Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering

ISSN: 1448-8388 (Print) 2204-2180 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmul20

How to Assess the Sustainability of Three Options

for the Location of an Aerodrome? A Case Study of
Sustainability Assessment in Practice

S. Cooper

To cite this article: S. Cooper (2007) How to Assess the Sustainability of Three Options for the
Location of an Aerodrome? A Case Study of Sustainability Assessment in Practice, Australian
Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, 5:1, 27-32

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14488388.2007.11464753

Published online: 22 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmul20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 15 January 2017, At: 11:05
 technical paper 27

How to assess the sustainability of

three options for the location of an aerodrome?
A case study of sustainability assessment in practice *

S Cooper
Sinclair Knight Merz

SUMMARY: This paper is based upon a triple bottom line evaluation to assess the sustainability
of three location options of an existing aerodrome: remain in its current location; move to an
alternative location identified through background studies; or close the aerodrome.
A triple bottom line assessment that considered broader economic, environmental and social
elements was needed as an important input to a final decision by Caloundra City Council. Of
particular interest was the impact on the aviation-linked businesses that have developed around the
aerodrome, and implications for the regional economy from each of the three options. A sustainability
assessment tool was used for the assessing the sustainability of each of the three aerodrome options.
The sustainability assessment framework has been developed to provide an efficient approach that
is not overly complex and expensive to apply, with a focus on minimising risks and identifying
opportunities and benefits, rather than a focus on mitigation of impacts.
Thirty-nine criteria were developed for the assessment, with 19 of these identified as “critical
criteria” that played a key role in assessing performance of the options. The assessment identified
the preferred option through assessments of three performance parameters against criteria and
indicators. The preferred option was not clear cut, and required analysis of all the performance
parameters. The framework was useful in that it compared three options against a suite of criteria
and indicators, and integrated the performance assessments so that transparent and objective
comparisons could be made.

1 INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABILITY complexity of the concept and a lack of business

The concept of sustainable development (or
sustainability) has evolved in response to
environmental degradation, natural resource
depletion and concerns for social justice. While
hundreds of definitions of sustainable development
exist, progress in translating the concept into practice
has been slow and inadequate. Governments
and leading businesses around the world now
acknowledge that what we currently call development
is jeopardising our future. Being “green” is an
inadequate response. Instead substantial innovation
and continuous improvement is required to meet
changing societal needs now and in the future.
The lack of progress in implementing sustainable
development has been a consequence of the practical
drivers. Circumstances have now changed. Businesses
wishing to remain profitable and retain their social
licence to operate are responding to heightened public
expectations of business, new corporate governance
requirements, and market requirements and investor
preferences that support sustainable development
in addition to environmental risks and increasing
competition for scarce resources. At the same time,
governments are reframing policies and delivering
infrastructure to facilitate sustainable development
and the fulfilment of business responsibilities.
There is no one recipe for achieving sustainable
development. It will mean different things to different
organisations, even those within the same industry,
sectors and geographies. However some things are
certain:

* Reviewed paper originally invited for presentation • We must reduce the degrading impacts of our
at EES 2005 Environmental Engineering and activities on the environment.
Sustainability National Conference, Sydney, July • We must restore the capacity of natural
2005.

© Institution of Engineers, Australia 2007 Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering, Vol 5 No 1

