wicks, 1999) and mitigate negative impacts that might arise from poor strategic surface water mitigation measures and their contribution to environmental pollution (Guardian, 2005). The study will incorporate dynamism of different processes and mechanism they influence airport expansion and construction of additional terminals in developed and mature market economies subject to land use restriction policies and local zoning rules and regulations (Walsh et al, 2005).

Factors that impact on capacity for environmental sustainability
Figure 1: Factors that impact on capacity for environmental sustainability

The study use of relevance theory (Hill & Jones, 1999) was meant to establish causal and intentional relationship between airport expansion and capacity for environmental impacts reduction (Humphreys & Francis, 2002). The causal relationship was meant to identify cause and effect analysis on capacity for construction of additional airport terminal to contribute into sustainability of environment pollution. The intentionality relationship was meant to measure outcomes of additional terminal construction on environment hence result into a balanced scenario (Kaplan & Norton, 2001) where environmental impacts of construction of additional terminals could be determined and established. The study further incorporated divergence and convergence theorem on environmental management vis-à-vis increased demand for air travel (Wicks et al, 1994). Interface theorem was incorporated in order to identify role of meta-theoretical concepts and mechanism inference processing could be utilized in order to arrive at sustainable solutions for environmental management and sustainability post expansion of an airport through additional terminals (ACI, 2003).

Organization of the dissertation

The previous sections determined impacts of construction of additional terminals and role of different factors play in environmental protection. The previous section outlined expected outcomes of the study, theoretical foundation of the study, the goals of the study and the thesis statement that the study seeks to research on. The immediate section provides analysis of literature review on environmental impacts of additional terminal construction and mechanism additional terminals contribute into capacity to achieve environmental protection. Chapter three addresses method of study that was used to collect data on the environmental impacts of Heathrow Airport expansion project. Chapter four reports on the results and findings that were obtained post data collection while chapter five reports on whether the study achieved its goals and objectives.

Literature review

Introduction

This section reports on literature review on environmental impacts of airports with regard to community noise, emissions from stationary and mobile sources, waste management, water management, solid waste management and particulate matter management.

Construction of airports or expansion of airports creates an increasing demand on land and is associated with increasing negative impacts on environment (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006). Construction of new terminals and runaways requires environmental impact assessment (EIA) to identify mechanism through which additional facilities would contribute into sustainability of environment and biodiversity. Airport expansion demands inter-agency liaison like health (Campos, 2007), architects, risk analysis of airport to environment (RCEP, 1994) and determination of quality of life upon completion of the airport expansion. This implies, airport expansion impacts negatively on quality of life of targeted areas for airport expansion. Environmental impacts of airport expansion have been identified to contribute into delay of airport expansion project construction (PEASE, 1999) or cancellation if the economic disadvantages of airport expansion far outweigh economic advantages with regard to environmental impacts.

Based on environmental policies and protocols on global warming expansion of airports should be subject to capacity to contribute into minimal environmental impacts (Wicks et al, 2005). Airport operations should not distort biodiversity and balance of nature. Environmental impact assessment should identify airport expansion policies and standards for environmental stewardship objective interests in order to qualify for construction (Walsh et al, 1994). The environmental stewardship objective interests should be structured towards addressing airport environmental impacts with regard to airport noise and its corresponding impacts on the quality of life of the community.

Noise management strategies for airport expansion projects

Airport expansion programs require detailed assessment of criteria for managing noise arising from airport operations for instance when plane is taking off or landing or taxing (National Resources Defense Council, 1996). Environmental impacts on an airport increase as the airport undergoes reconstruction or expansion to accommodate increasing demand for air travel. The capacity of airport authority to proceed with its proposal for expansion projects must have support from federal or state agencies through demonstration of capabilities for minimizing environmental impacts of its airport operations (National Academy of sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for environmental Compatibility, 2002). The airport authority has to demonstrate efficiencies of programs for environmental risks mitigation measures and processes in place to respond to environmental risks (ACI, 2003). Liaison of airport authority with state or federal agencies ensures the airport authority contingency plans for environmental sustainability conform to state or federal regulations and environmental controls (PARTNER, n.d.). Environmental controls and regulations on airport expansion revolve on strategic management of noise, water and quality of the air. The airport authority has to demonstrate commitment to addressing concerns on water, quality of air and noise and satisfy environmental compliance requirements (Barton, 2000).

The growth of the air industry through increased demand for air travel has increased demand for expansion of busy airports (EIB, 1998). This has resulted into increased requirement for environmental compliance of airport expansion projects and increased capacity for compliance with environmental regulatory structures. The principle of “polluter pays” has decreased capacity for airport authorities to invest in airport expansion projects (Environment Protection Agency, 1993). Risk management framework for airport environmental regulatory framework have contributed into decreased capacity to conform to procedural changes with regard to environmental regulations and capacity to meet costs of expected infrastructure to meet standards of environmental regulation structures on airport expansion (Campos, 2007). Environmental watch bodies, global warming standards and environmental lobby groups continue to raise community concerns on airport noise and its corresponding impacts on human health. This has made environmental bodies like Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review structures for airport deicing operations (Airports Policy Consortium, 1997). EPA concerns on environmental sustainability are based on management of oil spillage and oil spillage prevention strategies and capacity to monitor air quality in order to minimize opportunities for air pollution especially from airport gas emissions that contribute into global warming and increase of green house gases (Airports Policy Consortium, 1999).

Construction projects of airports require determination of measures for managing airport noise (Benell & Prentice, 1993). Management of airport noise requires construction of residential facilities that have sound proof material. This means the construction project costs should incorporate noise barriers and monitors to ensure the residents are not exposed to high noise that is beyond the recommended decibel. The construction of airport or expansion requirements determination of costs of relocating persons that is on the flight path to the airport runaway (Brockhagen & Lienemeyer, 1998). Businesses that are located on or along the flight path to runaway should also be relocated for safety purposes.

Negative effects of aviation noise

The aviation noise has been identified to contribute into loss of value of property that is within the flight path to runaway. Aircraft noise negatively affects the quality of life of people living around busy airports. Studies have determined that direct impacts of aircraft noise are not easy to measure except through application of longitudinal studies. The World Health Organization (Campos, 2007) identified airports are associated with increasing community noise. Community noise impairs hearing hence negatively affecting physiological functioning of affected individuals. Landing and take-off of aircrafts produces a noise drag that interferes with communication and speech perception. This has capacity to distort learning in schools and interrupts meeting or conference proceedings (Thomson, 2005). As a result, airports construction is associated with increased costs of building through installation of sound proof materials. In many instances, the sound proof material cannot guarantee sound insulation from airplanes. This means the problem of community sound cannot sufficiently addressed by use of sound proof insulation (CE, 1998). Residences within the flight path suffer from sleep disturbances that result from secondary negative impacts of sound like increased heart rate, increased incidents of finger pulse rate and distortion of respiration (CIB, 1998). Thus, airplane noise contributes into negative outcomes in terms of human or environmental psycho-physiological reactions which induce stress and in the long term predispose ulcers. Airplane noise has been associated with increased incidents of cardiovascular diseases and secondary diseases caused by psycho-endocrine side effects (Barton, 2000; Brenner, 1995). Community noise has been associated with decrease in employee task performance. This has contributed into productivity and production efficiencies of organizations. Community noise arising from aircrafts contributes into hyperactivity disorder, stress disorders, deficits in children comprehension and capacity of children to participate actively hence negative impacts on children social behavior (Jensen, 2002).

Longitudinal studies have established community noise is associated with increased incidents of cardiac diseases and increased medical care (Beesley, 1992). Community noise, based on EPA data ranges between 67-75 Decibels while quiet environments have been determined to be within 46-55 decibel domain (table 1). Airport noise negatively affects children cognitive development hence capacity of children to achieve commendable motor development and processing (Savage et al, 1991; Walsh et al, 2005). Children that are exposed to noise develop long term memory recall which impacts negatively on children intellectual capacity.

Table 1: The World Health Organization recommended noise thresholds

Context Value Parameter
Bedroom 30 dB(A) L eq.
Balconies, terraces, gardens 55 dB(A) L eq.
Outdoor at night time 45 dB(A) L eq.
Schools and classrooms 35 dB(A) L eq.
Outdoor playgrounds 55 dB(A) L eq.
Inside hospitals 35 dB(A) L eq.
Single noise event in dwelling 45 dB(A) L max.

Airport noise management requires improvement of aircraft technology into use of aircrafts that produce lesser noise.

Strategies for managing airport noise

The strategies for managing sustainability of airport noise revolve on capacity to mitigate airport noise that is caused by aircraft take-off, landing, taxing or aircraft engine tests (Henegar, 1994). Community noise mitigation strategies should be based on capacity to accommodate and accept airport noise through use of sound proof materials near residential areas, hospital facilities and schools (HACAN News, 1997). Mitigation measures for community noise should be addressed via noise buffers within a specified diameter from the airport.

