Sustainability Performance Appraisal for Airports Serving Tourist Islands

Abstract

Air transport infrastructure development is crucial for economic and social growth. Regional airports connecting remote, tourist destinations such as islands provide important services and boost global and local commerce networks. Airport authorities intend to maximize expansion while limiting environmental impacts. Regional airports may achieve efficient environmental management by applying sustainable practices and developing long-term strategies. The purpose of this paper is the development of an in-depth comparison and assessment of the environmental sustainability performance of a number of regional airports in terms of the environmental impacts that are caused by their operations and their demand patterns. The evaluation methodology is based on the identification of evidence about the incorporation of key environmental management performance aspects in the environmental reports of the top five regional tourist airports in the Mediterranean islands. The most important finding was that airports, despite requiring an efficient and forward-thinking environmental management plan in order to address the environmental impact that they have, do not prioritize their environmental performance management issues. The conventional wisdom is to provide a framework for evaluating tourist airports’ performance toward environmental mitigation efforts, promote best practices, and benchmark sustainability for regions heavily dependent on tourism.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century global society, the air transport sector is critical to facilitating the transportation of people and products and connecting local to global trade markets, thereby significantly contributing to economic development [1,2]. Most researched scenarios predict that air transport will rise dramatically over the next few decades, with international flights increasing by over 45% until 2040 [3,4]. Due to the restricted capacity, airports will be unable to handle more than 10% of the air traffic demand by 2035, particularly in Europe [5,6]. As a result, the development of air transport infrastructure on a regional and national level is crucial, as it ensures economic growth and social cohesion by improving the connectivity between regions and accessibility to remote destinations [7].

This condition applies even more to regional airports, which are critical components of the EU’s transportation network because they decongest major hub airports, strengthen social affairs by improving accessibility and providing access to essential services such as education and health, and support economic integration by increasing employment [8,9]. According to ACI Europe [10], regional airports in Europe have grown by 30% in the last decade, with 500 airports serving 14,600 routes on 209 airlines to over 700 destinations. They employ 1.8 million people and generate a GDP of €84 billion. Some organizations have attempted to categorize regional airports based on the number of passengers serviced each year or the destinations served [11,12].

The activities that take place at airports have significant economic and social benefits, but they also have significant environmental impacts, most of which are related to climate change. These impacts not only influence the smooth and continuous operation of airports but also the health and quality of life of residents in the surrounding area [13]. As a result, airport operators face a significant obstacle in the form of the need to develop best practices that are both successful and inventive in order to facilitate growth in a manner that is financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable. According to the literature, although there is no commonly agreed definition of airport sustainability, there have been some attempts by organizations and institutions to clarify this idea. Based on this, the vast majority of studies define airport sustainability as the ability of airports to function effectively while preserving a healthy equilibrium between their economic, social, and environmental impacts [6,14,15,16,17].

The purpose of this study was to assess and evaluate the environmental sustainability performance of a group of tourist regional airports in terms of environmental consequences affecting their operation and demand patterns. According to the literature, the most important environmental management performance aspects for airports are emissions reduction and renewable energy production, noise management, and natural resource usage, such as water and waste management. This study’s evaluation approach was based on a review of airport environmental reports and, more particularly, the identification of data about the incorporation of essential environmental management performance features in them.

The novelty of the methodology framework adopted is that it could be a useful and simple tool to assist stakeholders, decision-makers, planners, and managers with regulation policy, pricing policy, and strategic planning to invest in air transport infrastructures and monitor airports’ environmental performance in terms of key environmental management performance aspects affecting their demand patterns. The practical and managerial implications provided to the industry based on the above methodology framework provide a benchmarking of regional airports that serve tourist destinations and are an integral component of high tourist demand, and, thus, the performance of these airports has a direct and necessary bearing on the attractiveness of the region. Comparative benchmarking of these airports is a tool for measuring their environmental performance in meeting their established goals by identifying areas of weakness that can be targeted for improvement and conducting comparisons with other airports that are similar in order to identify opportunities for growth.

