4.7 Article

A comparison of sustainability theory with UK and European airports policy and practice

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 237-248

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jema.2001.0469

关键词

airports; aviation; sustainability; sustainable development; environmental management; mitigation; environmental reporting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are three main theoretical difficulties involved in relating sustainability to aviation, and which a research agenda for sustainable aviation needs to address. The first is uncertainty regarding the critical thresholds of global environmental systems. The second is a lack of protocols for allocating permissible environmental consumption shares to, and hence targets for, individual enterprises or sectors. The third is differing value judgements of what natural features should be sustained. For the time being, these difficulties preclude determination of the degree of sustainability or unsustainability of any individual airport with respect to global environmental systems. Nevertheless, at this stage it can at least be said that since most economic activity has an adverse environmental impact, airports with higher throughputs of material and people will tend to be less sustainable than smaller-scale airports given similar technologies and regulatory compliance. This is theoretically supported and illustrated with waste arising as an indicator at reviewed airports. Despite governmental policies of sustainable mobility, there is a disjunction between EU and UK policy on airports and individual airport practice, and environmental sustainability theory. In the UK and EU, airport practice and governmental policy is to mitigate the impacts of aviation, but not at the expense of its aviation growth. This mitigation practice is summarised for the reviewed airports and presented in a framework that accounts for the suggested, interim approach to sustainability assessment. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据