Challenges that influence on implementation of strategic solutions for airport noise

Managing community is distracted by inadequate funds. Many financial plans for managing community noise are short term hence don’t achieve or contribute into sustainability of community noise management (European Environment Agency, 1995). Approaches used in managing community noise are based on sound proofing approach which doesn’t provide outdoor noise management. There has been little investment towards managing community noise reduction technologies.

Problem of land use restrictions

The airport construction predisposes problems associated with land use (European Commission, 1996; 1997). Construction of airports is affected by restriction of land. Land cannot be expanded and can only be used in situ. Expansion of airports and need to meet increasing demand for air travel and management of air traffic is threatened by land restriction policies (Hepworth & Ducatel, 1992). This contributes into increase of air traffic and increased community noise. It results into congestion of noise within a specified area. Land use restrictions are meant to reduce impacts of community noise and localize community noise. Land use restriction influences capacity an airport could expand. The airport authority lacks sufficient powers to restructure land use restrictions or provide new land use planning (Elias, n.d.). The federal agency, though it has capacity to influence on the land planning commissions to satisfy airport expansion requests, cannot implement or satisfy construction or expansion of an airport if the expansion project is not within environmental standards for conservation. Airport expansion plans are influenced by a variety of environmental standards for instance impacts of community noise and health of the residents (Transport Research Board, 2003).

Quality of air and airport expansion projects

Aircraft emit high quantities of products of aerobic combustion that negatively impact on air quality (Minnesota Pollution control Agency, n.d.). The source of poor quality of air in airport emerges from stationery sources as well as mobile sources of air pollutants. Airport expansion contributes into increased traffic from cars, taxis, rental agency cars and shuttles that serve form part of airport transport system. Ground transport and other airport ground service equipment for example belt loading, generators when mains power supply runs offs, lawn movers that maintain airport grounds, snow plows that reduces risks of reduced friction during snow fall and air conditioning units that thermostatically maintain ambient atmosphere release green house gases that contribute into global warming and distort quality of air at the airports (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006).

Examples of stationery sources of air pollution include boilers, space heaters, emergency generators, incinerators that burn waste materials in the airport, fire training facilities and aircraft testing equipments all impact negatively on the air quality. Solvent degreasers have also been identified as stationery sources of air pollutants (Transport Research Board, 2003). Case controlled studies have determined airport operations could result into emission of pollutants for instance Volatile organic compounds for instance carbon monoxide, particulate matter, lead vapor Sulphur oxides for instance Sulphur trioxide and Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides for instance nitrogen I oxide, Nitrogen II oxide and Nitrogen IV oxides which are termed as criteria air pollutants (Hepworth & Ducatel, 1992).

Airport operations affect environment through aircraft capability to produce Hazardous Air pollutants (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1996). The strategies for airport expansions should contribute into determination of rationale for managing criteria pollutants subject to conformity to Clean Air Act based on recommendations of Environmental Protection Agency on aircraft emission standards. The airport expansion projects should demonstrate capacity for managing health and environmental impacts of nitrogen oxides and Sulphur oxides and their corresponding acids post solution in water vapour (Oxford Economic Forecasting, 1999). The expansion criteria should be based one estimated ozone, lead and particulate matter that can result following increase in aircraft traffic. The airport expansion project should demonstrate capacity for managing different allowed limit of criteria pollutants. Longitudinal studies have identified many airport expansion projects fail to meet minimum standards for environmental control subject to strategic management of airport emissions. Sustainability of airport operations should be structured towards creating alternative mechanisms for achieving fuel gas and volatile organic compounds (Parsons, 1984). The airport could make us of electrified ground service vehicles and redesigning of boilers and stationery green house gas emitting systems into electricity powered systems.

Toxic gas management strategies

The residents living within airports are exposed to toxic gases that are emitted by aircrafts (Pease, 1999). The toxic gases contribute into respiratory diseases that decrease life expectancy of the residents and impact negatively on work life balance of residents through increased medical costs. Information on health impacts on residents contributes into determination of mechanism hazardous air pollutants impact on health of residents living within airports hence important when carrying out environmental assessment on impacts of airport expansion (RCEP, 1994). Example of toxic air pollutants within airports include combustion products like 1,3 buta-di-ene (Henegar, 1994), acetaldehyde, benzene derivatives like xylene, toluene (European Environment Agency, 1995). Other organic gases like naphthalene (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1996), acrolein and propionaldehyde and formaldehyde (Graham, 2003). Different airports have different requirements for environmental control based on population density and economic growth level. Emerging developing economies airport expansion are not influenced by high requirement to demonstrate environmental mitigation measures compared to mature developed economies subject to variations in zoning approaches to airport expansion and policies on land use restrictions (HACAN News, 1997). In many instances there is inadequate data on criteria air pollutants, level of toxic air emission levels, status of transformation based on prevailing weather conditions and rate of transfer of hazardous air pollutants and corresponding impacts on health. Aircrafts have been documented to emit fine particles that are categorized as PM10 or PM25 depending on their length of their diameter (CIB, 1998). PM10 contribute into decrease of air quality through pollution. Quality of air is not affected by pollutants. It could arise from particulate matter from traffic. Managing particulate matter pollutions requires concerted efforts of different players in the industry whose operations contribute into emission of particulate matter. There should be ongoing assessment of levels of particulate matter and enforcing capability of aircrafts emission reductions of particulate matter and implementing strategies that could result into decrease of emission of particulate matter from ground service vehicles.

Relationship between surface transport and airport expansion

Ground surface vehicles in mature economies contribute into environmental pollution in terms of particulate matter compared to developing economies subject to density of vehicles (ACI, 2003). Case control studies have identified, although mature developed economies have higher density of surface transport, the level of emission of toxic gases is lower compared to developing economies due to standards of vehicle emission and strategies for environmental control from ground service vehicles (Humphreys & Francis, 2002). Aviation capacity to reduce particulate matter emission lies in strategic management of public transport through use of fuels that have lesser environmental degradation through increased capacity to maintain sustainability of air quality. There should be increased capacity for public vehicle access to airport in order to decrease traffic. Railway transport links to airports should be intensified including use of electricity powered trains.

Sustainability of waste management and airport expansion projects

Airport operations are characterized by activities that result into disposal of wastes that could lead into environmental degradation. Some of airport operations that contribute into environmental degradation include airfield deicing and airfield anti-icing (Transport Research Board, 2003). The Clean Air Act has specified guidelines for airfield deicing and anti-icing as well as provided for by the Clean Water Act on environmental sustainability. The storm water disposal contributes into challenges that airport expansion projects have to account for in order to design sustainable airport expansion strategies for environmental protection (Brockhagen & Lienemeyer, 1998). The challenge of waste management occurs due to total area that airport covers. Airports have many water storm outfalls which decrease capacity for waste management due to inability to manage or control outfall. The main method for managing stormwater disposal is based on capacity to implement best management strategies (PARTNER, n.d.). This helps to decrease quantities of discharge into water bodies. Different airports have different strategies for Best management practices for stormwater. Different factors have been identified to affect best management practices like the climate of the airport subject to alternate of hot and dry seasons versus hot and wet seasons. The size of close water bodies to the airport and its nature which impact on level of dilution of pollutants to reduce incidents of affecting the quality of aquatic life in the water body (Emmons, 2000). For instance a river disposal requires higher levels of dilution compared to sea disposal of pollutants. Permits for waste disposal into water bodies depend on other secondary sources of pollution.

Influence of air travel growth on environmental regulatory capacity

The growth of air travel and increasing demand for environmental sustainability has resulted into rise in complexity of environmental regulation structures (Emmons, 2000). This implies as an airport expansion and economic growth occurs, the need for compliance with policies on global warming (Savage et al, 1991), environmental protection and increasing restriction on land use increase which limit capacity for an airport to implement its proposed airport expansion projects (Thomson, 2005). Thus, emerging demands for airport expansion subject to requirement to comply with procedural processes and capacity to meet required capital investment pose a challenge to the airport projects. The standards set by Environmental protection agency for instance with regard to airport deicing and management strategies for oil spillage and waste management including stormwater management threaten to limit capacity for an airport to achieve its expansion planning (Walsh et al, 2005). Expansion projects for airport increase tonnage of waste that is handled by the airport annually which increases costs of operations and demand for ongoing monitoring of waste impacts on the environment. The strategic framework for waste management should contribute into capacity to realize cost effectiveness in waste management that is in line with international and local environmental sustainability objective interests (Emmons, 2000). The airport has to demonstrate capacity for recycling and reusing the waste which could reduce into capacity to decrease amount of waste that is finally disposed. Thus, the airport has to demonstrate capacity for increasing recycling and increased efficiencies in waste production. The airport management should develop measures for decreasing quantity of waste produced by its clients and contractors and develop a partnership formula that could result into decreased waste production (Barton, 2000).