2. Literature Background

2.1. Linkage of Air Transport Infrastructure and Regional Tourist Development

Tourism contributes to regional economic development and, in some circumstances, is the main source of income. Despite intense competition and an unstable economic environment, the Mediterranean region’s tourism demand has grown enormously in the previous decade, which has increase the need for air travel and called into question the adequacy of the present infrastructure [1,18]. Tourism and air transport’s high contribution to regional development (RD) has stimulated research and business interest, showing that the final tourist destination is related to the air transport performance, transport infrastructures, and supply chain management. Air transport and tourism are linked for high-demand tourist areas. New kinds of tourism and new destinations impact air transport demand while airports assist regional, social, and economic growth and become commercial entities, producing returns on investment for their shareholders and society as a whole. The interlinkages between the two industries were studied to determine tourism demand patterns and help local market growth [19].

According to the available literature, airports are known to have a significant impact, both economically and socially, on the regions that surround them [2,7]. These effects extend well beyond the job opportunities that are immediately established on-site and indirectly created throughout the supply chain. According to [1], the wider economic benefit of airports, also known as the catalytic impact, results from the effects of air connectivity and its involvement in the development of inbound tourism. Although it is common knowledge that airports positively contribute to both regional development and economic expansion, relatively little research has been carried out to examine how airports’ environmental performance influences an increase in tourism. Regarding the environmental impact of airports on regional development, despite the fact that airports contribute to the economic development of a region [20], many studies have highlighted the negative impact that airports have on the environment and communities that are located in close proximity to them [5,6,19,20].

2.2. Environmental Management Performance Aspects

The environmental impacts of airport activities could limit the operational capacity or growth according to [5]. Efficient environmental management of airports is a major challenge for airport authorities, who want to maximize future growth while minimizing environmental impacts. This challenge relates to sustainable practices and long-term planning, and it is a major obstacle for airports [8,21]. These strategies include aspects that have a global impact, such as emissions mitigation and energy efficiency, and issues that have a locally oriented impact, such as noise management, water management, and waste management [5,22].

2.2.1. Energy Production

Due to their size and constant operation, airports have a large power demand that must be satisfied to power buildings and services. As cornerstones of regional economic development, they should guarantee a stable, inexpensive power supply. The authors of [23,24] indicated that the use of renewable energy in airports has many benefits. The airport’s operating expenses, environmental footprint, and energy supply unpredictability are reduced while regulatory compliance and funding and income opportunities are created. The installation of renewable energy equipment in an airport can reduce carbon emissions without a major power plant.

The average cost of wind and solar electricity has dropped dramatically in recent years and is expected to drop by 59% by 2025 according to the International Renewable Energy Agency [25]. Alternative energy can reduce airport operating costs. When developing green energy options for airports, the focus is on how airports can better use energy and which renewable energy technologies can replace electricity [26]. Airports need power for electrical, heating, cooling, gate electrification, and ground support equipment (GSE). Renewable energy can be used here [23,24]. Solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal heat pumps, and biomass can meet the airport’s energy needs [26]. Solar thermal collectors, which can be placed on existing airport buildings to provide heating and cooling, and microgrid technology are modern but less preferred options for airports due to their cost and difficulties in installation. Solar collectors heat and cool buildings. Airports can be grid-independent with microgrids.

2.2.2. Emissions

The operation of airports is linked to the production of emissions that are detrimental to both the quality of the air and human health. According to [5], global aviation is responsible for approximately 5% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and 9% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that CO₂ and NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions produced by the aviation sector will increase by at least 21% and 16%, respectively, by the year 2040. At the same time, the number of airports in Europe that are committed to reaching a CO₂ neutral status and, thus, are participating in the Airport Carbon Accreditation program has increased dramatically in recent years [27]. Aircraft operation and maintenance (including engines, fuel storage, and other similar systems), airside and landside vehicle emissions, and emissions from the generation of electricity are the primary sources of pollution at airports [28]. As a result of this, the achievement of global targets and the reduction of the infrastructure’s carbon footprint requires airport authorities to take effective measures regarding the monitoring and reduction of emissions produced at the airport. This presents a significant challenge for airport authorities.

2.2.3. Noise Management

In addition to the negative consequences that noise has on the environment, such as the disturbance of biodiversity, noise also has major negative effects on the health and quality of life of people living in the area immediately surrounding the airport [5]. Based on this, noise appears to be the most significant local impact related to the operation of the airport, with aircraft noise accounting for the largest proportion of the overall noise generated in the airport’s facilities. Based on this, effective noise management at airports should include a reduction in noise at the source, noise-related restrictions on aircrafts, and an effective noise action plan and noise monitoring system to facilitate the airport’s operation and meet the needs of the local community [29,30]. In addition, the implementation of a registration system for noise complaints may also contribute to the monitoring of the airport’s influence on the surrounding community’s quality of life and the implementation of more effective noise management strategies.