4 Cooper formatted.indd 27 30/4/07 3:38:37 PM

 28 “How to assess the sustainability of three options for the location of an aerodrome?” – Cooper
ecosystems to sustain our economy and
communities.
• We must maintain strong economies and
safe, vibrant societies to enable investment in
environmental protection and restoration.
• We must produce more services and products
using fewer raw materials.
2 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK
There is an emerging need for tools, approaches
and frameworks that provide a practical translation
between sustainability principles and criteria, and
their application to specific projects, activities and
organisations. This need is frequently expressed
as how to practically assess and identify the
sustainability of various projects and project
alternatives.
The Sustainability Assessment Framework provides
a semi-quantitative, objective and transparent
process for assessing the sustainability of a project
or multiple project options against a range of
sustainability attributes and criteria. It represents
some of the most recent and emerging thinking about
sustainability, but presents the assessment in terms
that are practical, can be applied to a wide range of
projects, does not rely on producing quantitative data
and is not costly or complex.
The framework is structured around the attributes
of economic, environmental, social and governance
systems that are required for sustainability. This is a
significant and valuable departure from most other
tools that focus more narrowly on mitigation of social
and environmental impacts. This is an “outcomes”
based approach, which challenges conventional
thinking and provides a thought environment that
is far more conducive to innovation.
It avoids the “black box” approach that arrives
at a number that is difficult to defend and lacks
transparency. Novel features of the tool include:
• flagging identifying key risks and opportunities
• identifying critical criteria that are fundamental
to a project’s long-term sustainability
• indicating the level of confidence in information
supporting an assessment
• indicators of the capacity of an organisation to
deliver the desired outcomes
• distinguishing short-term gains from longer-
term sustainable outcomes.
In addition to specific criteria, the tool also
addressed sustainability principles such as inter-
and intrageneration equity, conservation of ecological
processes, and the precautionary principle.
Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering
4 Cooper formatted.indd 28
3 CASE STUDY: CALOUNDRA
AERODROME TRIPLE BOTTOM
LINE EVALUATION
3.1 Description of the problem
The Caloundra Aerodrome is located in a highly
strategic position within 2 km of the Caloundra
Central Business District (CBD), and contributes to
Caloundra City and regional economies through a
variety of aviation-related business. The aerodrome
does not service commuter traffic, but concentrates
upon flight training, helicopter services and scenic/
tourist enterprises. Caloundra City is located on
the Sunshine Coast approximately 1.5 hour’s drive
north of Brisbane, in the most rapidly growing
region in Australia. Increasing development pressure
around the aerodrome has the potential to create
compatibility problems between aviation operations
and the surrounding residential communities, and
raises the question of more economic uses of valuable,
centrally located land. The sustainability assessment
was to be an input to Council’s decision.
Caloundra City Council has raised questions about
what might be the most viable site for the aerodrome
over the long term. Background studies have
identified another possible site, located 10 km from
the city centre. The Council required an objective,
transparent assessment of the sustainability of three
location options for the aerodrome. These options
included:
• Option A – retain aerodrome at the current site
• Option B – relocate aerodrome to the alternative
site approximately 10 km out of the CBD and
redevelop the current site
• Option C – close the aerodrome facility and
redevelop the current site.
Caloundra City Council requested that an assessment
be conducted using a logical framework and
approach that incorporated the three elements of
a triple bottom line approach: environment, social
and economic.
Of particular interest was the impact on the 17 lessees
at the current site and the aviation-linked business that
have developed around the aerodrome, in addition
to the role of the sites in retaining environmental
values and open space. This is a practical objective
given that an aerodrome and related businesses
typically occupy only 15-20% of the total site area.
Accessibility and visibility were seen as positive
features of the current site, with a strong market
among backpackers and tourists for scenic flights,
training schools, parachuting and similar activities.
The continuing presence of air cadets and youth
training was valued by the community, with a move
to a less centrally-located site reducing accessibility
by requiring reliance on motorised transport. The
Vol 5 No 1
30/4/07 3:38:38 PM
 “How to assess the sustainability of three options for the location of an aerodrome?” – Cooper
current presence of the successful and volunteer-run
Queensland Air Museum, coupled with the sense
that the current aerodrome was nestled within the
community and reflected the area’s heritage, were
social factors to be considered.
The author was part of the multidisciplinary team
engaged by Caloundra City Council to conduct
the assessment, consisting of an airport planner,
economist, social planner and environmental/
sustainability expertise.
3.2 Method of application
Developing criteria
Careful formulation of the criteria against which
the three location options could be assessed was
important to ensure an objective and credible
assessment, in that options would be assessed
against agreed criteria to allow direct comparisons
of performance. The criteria formed the basis to:
• identify elements of the three options that
have significant negative impacts, maintain an
existing desirable situation, or represent a major
opportunity for improvement
• encapsulate the full suite of issues that had
been identified by council, state government
departments, aerodrome users and the
community
• reflect environmental, economic and social
outcomes.
The criteria were presented as a three-tiered
“hierarchy”, consisting of:
• 1st order attributes that reflect high order
features of sustainable systems
• 2nd order objectives that detail more
specifically the objectives sought
• 3rd order criteria that are specifically tailored to
the study and represent a translation of higher
order attributes/objectives into detailed criteria.
Identifying critical criteria
Identifying the criteria critical to the long term
success and sustainability of the project is crucial
to the framework’s application. In this case, it
has replaced the weighting of criteria, although it
performs a similar function.
Identifying critical criteria has the purpose of
highlighting those areas where performance must
be acceptable and where positive outcomes are
required. Critical criteria also focused the assessment
from initially considering all relevant factors
(contained in the full list of assessment criteria),
to one where performance over critical elements is
Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering
4 Cooper formatted.indd 29
29
placed under greater scrutiny.
This allows differentiation between those criteria
that are included as part of a holistic and integrated
assessment, but whose impact and performance
are relatively limited, minor or short-term, to those
where a negative performance or realising a major
opportunity or improvement will have lasting and
substantial effects.
The performance of each location option against
the critical criteria identified for the project is an
important component in identifying the preferred
option.
Seventeen critical criteria were identified from the
total of 41 criteria developed for the assessment.
These were then assessed as two categories:
• Primary critical criteria that were seen
as fundamental to assessing the overall
performance of the options. They included long
term impacts and benefits, and key attributes
required for a successful aerodrome location
and operation.
• Supporting critical criteria that were important
either over the short-term, or as an important,
but not fundamental outcome.
Conducting the assessment
The assessment was undertaken by applying
a Sustainability Assessment Framework (the
framework) to the three location options for
Caloundra aerodrome. The framework avoids
computing a single number or score to define the most
sustainable, or preferred, option, as this approach is
overly simplistic and does not adequately represent
the complexities and trade-offs contained in such
projects and decision making.
The assessment adopts an alternative approach by
building a “picture” of performance and sustainability
for the options by assessing each against a number
of components. The “picture” includes graphical
demonstration of:
• the degree of overall balance of performance
between social, environment and economic
elements
• performance assessment against each criterion
taking into account the condition of the
existing environment and the opportunity for
improvement (a rating scale of 1-7)
• determination of confidence in the assessment
according to the presence or absence of recent,
detailed studies (a rating scale of 1-5)
• level of control or influence over the outcome
by the proponent.
As the assessment was designed for the year 2020 and
beyond, assumptions needed to be made about the
Vol 5 No1
30/4/07 3:38:39 PM
 30 “How to assess the sustainability of three options for the location of an aerodrome?” – Cooper
surrounding land use of each location. The economic
needs of the City and community infrastructure
were important factors, as was the contribution
of the aviation industry to both local and regional
economic activity and regional aviation needs.
Aviation forecasts together with the recently released
Southeast Queensland Regional Plan provided
significant information. The latter defined the future
development footprint, and gave some certainty to
future landuses.
3.3 Results
Environment
The environment performance was heavily influenced
by the proximity to the RAMSAR listed Pumicestone
Passage of the alternative site (Option B), and the
consequent risks to the ecological health of this
significant ecosystem. These were tempered by the
expectation that design and management would
reflect leading environment practice to minimise
risk.
Off-site impacts were generally assessed negatively
for the proposed alternative site, although this was
balanced by opportunities for rehabilitation and
affecting environmental improvements in adjacent
areas through weed and feral animal control.
Adjacent areas were particularly relevant as they
have been purchased by Council as a significant long-
term investment in retaining nature conservation
values.
On-site opportunities for protection of native
habitat were recognised at the current site. Some
disturbance to vegetation and fauna was expected
from all options due to either urban development
or expansion of agricultural production. Therefore
constructing or continuing the aerodrome could
play a role in protecting or enhancing the natural
environment on-site, considering an aerodrome
typically covers less than 20% of the site’s area.
Many criteria assessed for the environment were
not seen as critical in the assessment; for example
greenhouse gas emissions, acid sulfate soils and
loss of productive land. This was due to their
limited impact either as a short-term effect (ie. only
occurs during construction phase) or having a minor
contribution within the sub-regional context and when
compared with contributions from other sources.
Economic
The main driver is the opportunity cost of land at the
existing aerodrome site – this has two effects:
1) A substantial flow-on loss of council rates if
the aerodrome continued in its present site,
given the central location and considerable
Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering
4 Cooper formatted.indd 30
development potential of the site; similarly, the
impact of the aerodrome on land values (and
hence rates) in the surrounding residential areas
is potentially significant in the future.
2) Again, given the considerable development
potential of the site, a broad range of higher
value non-aviation uses will be attracted to the
site, generating direct and flow-on employment
and income effects.
The economic contribution of the aviation industry
to Caloundra is small and is likely to continue to be
small. The aviation industry supports less than 1% of
the employment base of Caloundra; the percentage
in terms of value added (the appropriate measure
of an industry’s contribution to a local economy) is
likely to be similar.
Social
The social assessment consisted of diverse criteria,
ranging from bushfire hazard, safety from air
incidents and accidents, and air quality, to access to
community facilities and noise nuisance.
A key point of differentiation between the three options
was the accessibility of the current site, particularly
for pedestrians/cyclists, and contributions to
heritage, character and landscape. Although the
alternative site (Option B) is perceived as isolated at
present, this will largely be overcome by progressive
westerly development extending from current built-
up areas. Construction of major road and rail routes
would increase accessibility, although access by bus
or pedestrian/cycling remain a challenge.
The evaluation picture
Figure 1 illustrates the performance for each of the
41 criteria. Each point on the scatter graph represents
the performance of each indicator across social,
environment and economic elements.
Figure 2 “maps” performance of each critical
criterion for Option A against the proponent’s level
of influence over achieving the outcome.
4 CONCLUSION
The siting and operation of major infrastructure,
such as an aerodrome, has social, environmental and
economic implications. An environmental impact
assessment would examine a preferred site in detail,
while preliminary background studies usually
concentrate upon site-specific technical details and
site feasibility. The broad, holistic and integrated
assessment to select a preferred option prior to more
detailed assessments is a stage that is often ignored,
but one that provides a rational and rigorous basis for
making a more informed initial location decision.
Vol 5 No 1
30/4/07 3:38:40 PM
 “How to assess the sustainability of three options for the location of an aerodrome?” – Cooper 31