Safety of passengers and capacity for airport expansion

Deicing and anti-icing pose a great challenge for airport passenger safety. Deicing and anti-icing should not compromise of passenger safety. As a result, the land and water quality are important aspects in airport expansion projects (Airports Policy Consortium, 1997; 1999). Uncontrolled airport deicing operations impact negatively on environmental conservation. Deicing contributes into death of aquatic life, contaminates surface waters and ground waters as well. Deicing chemicals for instance propylene glycol or ethylene glycol reduced amount of dissolved oxygen in water bodies hence predisposing death and algal bloom in water bodies (Benell & Prentice, 1993). Case controlled studies have determined deicing agents don’t affect aquatic life which implies negative impacts on aquatic life are subject to capacity to affect water surface tension by decreasing water cohesive and adhesive forces. The airport deicing permits should clearly demonstrate position of airport to manage deicing agents.

Fuel storage facilities and airport expansion projects

Airport expansion projects have to demonstrate mechanism through which increased fuel storage needs would contribute into oil spill prevention, oil spill control measures and Countermeasures for spill prevention and control (Oxford Economic Forecasting, 1999). The airport expansion project should demonstrate measures for preventing environmental damage arising from oil spillage. The action plan for oil spillage control, mitigation and prevention should document procedures for preventing, controlling and mitigating risks of oil spillage, fuel tank inspection for leaks and assessment for pipe leaks and procedures for oil spillage management in water bodies (Transport Research Board, 2003). The surface runoff water should be cleaned to ensure it complies with environmental standards on oil spillage and water disposal. The fuel storage facilities and operations should conform to water and land quality subject to regulatory policies on water and land quality. There should be capacity for proactive and holistic approach adoption to contribute into water quality management and compliance with regulations on oil spillage, spillage prevention, mitigation and control (CIB, 1998).

Water management during airport expansion and operations

Water management strategies and availability impact on capacity to achieve sustainable airport operations (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006). Water is therefore a valuable resource in airport operations and contributes into environmental pollution if measures for waste water management are not feasible and sustainable. Airport expansion utilizes a lot of water hence availability should be determined and accounted for in environmental management strategies (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for Environmental Compatibility, 2002). Availability of water impacts on capital development. There should be determination of source of water and its future sustainability. This should be realized through ongoing monitoring of water quantity hence determination of rate of consumption which would make it possible to determine quantity that needs to be supplied from the source to the airport. The water pipes should be monitored on ongoing basis to identify leaks that could decrease the volume of water supplied (Graham, 2003). The water consumption strategies should be a function of water conservation strategies on airport operations. There should be proper documented procedures for disposal of waste water.

Sustainability of biodiversity in airport expansion projects

Community noise that distorts community around busy airports affects normal life of wildlife, plants and animals within and around the airport. This implies, airport expansion projects distort ecosystem and negatively affect contribute into loss of habit for plants and animals (RCEP, 1994). The strategies for airport expansion should involve close partnership with environmentalists towards developing a framework for ensuring biodiversity is not affected by airport expansion objective interests. There should equitable utility of land which should be dependent on land restriction policies. Green spaces should not be affected by airport expansion projects (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1996). In the presence of green spaces, the airport expansion projects should be halted. The airport expansion project should seek to identify mitigation solutions if no viable solution is available for realizing long term sustainability of biodiversity and balance of ecosystem (Pease, 1999). The biodiversity management strategies should contribute into increased aircraft safety. The airport expansion project should have an outlined biodiversity action plan that should demonstrate airport position on biodiversity management strategies (Parsons, 1984).

Capacity for realization of sustainable airport expansion

The capacity to realize sustainable airport expansion rests in strategic energy and resource allocation and rate of production of wastes in the airport arising from airport waste management operations (Oxford Economic Forecasting, 1999). The environmental impacts from airport expansion processes should be a function of sustainability of environmental protection and increased surveillance on waste management processes to ensure efficiencies in waste management don’t contribute into environmental degradation (National Resources Defense Council, 1996). The building should be constructed such that they could achieve higher energy conservation efficiencies. This should be a function of materials that have lower heat radiation or have higher sound absorbent properties (Hepworth & Ducatel, 1992). There should be capacity to achieve and realize sustainable water management and liaison partnership amongst different players in the industry.

Impacts on contrails on environmental pollution

High altitude flights results into emission of products of fuel combustion into atmosphere that is -40oC (European Commission, 1997). There occurs freeze of water vapor. The frozen water molecules results into formation of minute ice particles based on particulate experimental research. The minute ice particles form white trail behind the path of aircraft that are termed as contrails (European Commission, 1995). The impacts of contrails depend on current environmental conditions. Longitudinal studies have determined contrails form 5% atmospheric cover in frequently flown flight paths and contribute into increased green house effect hence capacity to enhance global warming. The heat is released as latent heat of vaporization as the ice solid to liquid phases transformation occur (Elias, n.d.).

Relationship between economic growth and airport expansion

Case controlled studies have identified a negative statistical correlation between rise in air traffic and economic growth (Jones & Wicks, 1999). Increased air traffic results into increased concerns on environmental protection. This implies, positive economic development doesn’t translate into positive correlation between improved transport facilities and corresponding capacity to manage environmental pollution (Guardian, 2005). This brings about conclusion that positive economic growth doesn’t translate into sustainability of environmental protection. The rise in travel could be subject to other secondary factors for instance, presence of disposable income or rise in living standards as a function of positive change in economic status (Walsh et al, 2005). Although case controlled studies have determined increase in transport infrastructure results into increased positive economic growth, expansion of airports doesn’t go in line with the argument. In mature open market economies (Graham, 2003), development of infrastructure doesn’t contribute into capacity to manage environmental sustainability hence any measures to mitigate environmental protection subject to expansion of airport infrastructure results into insignificant capacity to manage environmental pollution (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006).

This study adopted a probability sampling methodology. Probability sampling was delivered through use of exploratory approach. Quantitative research was carried in order to make it possible to duplicate result outcomes in other mature economies with regard to capacity for environmental protection and environmental pollution management as a function of airport expansion projects.

Methodology of the study

Introduction

This section reports on the method of study that was used to collect data on environmental impacts of Heathrow Airport. The study provides analysis on method of data collection that was used, method of recruiting study respondents, method of data analysis and ethical issues that the study had to satisfy.

The Study Design

The study was designed to utilize exploratory research approach (Bryman, 2008). The exploratory research was delivered via probability sampling. Probability sampling as a function of quantitative research ensured the study findings could be duplicated on other international airports that were considered to expand through construction of additional terminals (Saunders et al, 2003).

The exploratory research approach

The study used exploratory research in order to make the study on environmental impacts of Heathrow Airport independent from other past studies on environmental impacts on expansion or construction of additional terminals in airports (Saunders et al, 2007). Exploratory study approach was adopted because of absence of a previous model that could be used to form basis for the study construct. Exploratory study is employed when there are no other options for conducting studies on airport expansion and its corresponding environmental impacts (Gibbons et al, 2007). Exploratory research approach could be used when there is limitation of application of theories or models that could support study construct and study design (figure 2). As a result, use of the exploratory approach to carry out studies on environmental impacts of Heathrow Airport expansion was not based on any existing theory or model. This made the study to be categorical.

 direction of an exploratory study
Figure 2: direction of an exploratory study

Use of exploratory research was structured to ensure the study outcomes resulted into documentation of mechanism through which airport expansion impacts on environment and policy development that could contribute into sustainability of environmental protection and management (Saunders et al, 2007).

The design of the study

The design of the study is represented by figure 3.

 outline of the study design
Figure 3: outline of the study design

The study design was structured to begin with determination of annotated bibliography on past studies that investigated environmental impacts on airport expansion in order to identify different methodologies of study that were employed (Bryman, 2008). This established different research designs that were employed, different methods of data collection, study outcomes and research gaps that were identified. The research gaps in previous studies formed foundation of the current exploratory study (Saunders et al, 2003). This was followed by development of theoretical framework and determination of testable hypothesis for the current study which helped to form basis for the current study methodology, study approach and method for the data analysis to be employed.

The variables of the study

The study relied on both dependent and independent variables. The independent variables included community noise, waste management, quality of air and land use restrictions. The dependent variables included environmental regulatory capacity, role of transport in environmental protection, fuel storage and management, oil spillage, noise buffers, noise barriers, particulate matter, stationery and mobile sources of air pollution, energy and resource allocation and water management.