2.2.4. Water Management

Because airports are dependent on the local availability of water to meet their requirements, effective water management at airports is crucial not only for the airport’s transition to a more sustainable model but also for balancing the water demand in the surrounding area. This is especially important in warm regions that are prone to drought, where effective water management at airports is especially important. As a result, a decrease in water use at airports may be advantageous to the surrounding community, thereby assisting in the improvement of citizens’ quality of life. In addition, effective water management is inextricably tied to a number of rules and procedures addressing water consumption, wastewater treatment, water quality, and water recycling and reuse. These policies and procedures could be implemented by the airport operator. The participation of all interested parties operating at the airport, such as airlines, handlers, and any other operator whose activities significantly affect the water demand, is essential to the successful implementation of these measures; this success is strongly dependent on their ability to be implemented [31]. The author of [22] concludes that airports located in coastal areas have an immediate need for measures to minimize risks related to water shortages, floods, and climate hazards. This is due to the fact that the water levels in these areas are also heavily affected by climate change. Consequently, these airports are in urgent need of these measures.

2.2.5. Waste Management

Large infrastructures, such as airports, produce a huge quantity of garbage due to their constant operation and the numerous services that they offer to customers, making it imperative that these facilities have efficient waste management systems in place. In actuality, airport operations generate a wide variety of garbage, all of which needs to be managed appropriately through a system that is designed specifically for this purpose [32]. A sustainable waste management system should prioritize a decrease in waste production above all other trash-related goals, including recycling, recovery, and disposal. However, this does not mean that other waste-related goals, such as recycling, should be ignored [33]. According to [34], airports are able to run a variety of waste management systems, depending on the aims and goals of the various parties operating at the airport, the total cost of each investment, and the availability of space for the appropriate waste collection and separation (sorting) into solid and liquid and hazardous and non-hazardous waste. These factors are all taken into consideration when determining which waste management system to implement at an airport.

2.3. Environmental Management Performance Evaluation

The development of organizational maturity frameworks could provide a helpful assessment tool for evaluating the processes of an organization and defining the level of its maturity in terms of management performance practices within organizations. This would be carried out by evaluating the organization’s processes [35]. One of the most important aspects of effective and productive airport management is the measurement of environmental performance. The research that has been carried out indicates that evaluation methods come in a wide variety of flavors and can serve a variety of purposes. According to [36,37], benchmarking is a useful method for assessing the performance of different business units within the same business area that share similar characteristics. This is because benchmarking offers advantages in terms of the analysis, comparison, and illustration of the results [36,37]. Specifically, benchmarking is considered to be useful for assessing the performance of business units with similar characteristics.

The purpose of benchmarking is to compare the processes and results of one exceptional organization with those of the organization’s competitors, and identify the processes and results of one organization within the context of a changing business environment [38]. Businesses who want to improve their performance research the best practices in their industry, put in the effort to understand how those practices apply to their operations, and then put those practices into action. Organizations are able to evaluate their progress toward their performance goals and grade themselves based on what constitutes a good result when they have the ability to compare data sets that originate from a defined base.

It is possible for operators to improve a company’s overall performance and efficiency through the use of benchmarking over certain periods of time. The process of improving an organization’s effectiveness includes benchmarking its performance, which is an integral component of this process. Particularly from the viewpoint of an airport, it could strengthen the relationship between certain goals and the requirements of consumers, stakeholders, and the airport itself. In addition, performance benchmarks assist airports in gaining a better understanding of the individual and collective performance of a wide variety of stakeholders, and how these stakeholders are faring in comparison to the standard or target levels [39].

Benchmarking could be a useful tool for both airport operators in the comparison with other airports that have similar traffic characteristics and patterns, and for regulatory authorities in terms of assessing the sector’s performance in the urgent matter of environmental impacts mitigation. This is especially true in terms of the evaluation of airports’ environmental management performance. Moreover, the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) could be adapted for the evaluation of the performance of airports to ensure sustainable development [40,41]. This could be a comprehensive measurement tool in order to help organizations measure the economic, environmental, and social performance by assessing their results over time [42].