Option A – Overall Scater of Performance

High/Positive

Social
Score
Economic
Environment

Low/Negative

Criteria Number

Figure 1: Option A – overall scatter performance for each of the 41 criteria.

Option A
Critical Criteria Performance vs Level of Influence
Positive

Critical

Moderate

Negative
Low
Level of Influence

Figure 2: Option A – critical criteria performance versus level of influence.

Identifying the preferred option was by no means
clear-cut. Each of the options had risks and
opportunities in varying degrees. Assessing the
magnitude, extent and longevity of these was
fundamentally important.
A key factor in arriving at the preferred option was
the careful identification and subsequent assessment
of critical criteria. Of the 39 criteria developed, many
were of minor importance and, while they needed to
be considered as part of the overall assessment, did
not heavily influence the final result.
The 17 critical criteria were pivotal, emphasising
the importance of their careful construction. Each
of the location options demonstrated a balance
in performance against the three sustainability
elements – social, environment and economic. The
preferred option was identified by the more positive
performance against the critical criteria.
The study provided an objective, holistic and
integrated sustainability assessment that was a useful
input to council for making a decision regarding
airport location. This decision was required prior to
proceeding with more detailed impact assessment
work, and gave council a way of evaluating the
disparate social, environmental and economic
factors.
The semiquantitative approach was useful in catering
for those indicators that had a wealth of detailed,
quantitative data, compared with those that had
descriptive, qualitative information. The focus
on those criteria critical to achieving long-term,
sustainable contribution to Caloundra City avoided
an assessment drawn from either a catch-all of the
full suite of possible criteria, or from averaging

Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering Vol 5 No1

4 Cooper formatted.indd 31 30/4/07 3:38:41 PM

 32 “How to assess the sustainability of three options for the location of an aerodrome?” – Cooper

totals to give one “score” for environment, social
and economic. This was seen to be overly simplistic
and mask important performance ratings against
specific elements.
The presentation as a series of assessments from
which a preferred option was identified enabled the
complexities of such decisions to be recognised.
The sustainability assessment framework was
effective in providing a robust, transparent and easily
understood tool for assessing disparate performance
of project options against an agreed set of sustainability
criteria. It enabled an effective translation between
high level attributes of sustainable systems into
more specific criteria tailored to the context of this
specific project.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution to this study of Caloundra City
Council and, in particular, project officers Warren
Bunker and Roma Stevenson is acknowledged. Other
project team members from SKM were Lindsay
Shepherd (economist), David Lloyd (airport planner)
and Dee Elliott (social planner).

SUSANNE COOPER

Susanne Cooper is based in the Brisbane office of Sinclair Knight Merz, an

international, multidisciplinary consulting company. She has over 15 years
experience in natural resource management, sustainability assessments
and environmental planning at the strategic and site specific scales for a
wide range of landscapes. Susanne has proven technical expertise as well
as planning, strategy and policy development expertise, coupled with
recognised high level consultation and presentation skills. She also has
developed proven competency in environmental assessment and reporting,
including sustainability reporting across numerous industry sectors. Recent
achievements in this area have included award winning public sustainability
reports, as well as recognised benchmarking reports for the consultancy
industry. Susanne has worked with sustainability projects and issues across
six industry sectors including the water, energy, chemical and fertiliser,
mining and consulting industries.
Susanne has recently undertaken a sustainability assessment of the
desalination plant on the Gold Coast, Queensland, which on completion,
will be the equal largest in the Southern Hemisphere. She has designed
and presented triple bottom line professional development training for
professionals and government personnel.

Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering Vol 5 No 1

4 Cooper formatted.indd 32 30/4/07 3:38:42 PM