Study approach

The study employed different approaches in order to form a baseline for the environmental impacts of Heathrow Airport Expansion via construction of the fifth terminal (Gibbons et al, 2007). The study relied on environment based approaches and resource based approaches in order to identify mechanism each relates to sustainability of environmental protection. Environmental based approaches were used in order to identify and establish impacts environment based approaches impact on environmental sustainability. Resource based approach was adopted in order to provide analytical and descriptive perspectives on financially related factors that impact on environmental protection (Federal Aviation Administration, 2006). Value based approach was integrated into resource based approach and environment based approach in order to investigate different environment impact profiles on sustainability of Heathrow Airport management strategies for environmental protection (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, n.d.). The value based approach gave way into outcome based approach which provided insights into different outcomes emerging from utility of environment based approach and resource based approach. Attribute approach as a function of analysis of different attributes that influence on environmental impacts was used to provide insights into interplay between different factors that impact on environmental protection and sustainability and facilitate in paving the way forward for environmental protection of Heathrow Airport (Transport Research Board, 2003).

Research instruments

The study used closed questionnaires that were grouped into two categories based on the type of study respondents (Oppenheim, 2005). The closed questionnaires were delivered to the clients on the day of interview after the study respondents provided informed consent for participation in the study. Questionnaires were utilized because they are easy to analyze and the data collected has compatibility with any statistical software. Questionnaires were used due to their cost-effectiveness (Saunders et al, 2007). The closed questionnaires were structured to provide causal relationship between different factors and mechanism each independent factor influences on environmental protection and sustainability.

The questionnaires

The questionnaire was made up of two sections. Section A questionnaires was structured to collect client and customer perception of environmental sustainability post completion of the fifth terminal (Oppenheim, 2005). Section B questionnaires were structured to collect opinion of environmental officials and different agency perception of the construction of the additional fifth terminal on Heathrow Airport. Both questionnaire categories sought to identify possibilities of environmental protection of the Heathrow Airport activities and capacity for environmental protection sustainability (Gibbons et al, 2007). Resource and environment based perspectives were integrated into both categories of questionnaires. The respondents ticked the Likert scale value ranging from one to five and one to seven based on the category of the questionnaire.

Follow up interviews

Follow up interviews were conducted to follow up on respondent’s responses that had been provided during the survey (Oppenheim, 2005). Follow up surveys were conducted at respondents workplaces and were limited to thirty minutes. Forty six of the follow up interviews were conducted by using telephone following indication of respondents that they had limited time. Follow up was conducted to seek clarification of responses.

Study setting

The study was conducted in UK amongst different study respondents that had provided informed consent for participation in the study.

Method of recruiting the study respondents

The study respondents were recruited through random sampling. Random sampling ensured study respondents covered a greater population. Random sampling made it possible to use probability sampling technique in data collection and analysis (Gibbons et al, 2007)

The Study sample

The study relied on 280 respondents. 120 of the study respondents were clients and customers who included lecturers, students and customers. 160 of the study respondents were officials on environmental programs and sustainability of environmental protection and included members of environmental lobby groups. The non response rate on both study categories was found to be zero percent. The response rate was very high at 100%. This increased capacity for increased reliability and validity of study outcomes (Oppenheim, 2005).

Reliability and validity measures

Reliability of questionnaires

Reliability of questionnaires was determined to measure consistency of elements of statistical measures for the study subject to variation of data (Saunders et al, 2007). Reliability consistency was determined via test-re-test reliability subject to repetition of the questionnaire under the same conditions and scale reliability

Validity of the questionnaires

The questionnaire validity was measured via face validity subject to measures of study construct, and content criterion (Oppenheim, 2005). Predictive validity was determined by ensuring nominal scale predicted specific study criterion and ensuring study outcomes were consistent with results of established measures of the study.

Model for questionnaire validation

The questionnaire satisfied study variables hence possibilities to infer various study variables (Oppenheim, 2005). This was done to ensure the obtained results were consistent with study the model. Validity of the study model or approach was measured by utilizing component analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis hence possibility that questionnaires were able to measure study’s expected outcomes (Saunders et al, 2007).

The study measurement scale

The study utilized a five point Likert scale for study closed questionnaire A and a seven point Likert scale for category B of the closed questionnaires. Nominal scale was utilized subject to potential to use categorical variables that were characteristic of the categorical data (Oppenheim, 2005). The nominal scale was used so as to utilize mode as measure of central tendency thus provide pathway for determining moments of the data with respect to kurtosis and skewness.

Method of sampling

Use of random sampling as a function of probability sampling was structured to realize non-homogeneous data. Any possibility of threat of homogeneous data was decreased through segmentation of study respondents (Bryman, 2008).

Data presentation

The data was presented by using tables. Tables were used due to their ability to be used to rank order data elements (Bryman, 2008). Tabulation of data was adopted in order to show number of observations that were made in every categorical data hence validating use of nominal scale. Tabulation has capacity to provide visual central tendency and degree of data dispersion (Saunders et al, 2003).

Data analysis

Data analysis was carried out by manually calculating mean, mode, variance, moment of skewness and moment of correlation (Bryman, 2008).

Data validity and reliability

Data analysis was a product of validity and reliability. Data credibility is important aspect in arriving at accurate results that can lead into informed conclusion. Accuracy of results affects the value of the study with regard to significance of carrying out the studies (Gibbons et al, 2007). The study achieved the element of validity and reliability. Validity of the data ensured the results reflected the goals of carrying out the studies and thus contributing to accepting and rejecting of hypothesis (Saunders et al, 2007). The questionnaires were structured such that data validity and reliability was not affected by biasness of responses. This respondent’s bias was eliminated through random sampling.

Limitations of the study

The study utilized random sampling to get study respondents which had high probability of resulting into non-homogeneity of the study outcomes. This was managed by conducting follow up surveys (Oppenheim, 2005).

The study ethical perspectives

Informed consent as a legal doctrine in research that involves human subjects was satisfied through complying with ethical principles subject to malfeasance thus protecting subjects from social, emotional or psychological harm, and satisfaction of principle of autonomy hence freedom of voluntary participation (Beauchamp et al, 1982). The respondents were informed on their right to leave the study at any point of its phase or withdraw consent at anytime without reprisal (Marcoux, 2009).

Results and discussion of the findings

Results of the data collection

Appendix A: questionnaires for the airport clients

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion (HAE) environmental strategies could contribute into sustainable management of Total Suspended Particles?

  • Mean =2.425
  • Variance = 2.4265
  • Standard deviation = 1.5577
  • Mode = 1.3604
  • Skewness = +0.5662

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is a function of sustainable management of ambient quality of the air?

  • Mean =2.6
  • Variance = 2.0153
  • Standard deviation = 1.4196
  • Mode = 1.3717
  • Skewness = +0.8652

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sustainable waste management strategies that could contribute into sustainability of environmental protection and conservation?

  • Mean =2.475
  • Variance = 1.7160
  • Standard deviation = 1.3099
  • Mode = 1.3780
  • Skewness = +0.8374

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could endanger fauna and flora within the vicinity of the Heathrow airport?

  • Mean =2.492
  • Variance = 1.5666
  • Standard deviation = 1.2516
  • Mode = 1.3947
  • Skewness = +0.8767

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to meet the cost of relocating affected residents?

  • Mean =2.3833
  • Variance = 1.5143
  • Standard deviation = 1.2305
  • Mode = 1.3666
  • Skewness = +0.8261

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal would contribute into construction of buildings that have sound proof insulation that could reduce airport noise negative impacts on health?

  • Mean =2.6917
  • Variance = 1.9632
  • Standard deviation = 1.4011
  • Mode = 1.3888
  • Skewness = +0.9299

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal would result into enforcement of aircrafts that could emit less toxic gases into the environment?

  • Mean =2.525
  • Variance = 1.6326
  • Standard deviation = 1.2777
  • Mode = 1.3717
  • Skewness = +0.9026

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to achieve sustainable deicing and anti-icing control and prevention?

  • Mean =2.575
  • Variance = 1.6776
  • Standard deviation = 1.2952
  • Mode = 1.4411
  • Skewness = +0.8754

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could contribute into complexity of environmental regulatory issues?

  • Mean =2.3833
  • Variance = 1.3858
  • Standard deviation = 1.1772
  • Mode = 1.3780
  • Skewness = +0.8539

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could be affected by state, federal or local environmental incapacity to provide for environmental protection hence cancellation of the project?

  • Mean =2.1417
  • Variance = 1.0544
  • Standard deviation = 1.0268
  • Mode = 1.3723
  • Skewness = +0.7493

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could result into increased demand to address concerns on community noise?

  • Mean =2.4833
  • Variance = 1.6330
  • Standard deviation = 1.2779
  • Mode = 1.3974
  • Skewness = +0.8497

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is supported by adequate oil spillage operation and planning prevention or mitigation measures?

  • Mean =2.5083
  • Variance = 1.5999
  • Standard deviation = 1.2649
  • Mode = 1.3717
  • Skewness = +0.8985

Do you think noise mitigation approaches could pave way for Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal through capacity to address sound proof materials?