3. Methodology Framework

The evaluation in this study is based on a review of the environmental reports submitted by airports and, more specifically, a review of the actions and measures connected to the various components of environmental management performance. In most cases, the successful execution of an efficient environmental management plan at an airport is primarily connected to the measures and actions implemented by the airport operator. However, many measures require the participation of a large number of stakeholders, mostly due to the fact that the environmental consequences brought about by the operation of the airport could be on a scale that is either local, regional, or national.

Evaluation Approach

In order to examine the environmental reports submitted by the airports, four distinct ‘key attributes’ were established, each of which was based on an aspect of the environmental management performance. The ‘key attributes’ that were evaluated were selected on the basis of the literature review that was carried out. These ‘key attributes’ were related to the reduction of emissions, the efficient production of energy, noise management, and the consumption of natural resources (water and waste management).

It is important to note that the evaluation that was carried out for the purpose of this study took into account environmental performance characteristics that are mostly related to measures and activities that are obtained directly from the airport operator. Because of this, the environmental impacts that are caused by activities that are directly regulated or managed by other parties were not taken into consideration in the evaluation. Some examples of these kinds of activities include traffic congestion in the area around the airport and land use planning. In addition, each “key attribute” comprised a number of “sub attributes” in order to deepen the assessment of particular activities and measures that are concentrated on the airport’s environmental management performance characteristics.

Table 1. Evaluation key attributes and sub-attributes.

Key Attribute		Sub-Attribute
1	Emissions reduction and energy efficiency	1.1	Emissions monitoring
		1.2	Emissions reduction actions
		1.3	Renewable energy facilities
		1.4	CO2 neutrality target
2	Noise management	2.1	Noise monitoring
		2.2	Anti-noise infrastructure (facilities)
		2.3	Aircraft noise reduction actions
		2.4	Noise complaints registration system
3	Water management	3.1	Water consumption monitoring
		3.2	Water quality monitoring
		3.3	Wastewater treatment actions
		3.4	Water recycling and reuse actions
4	Waste management	4.1	Recycling system
		4.2	Waste separation system (solid, liquid, and hazardous waste)
		4.3	Waste prevention and minimization actions
		4.4	Waste pricing policy (incentives)

outlines the key attributes and sub-attributes that were considered during the evaluation process.

The evaluation was conducted using a linear scoring method. Typically, a scale of 1–4 was used for scoring the sub attributes and identifying evidence in the evaluated reports [43,44,45]. For the purpose of this study, in order to evaluate the environmental management performance of airports, a scoring system was required to identify evidence about the incorporation of important environmental management performance aspects in environmental strategies and reports. On the basis of this, for the purposes of this study, the sub-attributes were given qualitative ratings on a scale ranging from one to four, with the following criteria being taken into consideration:

• Not present (1): this indicates that there is no indication that this facet has been dealt with in any way.
• Partially described (2): this indicates that there is some preliminary evidence available regarding this element; nevertheless, the steps and actions performed are only partially explained, and the evidence that was acquired is not exhaustive.
• Described (3): this indicates that this sub-attribute is extensively addressed, and there is clear proof that this feature is treated within the airport’s environmental policy.
• Described and fully integrated (4): this indicates that this sub-attribute is dealt with in its whole and that there is quantifiable evidence of this feature within the airport’s environmental policy.

Based on the above, evidence regarding each of the indicated sub-attributes was identified in the environmental reports that were examined and evaluated using the scoring scale.

Then, the average score for each key attribute was calculated on the same scale from 1 to 4 in order to extract comparable results. This score is equal to the arithmetic mean of the corresponding sub-attributes scores, as follows:

$$Key attribute score=\frac{{\sum }_1^n{x}_i}{n}$$

where $x_i$ = evaluation score of each sub-attribute in a scale from 1 to 4; and n = total number of sub-attributes.

Before the evaluation method was conducted as the project’s case study, it was pilot tested. The main purpose of pilot testing was to evaluate the method’s effectiveness and make the necessary corrections and/or modifications. During the pilot testing process, five regional European airport’s environmental reports were reviewed using the evaluation framework. The reports were reviewed by two reviewers, one of whom did not contribute to the development of the project, to check both the clarity of the methodology and double check the results of its implementation. The pilot testing that was conducted identified that the proposed evaluation method and its scoring scale are effectively applicable to airports’ environmental reports, as the sub-attribute scores given by the two reviewers were almost identical.