  • Mean =2.6417
  • Variance = 1.7632
  • Standard deviation = 1.3278
  • Mode = 1.4393
  • Skewness = +0.9055

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal conforms to minimum sound thresholds for different community standards hence capacity for long term noise management strategies through noise reduction approaches?

  • Mean =2.825
  • Variance = 1.9610
  • Standard deviation = 1.4003
  • Mode = 1.4333
  • Skewness = +0.9938

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could be affected negatively by land use restrictions and local zoning regulations?

  • Mean =2.7583
  • Variance = 1.9396
  • Standard deviation = 1.3927
  • Mode = 1.4354
  • Skewness = +0.9498

Do you think use of advanced technologies in aircraft design and improved engineering on aircraft noise reduction could improve possibility of Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal?

  • Mean =2.725
  • Variance = 1.9696
  • Standard deviation = 1.4034
  • Mode = 1.3421
  • Skewness = +0.9853

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal long term impacts on environment protection are greater than construction impacts on environment sustainability?

  • Mean = 2.775
  • Variance = 1.9576
  • Standard deviation = 1.3991
  • Mode = 1.4666
  • Skewness = +0.9351

Do you think that Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to implement environment protection strategies that could reduce dusts, aircraft emission, heavy equipment emission, storm water run off and noise?

  • Mean =2.6667
  • Variance = 1.8574
  • Standard deviation = 1.3628
  • Mode = 1.4117
  • Skewness = +0.9208

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal construction impacts could not be avoided or mitigated below applicable significant thresholds for allocated resources?

  • Mean = 2.7667
  • Variance = 1.9455
  • Standard deviation = 1.3948
  • Mode = 1.4666
  • Skewness = +0.9321

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is product of best management practices for environmental control, protection, mitigation and management?

  • Mean =2.6833
  • Variance = 1.8163
  • Standard deviation = 1.3477
  • Mode = 1.3857
  • Skewness = +0.9628

Moment of correlation

  • Correlation (Q2:Q1) = 0.9858
  • Correlation (Q2:Q2) = 1.0000
  • Correlation (Q2:Q3) = 0.9888
  • Correlation (Q2:Q4) = 0.9273
  • Correlation (Q2:Q5) = 0.9832
  • Correlation (Q2:Q6) = 0.9917
  • Correlation (Q2:Q7) = 0.9299
  • Correlation (Q2:Q8) = 0.9383
  • Correlation (Q2:Q9) = 0.9137
  • Correlation (Q2:Q10) = 0.9464
  • Correlation (Q2:Q11) = 0.9635
  • Correlation (Q2:Q12) = 0.9271
  • Correlation (Q2:Q13) = 0.9424
  • Correlation (Q2:Q14) = 0.9680
  • Correlation (Q2:Q15) = 0.9481
  • Correlation (Q2:Q16) = 0.9838
  • Correlation (Q2:Q17) = 0.9865
  • Correlation (Q2:Q18) = 0.9516
  • Correlation (Q2:Q19) = 0.9787
  • Correlation (Q2:Q20) = 0.9296

Appendix B: questionnaire for the environmental protection agency officials, federal officials, state officials and environment conservation lobby group officials

Do you think traffic congestion at Heathrow Airport could be decreased by delivering materials at night hence reduce percentage of gases emitted by ground service vehicles?

  • Mean = 4.3938
  • Variance = 5.5781
  • Standard deviation = 2.3618
  • Geometric Mode = LBMo + [d1/(d1+d2)]class width

Where:

  • LBMo = Lower Boundary of Modal Class
  • d1= frequency of modal class –frequency of class below modal class
  • d2= frequency of modal class – frequency of class above modal class

Mode = 6.0

Karl moment of skewness = (mean-mode)/stdev = -3.6382

Do you think the Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has carefully provided for capacity to avoid residential destruction of water mains, power lines and telephone lines?

  • Mean = 4.5063
  • Variance = 3.7749
  • Standard deviation = 1.9429
  • Geometric mode = 6.6111
  • Skewness = -1.0833

Do you think there will be sufficient staff to repair water mains, power lines and telephone lines that is destroyed accidentally during Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal?

  • Mean =700/160 = 4.375
  • Variance = 3.4094
  • Standard deviation = 1.8464
  • Mode = 5.1666
  • Skewness = -0.4287

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient drainage and flood control for silt runoff from unprotected cut-and-fill areas?

  • Mean = 4.3312
  • Variance = 3.5215
  • Standard deviation = 1.8765
  • Mode = 5.1
  • Skewness = -0.4096

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient measures to ensure no hazardous chemicals are used?

  • Mean = 4.175
  • Variance = 3.6568
  • Standard deviation = 1.9122
  • Mode = 4.9
  • Skewness = -0.3791

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient measures for proper handling of cement as hazardous substance?

  • Mean = 4.625
  • Variance = 3.5218
  • Standard deviation = 1.8766
  • Mode = 6.6282
  • Skewness = -1.0674

Do you thin the Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal relocation plan for the affected residents will include construction of a noise barrier wall at the landside to deflect noise level?

  • Mean = 4.875
  • Variance = 2.5468
  • Standard deviation = 1.5958
  • Mode = 6.5571
  • Skewness = -1.0540

Moment of correlation

  • Correlation (1B:1 B) = 1.0000
  • Correlation (1B: 2B) = 0.8016
  • Correlation (1B: 3B) = 0.9747
  • Correlation (1B: 4B) = 0.8837
  • Correlation (1B: 5B) = 0.8941
  • Correlation (1B: 6B) = 0.8937
  • Correlation (1B: 7B) = 0.9634

Do you think there is strict adherence to regulations for aircraft reduction of emissions?

  • Mean = 5.0813
  • Variance = 2.0996
  • Standard deviation = 1.4490
  • Mode = 6.5769
  • Skewness = -1.0321

Do you think sanitary waste management system will use steel to prevent possibilities of leakage in the long term?

  • Mean = 5.0438
  • Variance = 2.2321
  • Standard deviation = 1.4940
  • Mode = 6.5277
  • Skewness = -0.9932

Are there measures to ensure solid waste is collected at least twice a day?

  • Mean = 3.7063
  • Variance = 3.9575
  • Standard deviation = 1.9893
  • Mode = 1.4655
  • Skewness = +1.1264

Do you think sewage treatment plant will consist of modern technologies in project constructions?

  • Mean = 4.4375
  • Variance = 3.646
  • Standard deviation = 1.9094
  • Mode = 6.5333
  • Skewness = -1.0976

Are there measures to provide additional roads to the fifth terminal to reduce congestions on other roads linking other terminals?

  • Mean = 4.9063
  • Variance = 2.6224
  • Standard deviation = 1.6194
  • Mode = 6.5285
  • Skewness = -1.0017

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient environmental monitoring program for water quality, water drainage outfalls, air quality with regard to total suspended particles, solid waste management and traffic management?

  • Mean =4.5188
  • Variance = 3.4733
  • Standard deviation = 1.8636
  • Mode = 6.0714
  • Skewness = -0.8331

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient safety and emergency procedures as well as contingency plans in case of a major incident or disaster?

  • Mean = 5.0813
  • Variance = 2.0496
  • Standard deviation = 1.4316
  • Mode = 6.5277
  • Skewness = -1.0103

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to contribute into minimal environmental impacts post achievement of full operations?

  • Mean =4.6313
  • Variance = 2.7327
  • Standard deviation = 1.6530
  • Mode = 5.7857
  • Skewness = -0.6983

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has environmental stewardship objective interests?

  • Mean = 4.9813
  • Variance = 2.3058
  • Standard deviation = 1.5185
  • Mode = 6.5285
  • Skewness = -1.0189

Moment of correlation

  • Correlation (8B: 8 B) = 1.0000
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9918
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = -0.9355
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9085
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9527
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9019
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9987
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.8378
  • Correlation (8B: 2B) = 0.9930

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has accounted for sustainability of fuel storage and its corresponding capacity to reduce environmental impacts of airport construction?

  • Mean = 3.4063
  • Variance = 3.3682
  • Standard deviation = 1.8352
  • Mode = 1.9285
  • Skewness = +0.8052

Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could result into capacity to increase stricter guidelines on noise emission levels of aircrafts?

  • Mean = 3.575
  • Variance = 3.7012
  • Standard deviation = 1.9238
  • Mode = 1.4666
  • Skewness = +1.0959

Moment of correlation

  • Correlation (3A:3A) = 1.0000
  • Correlation (3A:3B) = 0.9535

Discussion of the results

The study determined Heathrow Airport Expansion environmental strategies could not contribute into sustainable management of Total Suspended Particles (TSP) (Table 1A). As a result HAE failed to have framework for sustainability of environmental biodiversity. Construction of the fifth terminal required environmental impact assessment that could have contributed into determination best management practices for environmental protection and sustainability (table 20A). This had capacity to contribute into cancellation of the Heathrow Airport expansion as a function of construction of the fifth terminal as evident by positive correlation between 1A:10A of +0.9464. The HAE didn’t implement or identify environmental expansion policies or satisfy standards for environmental stewardship (table 16B). TSP prevention and mitigation measures could contribute into environmental pollution which could affect community health through (table 10A) failure to meet state or federal requirements for environmental protection that could have contributed into cancellation of the HAE project or delay of the HAE as solution to environmental protection post fifth Terminal construction were determined. TSP for instance PM10 and PM25 affect respiratory systems hence contribute into health hazards. This results into endangering of fauna and flora (table 4A). TSP has capacity to close stomata of leaves hence decreased carbon dioxide intake of plants. This affects plants growth through decreased capacity for photosynthesis.

The HAE project could not demonstrate capacity for sustainable best management practices (table 20A) with regard to environmental protection (table 15B), mitigation measures (table 10B), and capacity for sustainable fuel storage and fuel handling (table 17B). This deductively indicated the HAE didn’t have sufficient environmental stewardship objectives (table 16B) which was demonstrated by incapacity to address community concerns for the airport noise (table 11A).

The study results demonstrated that Heathrow Airport Expansion via construction of fifth terminal didn’t have sustainable waste management structure (table 4A). This was demonstrated by failures to have structures in place for collection of solid waste at least twice a day (table 10B). Sewage treatment though demonstrated a possible waste management (table 11B) it could not provide basis for sustainable waste management if the solid waste management strategies were average (table 10B). Expansion of an airport requires framework for waste management which could contribute into sustainability of environmental protection and conservation (table 4A). The framework for HAE project didn’t have capacity for managing activities with regard to disposal of waste, management of environmental degradation or capacity for best practices in waste management post completion of the HAE fifth terminal. The HAE didn’t have structures for complete dilution of pollutants before disposal to the water bodies which could have had negative impacts on aquatic life (table 4A) which realized a positive correlation of 0.9273 (2A: 4A). This could have had negative impacts on the quality of life of aquatic life. As a result, the HAE project might have lacked continuity due to inability to demonstrate capacity for waste management, oil spillage management strategies and water management. The HAE project ought to have demonstrated measures and mechanism for dilution levels of pollutants before their disposal into water bodies.

The HAE didn’t have strategic measures for managing increased requirement for deicing and anti-icing post completion of fifth terminal. Deicing and anti-icing contribute into environmental degradation which results into loss of value of land. The waste management framework includes capacity to demonstrate management of surface run off and silt deposition possibilities (table 8A). The HAE could not have met minimum Environmental Protection Agency requirements with respect to national standards for Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG). Thus ELG as a function of deicing and anti-icing procedures could not have been satisfied (table 8A, table 12A, and table 4B). ELG are nationally based standards on waste water discharge and disposal with regard to surface waters. Inadequate measures for ELG as a technology based process would have meant HAE could not have gained certification for waste water management and its corresponding impacts on environment. Deicing and anti-icing processes are part of ELG standards and correspond to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that HAE didn’t demonstrate to have adequately accounted for during environmental impact assessment (table 4A, table 3A, table 10A, table 8A and table 9A). This implies HAE could not have met minimum standards for deicing and anti-icing management (table 20A). Based on table 20A, HAE through proposal for construction of fifth terminal didn’t establish initial estimates for waste management capacity subject to adoption of a treatment technology of waste with objective interest of controlling and preventing environmental pollution arising from deicing and anti-icing activities. As a result, HAE proposal for construction of the fifth terminal could not have achieved certification for deicing disposal or discharge permit. The NPDES could not have provided permit on deicing discharge subject to lack of sustainable mitigation measures for deicing and anti-icing. For instance part 122.26(a)(9) on discharge permit requires capacity for additional terminal construction top address issues on storm water discharge if the construction process was affecting one acre or five acres.

The HAE based on table 9A, didn’t satisfy part 122.26(a)(1)(ii) on NDPES permit and certification. The discharge process ought to have satisfied Stormwater disposal or conform to other standards for instance industrial storm water permits. The results demonstrated HAE didn’t have waste management strategies that could conform to environmental regulatory policies and standards (table 9A). Incapacity to have sustainable strategies for managing deicing and anti-icing processes could have affected continuity of the airport project (table 10A). The HAE ought to have identified and designed strategies for managing probabilities of oil spillage, oil spillage prevention and mitigation and have contingency plans for managing incidents associated with fires in the airport (table 12A, table 4B). The HAE construction of the fifth terminal didn’t comply with CFR section 122.26 on safety levels of a construction project with regard to quantity of land that would be affected. The HAE construction of the fifth terminal, could not have met standards outlined by CFR section 122.26(c). Incapacity of airport to demonstrate compliance with fire regulations could contribute into incapacity to continue with the airport expansion plans (table 12A). The results demonstrated HAE didn’t have adequate oil spillage operations in place to support construction of the fifth terminal. The HAE didn’t demonstrate capacity for protection or prevention of oil spillage and its environmental impacts post completion of fifth terminal construction. As a result, increased disadvantages of construction of fifth terminal were more than any economic benefits that could be realized upon its completion.

The HAE ought to have developed strategies for oil spillage and prevention based on capacity for meeting minimum requirements stated by the Spill Prevention Control and Counter Control Measures (SPCC). As a result, the HAE construction of fifth terminal was prone to cancellation (table 10A) due to inability to plan for environmental issues that impact on environmental protection and conservation (table 9A). The incapacity to develop structures for oil spillage and prevention meant HAE didn’t have a SPCC plan in place (table 9A, table 8A, table 15A, table 18A, table 4B, table 17B, and table 16B).

The results demonstrated HAE didn’t have sustainable policies on sound management (table 6A). Thus, proposal for development of HAE was not a function of best management practices with regard to community noise management (table 6A). Community noise (table 6A, table 14A) requires sufficient financial investment. The HAE due to failure to have adequate financial resources could not have met requirements for construction of sound barriers for instance a noise barrier for deflecting airport noise. Sound barrier walls have capacity to contribute into localization of noise hence less impact to the residents. The HAE capacity to address community noise (table 13A) and capacity for noise mitigation measures were minimal. This implies HAE design and architecture was not structured on best management practices for environmental protection, risk mitigation and management (table 20A). The study results demonstrated that HAE didn’t have adequate measures for addressing demand for use of sound proof materials in residential building within the fifth terminal (table 13A). This implies measures to ensure minimal sound were within accepted sound threshold and standards set for UK airports were not initially addressed during initial planning. The airport noise could have been greater during aircraft take off, taxing, landing or during aircraft engine testing. This impacted negatively on capacity of the HAE to conform to environmental standards (table 15A) hence possibility for the cancellation of the HAE fifth terminal construction.

The fifth terminal construction could have resulted into increased loss of value of property along the flight path. The HAE didn’t have sufficient measures towards minimizing impacts of fifth terminal construction through capacity for managing ground equipment noise, capacity for managing dust control and detours (table 18A). As a result, HAE construction of the fifth terminal could not have met requirements for item 156, (AC) on Advisory Control 150/5370-10A that has specified guidelines that ought to be implemented and complied with during airport Expansion and construction. This could have negatively affected business along the flight path. The land use restrictions or zoning regulations might not have provided required standards for operational effectiveness of the fifth terminal. The results demonstrated incapacity to community noise management or lack of use of sustainable sound proof materials. The incapacity to manage community noise could have resulted into increased ill health in terms of children capacity to learn, subject to increased incidents of hyperactive disorder, increased incidents of cardiovascular disorders and increases levels of stress disorder. The HAE project didn’t demonstrate capacity for noise mitigation or reduction strategies for noise produced as aircrafts take off, land, taxing or during engine testing. It appeared, the HAE project had no measures for localization of airport noise hence continuity of the HAE project was predisposed to cancellation due to poor environmental impact assessment that could not produce feasibility of noise management or capacity to mitigate environmental risks arising from airport operations.

The study results determined delivery of the materials to the site could have been carried out during the night in order to reduce emissions from ground service vehicles due to traffic congestions that have capacity to increase of toxic gases emission into the environment (table 1B). The HAE operations could not have resulted into destruction of water mains, underground power lines or underground telephone lines (table 2B). The study determined HAE had sufficient staff to repair any broken water mains, power lines and telephone lines (table 3B). This would have ensured continuity of supply of essential services like water, power and telephone services. Thus, HAE had sustainable plan for mitigating risks that could have occurred as a result of HAE operations with regard to construction of the fifth terminal. However, capacity for staff availability doesn’t constitute direct impact on environment. The HAE has moderate framework for managing possible damages to infrastructure and capacity for flood control that might arise from unprotected cut-and-fill areas (table 4B). Although measures for control of possible floods were integrated into HAE construction (table 4B) they could not support capacity for the HAE completion. The HAE ought to have identified framework for management of hazardous chemicals that are emitted by airport operations from mobile and immobile sources (table 5B). The HAE had average measures in place for handling hazardous chemical substances like cement (table 6B). Cement was identified as the only hazardous chemical (table 6B) and sufficient measures were established to have been in place to mitigate any pollution risks that could have arose from use of cement (table 5B).