4. Application

This project’s case study focuses on a group of regional airports. Because there is no widely accepted definition for regional airports in the literature, the ACI (Airports Council International) Europe definition is used for this study, which states that “an airport is considered regional if it is intended to serve short and medium distance routes and point to point destinations” [46]. The sample is concentrated on European airports providing remote, tourist destinations since they present similar characteristics, which may result in the extraction of comparable results. Airports that serve tourist destinations are an integral component of high tourist demand, and the performance of these airports has a direct and necessary bearing on the attractiveness of the region. Comparative benchmarking of these airports is a tool for measuring their environmental performance in meeting their established goals by identifying areas of weakness that can be targeted for improvement and conducting comparisons with other airports that are similar in order to identify opportunities for growth, as stated by [19,20,47].

The airports were chosen based on their geographical distribution in the region’s islands and their annual passenger data. Specifically, a final sample size was determined that was representative of tourist islands located in the Mediterranean section of southern Europe, taking into account airports classified as Group 3 of regional airports [46]. Based on the foregoing, this paper focuses on regional airports serving 5 to 10 million passengers per year in southern European and, specifically, Mediterranean tourist islands. Additionally, the selected airports are located in countries with a high tourist density, reporting up to 200 arrivals per 100 of population, with advanced economy destinations in Europe recording almost 100 arrivals [1]. In 2019, these islands presented high volumes of tourist demand and international tourist arrivals (3.9 million in Cyprus, 2.4 in Ibiza, 4.4 in Crete, 2.7 in Malta, and 5.1 in Sicily), which is strong evidence of the attractiveness of the region, resulting in high research interest in the evaluation of the environmental performance of the airports that serve them.

Furthermore, 2019 is regarded as the reference year for airport passenger traffic, as it was the year preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a significant impact on air transport demand.

Table 2. Key facts of the top five tourist airports in the Mediterranean islands.

* Airport Name	IATA Code	Country	Operator	Pax (Million) (2019)
Larnaca International Airport	LCA	Cyprus	Hermes Airports Ltd.	8.23
Ibiza Airport	IBZ	Spain	Aena	8.16
Heraklion International Airport	HER	Greece	Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority	7.84
Malta International Airport	MLA	Malta	Malta International Airport plc	7.31
Falcone–Borsellino Airport	PMO	Italy	GESAP S.p.a.	7.02

Source: Airports operators’ official websites (accessed: 29 June 2022). * Sorted by their 2019 pax volume.

presents the key facts regarding the airport sample.

5. Evaluation Results

This section presents and analyzes the evaluation key attributes and sub-attributes ratings for each airport, outlining the main findings of the evaluation procedure for the sample of European airports. The sums of the key attribute scores for the airport sample are analytically displayed in Figure 1 based on the evaluation methodology outlined in the preceding sections and the evidence that was identified in the environmental reports for the airports.

According to the information presented in Figure 1, the airports in Malta (MLA) and Ibiza (IBZ) appear to have the best overall environmental sustainability performance. This is primarily due to the fact that these airports are successful in accomplishing the particular goals they set in terms of lessening their impact on the environment and making efforts to put rules into place that move in this direction. This is reflected both in the availability of quantitative data on their performance in terms of the environment and in the level of detail with which these data are presented. On the other hand, the airports with the worst overall environmental sustainability performance are Heraklion International Airport (HER) and Falcone–Borsellino Airport (PMO). The fact that their stakeholders have not prioritized the issue is evidenced by the absence of environmental reports on their environmental performance and the setting of defined and quantifiable targets to lessen their environmental effect.

In general, sample airports that do not publish environmental reports or statistics about their environmental strategy and performance receive the lowest scores. This is because there is either a lack of evidence related to the essential qualities or there is an availability of indictive and generic activities.

As far as the airport sample of this study’s evaluation approach is concerned, this evaluation’s average key attribute scores (1–4) are analytically presented in

Table 3. Evaluation’s average key attribute scores (1–4) for the airport sample.

* Airport Code	Key Attributes Scores				Average Score
	Emissions and Energy	Noise Management	Water Management	Waste Management
IBZ	2.75	2.75	2.00	2.00	2.38
MLA	3.00	1.75	2.25	2.00	2.25
LCA	1.75	1.25	1.25	1.50	1.44
PMO	1.75	1.25	1.00	1.50	1.38
HER	1.50	1.25	1.00	1.25	1.25
AVG score	2.15	1.65	1.50	1.65
Max score	3.00	2.75	2.25	2.00
Min score	1.50	1.25	1.00	1.25

Source: Airports’ environmental plans/reports (2019). * Sorted by their AVG score.

and depicted in Figure 2.