The study determined there were sufficient measures in place for relocation of residents (table 7B). The HAE had plans in place for construction of a noise barrier in the new area for relocating residents (table 7B). The noise barrier wall was meant to deflect noise and reduce impacts of noise to the residents and wildlife within the Heathrow Airport fifth terminal. Although the management team responsible for resident relocation demonstrated capacity for HAE to build noise barrier wall and relocate residents (table 7B), the clients and residents that were surveyed (table 5A, table 13A, table 11A, table 12A, table 14A) stressed there were no measures in place to relocate residents, manage impacts of community noise or address sound proof issues (table 13A).

Emissions from aircrafts were determined to be under control (table 8B), there were no measures in place to support capacity for strict adherence to regulations on aircraft emissions (table 8B) or capacity to utilize emerging technologies to reduce sound emitted from the aircraft (table 16A). This implies HAE fifth terminal construction could not have met requirements for the Clean Air Act section 176(c) or USC section 7401 et. Seq. as amended that specifies guidelines on construction based air quality emissions. The HAE standards for air quality post completion of fifth terminal didn’t comply or meet minimum standards as specified by policy Act on quality of air (NEPA), National Environment Protection Agency or USC sections 4321-4347 that address measures for elimination or capacity for minimizing environmental damage arising from emissions of aircraft or other mobile sources hence HAE strategies for environmental protection could not identify with control and counter measures for management of biosphere and natural resources. This could have qualified HAE fifth terminal construction for cancellation (table 10A). Waste management strategies (table 10A, 10B) were established to be inadequate. The management team however noted that sewage treatment plant was to be constructed based on modern technologies (table 11B). Though sewage treatment plant could reduce impacts of waste management, it didn’t have capability to address issues on community noise and toxic gas emissions from aircrafts.

The results demonstrated that HAE environmental protection strategies could have been enhanced by building additional road networks to serve the fifth terminal (table 12B). The HAE fifth terminal construction didn’t meet National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental requirements laid down by Clean Air Act on air quality. The HAE operations could have distorted off-site local traffic patterns which could have increased traffic congestions and increased quantity of emissions. The HAE operations could have increased opportunities for soil erosion which could have impacted negatively on the quality of the air.

Transport in mature open market economies contribute into environmental pollution through emission of pollutant gases that arises from traffic congestion hence increased quantity of combustion products into the atmosphere. The capacity to develop additional roads to serve the fifth terminal could not be implemented due to land use restrictions (table 15A). The HAE didn’t have sustainable environmental stewardship objectives interests with regard to management of transport to control and minimize transport contribution to environmental pollution.

the HAE environmental sustainability could have been improved by environmental monitoring programs (table 13B) which could not have been implemented due to incapacity to develop framework for environmental protection that ought to have been greater than construction impacts of airport operations (table 17A). this was partly due to lack of sustainable use of advanced technologies for implementing environmental protection geared at reduction of emission of particulate matter for instance PM10 or PM25 (table 18A), management of aircraft emissions, strategies for reduction of emission from ground service vehicles or management of stormwater and noise (table 18A). environmental monitoring structures could have facilitated in management of total air suspended particles, solid waste management and sustainable traffic congestion management (table 13B) which could have helped to implement environmental protection strategies (table 18A). The HAE could hence have improved safety levels in Heathrow Airport (table 14B) which could have facilitated in energy resources allocation through development of environmental contingency plans that could have included development of framework for managing incidents (table 19A) that could impact negatively on environmental protection of Heathrow Airport. This could have ensured the HAE activities could have had minimal environmental impacts (table 15B) post achievement of full operations. The HAE could have achieved sustainable oil spillage management strategies that could have resulted into decreased environmental impacts from oil spillage 17B) and capacity for water management (table 17B, table 18A, table 3A). The HAE should have implemented stricter guidelines for aircraft operators to introduce quieter aircrafts that have lesser noise or emissions productions (table 18B, table 18A, table 14A, table 16A). As a result, HAE environmental strategies could not have contributed into sustainable management of particulate matter (table 1A) hence incapacity to control pollution.

Conclusion

This section reports on whether the study achieved its objectives or not and reports on capacity for likelihood of HAE construction of the fifth terminal.

The study achieved its objectives and testable hypothesis. The study determined construction of the additional fifth terminal on Heathrow Airport could not have resulted into sustainable environmental protection. Construction of the fifth terminal could not have had supported efforts to reduce increasing emissions from the aircrafts, or waste management strategies with regard to storm water management, solid waste management or capacity to control or prevent oil spillage through ongoing monitoring of oil storage facilities. The HAE construction of the fifth terminal didn’t meet requirements for clean Air Act or National Environmental Policy Act with regard to air quality post during construction phase or operational phase. The HAE construction of fifth terminal didn’t have sustainable measures for sustainable drainage or control of floods that might have resulted from silt run off from unprotected cut-and-fill areas. This meant the fifth terminal was exposed to threats of floods and threat to aircraft possibilities of slid off from runaway during take off or landing which could have endangered aircrafts safety and passenger’s safety during storms. This observation made proved hypothesis 1 to be true with respect to incapacity of the fifth terminal to contribute into sustainable waste management. it further proved hypothesis 2 to be true. The noise management strategies for the HAE fifth terminal were not adequate to support HAE. The HAE construction of the fifth terminal was not a product of best Management practices for environmental control, risk mitigation or capacity for environmental protection. The environmental construction negative impacts of the fifth terminal were found to be unavoidable with regard to capacity for community noise management. As a result, it was not possible to reduce the risks of environmental noise below significant threshold to make it possible for the HAE to achieve or acquire permits and certifications for clean air act, or possible permits from the national environmental policy act or any relevant industrial act on air pollution and control mitigation measures. As a result, capacity for management of biodiversity impacts of the fifth terminal was minimal hence conservation of fauna and flora could have taken the highest precedence hence possible cancellation of the HAE project. The issues on environmental risk mitigation framework for the HAE made the likelihood of construction of the fifth terminal to be minimal. Complexity of compliance with different regulations and legislation on land use, environmental control and risk profile of fifth terminal subject to inadequate transport development to link fifth terminal to other road networks were minimal. The HAE construction of the fifth terminal was negatively affected by land use restrictions and local zoning regulations. This proved hypothesis 3 to be true. Land use restriction and local zoning regulations had capacity to contribute into cancellation of the fifth terminal construction. This could have predisposed increased gaseous emission from ground service vehicles and other mobile emitting equipments. Sustainability of environmental impacts of fifth terminal was therefore minimal and could have contributed into increased negative environmental impacts.

The study determined HAE construction of the fifth terminal didn’t have sustainable noise management strategies. This proved hypothesis 4 to be true with respect to capacity for noise management through construction of sound barrier walls and use of efficient sound proof materials in building. The HAE didn’t have sufficient funds to build sound barriers walls and ensure buildings had sound proof materials. The HAE emission control for mobile gas producers was not structured towards adoption of electricity powered stationery equipments or strategies towards reduction of emissions from mobile sources of pollutant gases. Construction of the fifth terminal should have incorporated capacity for aircrafts to adopt technologies that could result into decrease of sound emission and production of gases that didn’t have negative impacts to the environment for instance reduction of capacity for production of contrails. The HAE didn’t have descriptive framework on mechanism through which dust control could have been achieved during the construction phase of the fifth terminal. The HAE didn’t have strategies for management of storm water as well as management of deicing and anti-icing products that could have increased incapacity for waste management. Land use restrictions and local zoning regulations could not have contributed into possible fifth terminal construction. This proved hypothesis 2 to be true with regard to incapacity for waste management, anti-icing and deicing strategic procedures which could have played a leading role towards cancellation of the project. The capacity for realization of minimal impacts to the environment was not feasible hence increased risk of cancellation of the project.

The study established that HAE construction of fifth terminal didn’t integrated capacity for solid waste treatment or possibility of solid waste collection at least twice a day. This could have increased negative environmental impacts and could have contributed into cancellation of the fifth terminal construction. This could have increased negative environmental impacts associated with solid waste management failures. The study established HAE didn’t have framework for reduction of total suspended particles and their negative impacts through environmental pollution. As a result, it was not possible to implement construction of the fifth terminal due to incapacity to demonstrate capacity for environmental protection and sustainability of environmental control processes and mitigation, contingency plans and failure to identify risk profile of the fifth terminal with respect to environmental degradation possibilities. The Heathrow Airport management ought to conduct environmental impact assessment of the four terminals and project on the environmental impacts of the fifth terminal and sustainability of environmental protection.