According to Figure 2, in terms of key attribute 1, Malta International Airport (MLA) presents the highest average score. This is strong evidence that it prioritizes the adoption of targets related to the monitoring and reduction of the airport’s emissions and the use of renewable sources for the production of electricity in its facilities, thereby attempting to reduce its environmental impact and be compatible with the applicable European regulatory framework. Additionally, it appears that Ibiza Airport (IBZ) is taking the necessary steps to establish a comprehensive strategy for the reduction of emissions and the improvement of energy efficiency. In addition, it is interesting to note that virtually all of the sample airports take part in the Airport Carbon Accreditation program offered by the Airports Council International (ACI). These airports have pledged to take immediate action in order to achieve a CO₂ neutral status; however, none of them have yet been successful in accomplishing this essential objective.

Concerning the implementation of noise management at airports (key attribute 2), it appears that a significant number of the sample airports carry out noise monitoring. These airports make use of modernized monitoring and recording systems and make an effort to significantly alleviate the annoyance that airport noise causes for local residents. On the basis of this, some of them implement a registration system for noise complaints in order to remain in continual consultation with the local community in order to lessen the negative effects that their noise has on the community. Despite the fact that aircraft noise is the primary contributor to the overall level of noise produced by airports, not all airports have established explicit goals to reduce this type of noise. Last, but not least, very few of the sample airports have constructed anti-noise infrastructure, either within their own facilities or by improving the sound insulation of the areas surrounding them. Ibiza Airport (IBZ) presented the highest average scores in this important attribute while the maximum average score was equal to 2.75. This indicates that the airports that were assessed do not provide measurable evidence for the implementation of a complete and integrated noise management system.

In addition, it appears that none of the airports that were included in this sample have a comprehensive and efficient water management plan in place. This is due to the fact that the majority of airports are only able to monitor the amount of water that is used within their facilities, and they do not invest any additional money in monitoring the quality of the water that is consumed or in the treatment of wastewater. In addition, it appears that very few airports offer financial incentives to its partner operators, such as airlines, to reduce the amount of water that is consumed by their operations and promote the reuse of water in operations such as maintenance. This is a remarkable fact considering that all airports in this sample are located in coastal tourist areas. These areas have a significant demand for water, particularly during the warmer months, and airports in these areas are also strongly impacted by extremely high temperatures. In general, the Malta Airport (MLA) has the greatest possible average score for this third important characteristic (water management).

In conclusion, with regard to the issue of waste management in airports (key attribute 4), almost all of the airports in this sample participate in a waste recycling program, and a significant number of them separate (sort) waste into solid, liquid, and hazardous waste at collection points located within their facilities. This helps to ensure that the waste is managed in an effective and environmentally friendly manner. In addition, some of the airports that were sampled have programs in place and have established concrete goals with regard to the reduction and prevention of waste within their facilities. However, airport operators do not provide financial incentives to those businesses that operate at the airport’s facilities to encourage a reduction and more efficient handling of the waste that is created by such activities. Overall, Malta Airport (MLA) and Ibiza Airport (IBZ) present the highest score in the examined key attribute while the maximum average score is equal to 2.00. This indicates that none of the airports that were evaluated provide quantified evidence for the implementation of a comprehensive and integrated waste management system.

Moreover, the average scores (1–4) for each sub-attribute in the airport sample are analytically depicted in Figure 3.

The overall score for noise monitoring (sub-attribute 2.1) is 2.60, making it the sub-attribute with the highest average score in this sample. This indicates that the airport sample provides comprehensive evidence regarding the implementation of an effective noise monitoring system at their respective facilities. On the other hand, water quality monitoring (sub-attribute 3.2) receives the lowest score (1.00) in the sample, which indicates that, in many instances, there is no evidence provided by the examined airports regarding the incorporation of this sub-attribute in their environmental plans. This is due to the fact that this sub-attribute is the most difficult to measure.

In addition, the sub-attributes that present the greatest average scores in each key attribute are emissions monitoring (sub-attribute 1.1), noise monitoring (sub-attribute 2.1), water usage monitoring (sub-attribute 3.1), and recycling system implementation (sub-attribute 4.1). On the basis of this information, it would appear that the majority of this sample’s airports provide evidence that is more accurate and comprehensive regarding actions and measures linked to the establishment of monitoring systems, although quantifiable evidence is rarely provided.

It is noteworthy that most of the evaluation’s sub-attributes regarding airport’s environmental management performance aspects are directly performed and managed by the airport management authority. This case mostly concerns actions and measures related to emissions reduction and energy efficiency at airports (key attribute 1), noise management at airport facilities (key attribute 2), and resources consumption monitoring (sub-attribute 3.1) and the applied recycling processes (sub-attributes 4.1 and 4.2). Nevertheless, some of the evaluated sub-attributes may be performed and/or managed in cooperation with other parties, such as local and regional authorities or external organizations. These are mostly related to water management (key attribute 3) and waste management (key attribute 4). In this case, the identification of quantified evidence regarding the incorporation of these sub-attributes in airports’ environmental reports is less effective due to the fact that these sub-attributes could be externally contracted or not directly controlled by the airport operator.

6. Discussion

The consequences of the ever-increasing phenomena of climate change pose a significant threat to Europe, particularly the southern section of the continent, which is particularly susceptible to the effects of this threat. The climate of the Mediterranean region, combined with its geographic location, makes the effects of global warming on the day-to-day activities of people and the many economic sectors more severe [48]. The unusually dry summers that have been experienced in the Mediterranean region over the past several years are a prime example of the abnormal change in many climatic parameters that frequently contribute to the occurrence of severe and sometimes life-threatening weather phenomena. It has been noticed that most of the countries in southern Europe are experiencing droughts, higher temperatures, a decline in river flows, and an increase in sea levels. This provides evidence that coastal areas are confronting a series of threats associated with climate disasters [49]. These tendencies have a significant impact not only on people’s health but also on their quality of life and ability to participate in outdoor activities. In this environment, effective management of energy and water resources to solve water scarcity and rising temperatures are critical policy pillars for managing the climate crisis in these areas, as these regions are home to some of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems.

In addition, significant industry sectors, such as the aviation industry, whose operations contribute to increased environmental pollution and, as a result, the effects of climate change, have the potential to play an essential role in the reduction of these effects. In this context, airports, which are essential components of this sector, have the potential to make a significant contribution to this effort by implementing an efficient environmental management plan that is founded on the tenets of environmental protection and a reduction of environmental impact.

The vast majority of this sample’s airports are situated in southern Europe and the region surrounding the Mediterranean and, more specifically, in coastal areas that significantly rely on tourism. As a result, they are significantly vulnerable to the implications of climate change and potential threats and hazards, the majority of which are related to a lack of water, high temperatures, and drier summers, all of which have the potential to affect the tourism patterns in the region and reduce tourist demand. On the basis of this information, these airports have an immediate requirement for an efficient and cutting-edge environmental management plan in order to mitigate the negative effects that they have on the surrounding environment, make a contribution to the preservation of natural resources in the surrounding area, and ensure the continuity and longevity of their operations and development by becoming centers of sustainability. However, according to the findings of the study, the majority of them do not appear to prioritize their environmental performance management challenges. This is evidenced by the fact that they do not take effective actions or implement policies that could lead to measurable results.

According to the reviewed literature and this study’s evaluation process results, the concept of sustainability, which has been a trend for businesses in all industry sectors, and the need for immediate actions against the threat of the climate crisis, which is considered urgent by authorities and organizations at a global scale, have been involved in airport operator’s strategies over the last years. Nevertheless, many actions and measures taken to improve an airport’s environmental sustainability performance often end up as ‘greenwashing’ and not as part of an effective plan. Most airports in this sample are compatible with regulatory frameworks and international Environmental Management System (EMS) standards, such as ISO 14001, stating that minimizing their environmental impacts is one of the top priorities of their strategies. Hence, the lack of measurable actions and specific targets regarding energy autonomy, waste prevention, significant reduction in water consumption, increase in water reuse, minimization of noise production, and reaching carbon neutrality before 2030 slows down the sustainable transition of airports. It would be to the benefit of these airports to rethink their approaches to environmental management, with a particular emphasis on immediate and forward-thinking measures relating to the reduction of emissions, the use of renewable energy sources, the reduction of noise, and the management of water and waste. Even though air transport facilities are only a small portion of the overall aviation sector, shifting their operations in a more environmentally friendly direction could be the linchpin of the aviation industry’s transition to a more environmentally friendly model. When it comes to lowering emissions, airport operators may agree on a shared objective of reaching carbon neutrality by the year 2030. This would put them almost two decades ahead of the global goal, which is outlined in the Paris Agreement. This could be a strong statement coming from a polluting branch, which mentioned that reducing the environmental impact may be possible when appropriate measures are taken in a timely manner. Furthermore, in terms of energy efficiency, achieving energy autonomy at airports by investing in renewable electricity and heat generation facilities could also contribute to meeting the electricity needs of the wider area. Airports have the space available to facilitate the production of electricity for wide consumption, so this is a possibility if energy autonomy is achieved at airports.