References

ACI (2003), Airport charges Europe, Airport Council International

Airports Policy Consortium (1997) Efficiency and Equity, Policy Paper 1, Surrey UK

Airports Policy Consortium (1999) Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the Economy of the UK: a Response to Oxford Economic Forecasting

Barton, R. (2000). A labor government’s different than the current government: telstra, neo-liberalism and the industrial relations. Caulfield, Vic., Monash University

Beauchamp, T.L., Faden, R.R., Wallace, R.J. amd Walters, L. (eds) (1982) Ethical Issues in Social Science Research, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Beesley, M. E. (1992). Privatization, Regulation and Deregulation, New York, Routledge

Benell, D.W. and Prentice, B.E. (1993) A regression model for predicting the economic impacts of Canadian airports, Logistics and Transportation Review 29, 139-158

Brenner, S. N. (1995). Stakeholder theory of the firm: Its consistency with current management techniques. In J. Nasi (Ed.), Understanding stakeholder thinking: 75-96. Helsinki:LSR-Julkaisut Oy

Brockhagen,D and Lienemeyer, M (1998) Proposal for a European Aviation Charge. Design and implementation with respect to international economical, ecological, legal and political constraints

Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edition.

CAMPOS, J. (2007). The sciences of language: communication, cognition and computation. In: AUDY, Jorge Luis Nicolas, MOROSINI, Marília Costa (Orgs.). Innovation and interdisciplinarity in the university = Inovação e interdisciplinariedade na universidade. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, pp. 345-360

CE (1998) A European Aviation Charge. Feasibility Study, A Bleijenberg and R C N Wit, Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology, Delft, Netherlands

CIB (1998) Construction and the Environment, CIB World Building Congress, Gavle, Sweden Cooperative Solutions, 2003, Web.

EIB (1998) Annual Report 1998, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg

Elias, B (n.d.) CRS Report RL32707, Avoiding Gridlock in the Skies: Issues and Options for Addressing Growth in Air Traffic

Emmons, W. (2000) the evolving bargain – strategic implications of deregulation and privatization, Boston, Harvard Business School Press

Environment Protection Agency (1993) Estimation and evaluation of cancer risks attributable to air pollution in SW Chicago, EPA, Washington DC, USA Environmental Activities and the MPCA,” Web.

European Commission (1995) Towards fair and Efficient pricing in Transport: policy options for internalizing the external costs of transport in the European Union, COM (95) 691

European Commission (1996) towards fair pricing in Transport, COM (96) 331, Luxembourg

European Environment Agency (1995) Europe’s Environment, the Dobris Assessment, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

Federal Aviation Administration, (2006) Workshop on the Impacts of Aviation on Climate: A Report of Findings and Recommendations, Web.

Gibbons, M.L., Lomoges, H., et al, (2007) Research methods for business students, Harlow, England, FT: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education

Graham, A. (2003). Managing Airports -an international perspective, London, Butterworth-Heineman

Guardian, I.T. (2005), Massive profits from public land, The Guardian, Sydney

HACAN News (1997) Noise expert admits data out of date and unreliable.

Henegar, M.K. (1994) Airport retailing is about to take off, Real Estate Review 23 (4):pp.57-61

Hepworth, M and Ducatel, K (1992) Transport and the information age, Belhaven, London

Hill, C. W. and T. M. Jones (1992), Stakeholder – agency theory, Journal of Management Studies 29(2): 131-154.

Humphreys, I. and G. Francis (2002), Performance measurement: a review of airports. International Journal of Transport Management 1: pp.79-85

Jensen, M. (2002), Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Function, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235-256

Jones, T. M. and A. C. Wicks (1999), Convergent stakeholder theory, Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206-214

Kaplan, R. and S. Norton (2001), the strategy focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment, Boston, Harvard Business School Press

Marcoux, A. (2009), Business-Focused Business Ethics. Normative theory and Business Ethics, J. Smith. New York, Rowman & Littlefield: 17-23

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (n.d.) Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Aeronautics. Web.

Natural Resources Defense Council (1996) Flying off Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports, NRDC, Washington DC, USA

Oppenheim, A.N. (2005) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Basic Book, Inc, New York, pp.100-103

Oxford Economic Forecasting (1999) The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy, report for the Airport Operators’ Association, the British Air Transport Association and DETR

Parsons, D. (1984) Employment stimulation and the local labour market: a case study of airport growth, Regional Studies 18(5), pp.423-28

Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Report to the United States Congress, Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions. Web. 

Pease, J (1999) Aircraft emissions head skywards. Air Quality Management, pp.8-9

RCEP (1994) Transport and the Environment, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 18th Report

Saunders, M., et al. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, third edition, Prentice Hall

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, third edition, Prentice Hall

Savage, G. T., T. H. Nix, et al. (1991), Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders, Academy of Management Executive 5: 61-75

Thomson, J. (2005), Ready for Take-Off? Plans to develop Brisbane Airport, BRW.

Transportation Research Board, (2003) Special Report 272-Airport Research Needs:

Walsh, P., P. Lok, et al. (2005), the measurement and management of strategic change, Frenchs Forest, NSW, Pearson Prentice Hall

Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, et al. (1994), A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 475-497.

List of Appendices

Appendix A: questionnaires for the airport clients

  1. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion (HAE) environmental strategies could contribute into sustainable management of Total Suspended Particles?
  2. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is a function of sustainable management of ambient quality of the air?
  3. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sustainable waste management strategies that could contribute into sustainability of environmental protection and conservation?
  4. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could endanger fauna and flora within the vicinity of the Heathrow airport?
  5. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to meet the cost of relocating affected residents?
  6. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal would contribute into construction of buildings that have sound proof insulation that could reduce airport noise negative impacts on health?
  7. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal would result into enforcement of aircrafts that could emit less toxic gases into the environment?
  8. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to achieve sustainable deicing and anti-icing control and prevention?
  9. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could contribute into complexity of environmental regulatory issues?
  10. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could be affected by state, federal or local environmental incapacity to provide for environmental protection hence cancellation of the project?
  11. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could result into increased demand to address concerns on community noise?
  12. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is supported by adequate oil spillage operation and planning prevention or mitigation measures?
  13. Do you think noise mitigation approaches could pave way for Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal through capacity to address sound proof materials?
  14. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal conforms to minimum sound thresholds for different community standards hence capacity for long term noise management strategies through noise reduction approaches?
  15. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could be affected negatively by land use restrictions and local zoning regulations?
  16. Do you think use of advanced technologies in aircraft design and improved engineering on aircraft noise reduction could improve possibility of Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal?
  17. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal long term impacts on environment protection are greater than construction impacts on environment sustainability?
  18. Do you think that Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to implement environment protection strategies that could reduce dusts, aircraft emission, heavy equipment emission, storm water run off and noise?
  19. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal construction impacts could not be avoided or mitigated below applicable significant thresholds for allocated resources?
  20. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal is product of best management practices for environmental control, protection, mitigation and management?

Appendix B: questionnaire for the environmental protection agency officials, federal officials, state officials and environment conservation lobby group officials

  1. Do you think traffic congestion at Heathrow Airport could be decreased by delivering materials at night hence reduce percentage of gases emitted by ground service vehicles?
  2. Do you think the Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has carefully provided for capacity to avoid residential destruction of water mains, power lines and telephone lines?
  3. Do you think there will be sufficient staff to repair water mains, power lines and telephone lines that is destroyed accidentally during Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal?
  4. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient drainage and flood control for silt runoff from unprotected cut-and-fill areas?
  5. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient measures to ensure no hazardous chemicals are used?
  6. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient measures for proper handling of cement as hazardous substance?
  7. Do you thin the Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal relocation plan for the affected residents will include construction of a noise barrier wall at the landside to deflect noise level?
  8. Do you think there is strict adherence to regulations for aircraft reduction of emissions?
  9. Do you think sanitary waste management system will use steel to prevent possibilities of leakage in the long term?
  10. Are there measures to ensure solid waste is collected at least twice a day?
  11. Do you think sewage treatment plant will consist of modern technologies in project constructions?
  12. Are there measures to provide additional roads to the fifth terminal to reduce congestions on other roads linking other terminals?
  13. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient environmental monitoring program for water quality, water drainage outfalls, air quality with regard to total suspended particles, solid waste management and traffic management?
  14. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has sufficient safety and emergency procedures as well as contingency plans in case of a major incident or disaster?
  15. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has capacity to contribute into minimal environmental impacts post achievement of full operations?
  16. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has environmental stewardship objective interests?
  17. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal has accounted for sustainability of fuel storage and its corresponding capacity to reduce environmental impacts of airport construction?
  18. Do you think Heathrow Airport Expansion through construction of the fifth terminal could result into capacity to increase stricter guidelines on noise emission levels of aircrafts?