In the context of noise management and reduction at airports, the provision of incentives to airlines for the use of new aircraft noise reduction technologies and the restriction of flights during the evening hours could be effective measures to minimize aircraft noise and, as a consequence, the nuisance of the residential areas that are located in close proximity to the airports. In addition, if airports are required to improve the sound insulation of homes that are directly impacted by the noise generated by their operations, the quality of life of those who live in the areas immediately surrounding airports may be improved.

Effective water management, which is directly linked with addressing water scarcity, especially in hot regions such as the Mediterranean, is essential for the sustainable transition of airports and for increasing the amount of available potable water for the activities of the wider area. This is because effective water management is directly linked with addressing water scarcity. Some of the initiatives that could help to decrease water consumption in the airport’s facilities include the treatment and reuse of wastewater for activities connected to maintenance, operation of the cooling system, functions of the toilets, and irrigation. In addition, the systematic monitoring of surface and groundwater in conjunction with the oversight of local authorities may be able to assist in the identification of compounds that may be hazardous to the health of humans.

In conclusion, given that waste prevention sits atop the hierarchy of priorities for airport waste management, the provision of incentives to all entities operating in the airport facilities and users and passengers for the purpose of minimizing waste generated by their activities might be an essential component of an efficient waste management plan. These kinds of incentives can take the form of discounts on the usage of airport services or the application of a specific charge on partner operators who produce an amount of garbage that is in excess of the limitations that are permitted. These actions could contribute to a more efficient waste management system, which would make the process of trash separation (sorting) and recycling at airport facilities more effective.

Given the information presented above, the active participation of stakeholders is essential to the development of a successful airport environmental management plan [50]. Since the many stakeholders each have their own unique set of perspectives and interests, it is important to engage with them individually. Finding common ground in terms of their interests, objectives, and anticipations is essential to securing their participation [51]. The viewpoints and objectives of the stakeholders will be uncovered through an efficient planning process. When utilizing this strategy, it is important to consider both the good and the negative repercussions that each option may have for the various stakeholder groups [21].

7. Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this study was to assess and evaluate the environmental sustainability performance of a group of tourist regional airports in terms of the environmental consequences affecting their operation and demand patterns. According to the literature, the most important environmental management performance aspects for airports are emissions reduction and renewable energy production, noise management, and natural resource usage, such as water and waste management. This study’s evaluation approach was based on a review of airport environmental reports and, more particularly, the identification of data about the incorporation of essential environmental management performance features in them.

According to the evaluation results, despite the fact that the airports reviewed are located in coastal and tourist areas in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, with a high tourist density, which is strong evidence of the attractiveness of the region and, thus, are in need of an effective and innovative environmental management plan to address their environmental impact, they do not prioritize their environmental performance management issues by taking effective measures and implementing policies that could lead to measurable results. Furthermore, airports that do not disclose environmental reports or statistics regarding their environmental strategy and performance appear to show just indictive and generic acts or a complete lack of information relating to the essential criteria under consideration. The evaluation process of this study indicated that in recent years, airport operator plans have incorporated sustainability, which is a trend for businesses in many industries, and the urgent need for quick action against the threat of climate change. Nonetheless, many attempts to increase airport environmental sustainability might result in ‘greenwashing’. Airports would benefit from changing their environmental management strategy to incorporate quick and innovative steps to decrease emissions, use renewable energy, minimize noise, and properly manage water resources and waste. One of the primary goals of this study was to develop a useful tool for stakeholders, planners, and managers to evaluate the environmental sustainability performance of airports, and advance research in this field. Future study on this topic could concentrate on the development of an assessment tool for evaluating airport sustainability performance while also taking operational and financial characteristics and features into account.