A GREENHOUSE GAS STRATEGIC MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
A planning project submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
School of Urban and Regional Planning
College for Design and Social Inquiry
Florida Atlantic University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
May, 2012
John William Bradford
A.B. in English, Duke University
M.P.A., Florida International University
1
Table of Contents
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………… iv
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. v
List of Acronyms………………………………………………………………… vi
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………. viii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………… ix
Chapters
1.
Introduction……………………………………………………… 1
2.
Substantive Approach………………………………………….. 6
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
6
11
17
24
29
33
Planning Context……………………………………………….
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
World Encouragement to Curb Airport GHG….
Effects of Airport GHG…………………………..
Towards Air Transportation Sustainability…….
Comparable Airport GHG Mitigation Projects…
Wildlife Hazard Mitigation……………………….
Summary………………………………………….
Geography and Location………………………..
Governance Network……………………………
Physical Layout………………………………….
Previous Attempts to Address Problem……….
35
35
39
42
44
Problem Statement and Research Methods………………... 48
a.
b.
c.
d.
Suitability Analysis………………………………
Plant Distribution Mapping……………………..
Cost-Benefit Analysis…………………………...
Summary………………………………………….
ii
49
60
62
65
Chapters (continued)
5.
Analysis and Findings…………………………………………. 66
a.
b.
c.
d.
6.
67
85
89
95
The Plan…………………………………………………………. 96
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
7.
Suitability Analysis………………………………
Plant Distribution Mapping……………………..
Cost-Benefit Analysis…………………………..
Summary…………………………………………
Plan Formulation………………………………..
Mission Statement………………………………
Developing a Budget……………………………
Plan Effectiveness………………………………
Plan Components……………………………….
Future Growth……………………………………
“Vision of Success”……………………………..
The Actual Plan………………………………….
96
98
98
99
100
103
104
106
Conclusions and Recommendations………………………… 107
a.
b.
c.
Discussion………………………………………. 108
Recommendations……………………………... 111
Future Applications…………………………….. 114
References……………………………………………………………………… 118
Appendices
1.
Appendix 1 (Florida Trees and Shrubs).…………………….
125
2.
Appendix 2 (Rankings with no Logarithm)…………………..
161
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1, Map of Municipalities in Broward County, Florida (GIS)………..
36
Figure 2, Map of FLL and Environs (GIS)…………………………………...
37
Figure 3, Governance Network of FLL……………………………………....
41
Figure 4, FLL Study Area (facing westward)………………………………..
43
Figure 5, Berm along South Runway (9R/27L)………………………….....
58
Figure 6, Sea-Grape in Airport Highway Median………………………......
59
Figure 7, Sparse Cypress Trees near North Runway (9L/27R)…………..
59
Figure 8, FLL in the Broward County Land Use Plan (2008)……………..
61
Figure 9, Two-Step Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)……..
75
Figure 10, FLL Plant Distribution Areas…. …………………………………
86
Figure 11, Spacing between Trees and Shrubs……………………………
88
Figure 12, FLL GIS Mitigation Strategic Plan………………………………
106
Figure 13, Two-Step Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (no logarithm)…
167
iv
List of Tables
Table 1, FLL Visitor Statistics 2010………………………………………….
38
Table 2, Florida Tree and Shrub Codebook………………………………...
51
Table 3, Florida Trees and Shrubs (Alphabetically)…………………….....
53
Table 4, Florida Trees and Shrubs (Ranking by Logarithm)………………
69
Table 5, K-Means Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)………..
75
Table 6, Hierarchical Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)…….
76
Table 7, Factor Analysis with Coefficients…………………………………..
80
Table 8, Factor Analysis with Coefficients Suppressed……………………
82
Table 9, Top Twenty Trees and Shrubs……………………………………..
84
Table 10, Acreage for Suitable Regions……………………………………… 87
Table 11, Cost-Benefit Analysis (Discount at 1%)…………………………… 92
Table 12, Cost-Benefit Analysis (Discount at 2%)………………………….. 93
Table 13, Cost-Benefit Analysis (Discount at 3%)………………………….. 94
Table 14, Comparing the Plan with Bryson’s (1995) Ten Pointers.………. 105
Table 15, Florida Trees and Shrubs (Ranking with no Logarithm)……...… 162
Table 16, K-Means Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (no logarithm)..…... 167
Table 17, Hierarchical Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (no logarithm)… 168
v
List of Acronyms
AOA
Airport Operations Area
BCAD
Broward County Aviation Department
CAP
Climate Action Plan
CBA
Cost Benefit Analysis
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment (Sweden)
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement (United States)
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EU
European Union
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FAR
Federal Air Regulations
FDOT-A
Florida Department of Transportation-Aviation
FID
Feature Identification Number (related to GIS)
FLL
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport
FROI
Financial Return on Investment
FS
Florida Statute
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
GIS
Geographical Information Systems
HC
Hydrocarbons
vi
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
IMO
International Maritime Organization
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
O2
Oxygen
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NTSB
National Traffic Safety Board
PM
Particulate matter
RPZ
Runway Protection Zone
S FL
South Florida
SROI
Sustainable Return on Investment
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds (determined by EPA)
vii
Executive Summary
Greenhouse gases at large international United States airports like Fort
Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL) present health hazards for
those working and living near the airport. In order to mitigate such gases at FLL,
it is proposed that airport management first explore carbon sinks using a list of
recommended trees and shrubs to sequester carbon in the air through
biochemical processes and photosynthesis. Specifically, native South Florida
trees and shrubs can be planted virtually wherever permitted by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), the Florida Department of Transportation-Aviation
(FDOT-A), and the Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD).
A suitability analysis was completed to find optimal native trees and
shrubs for the project. Further analysis using a sustainable return on investment
(SROI) was also implemented in order to determine whether this greenhouse gas
(GHG) mitigation project met specific standards and could be useful as a
strategic plan (see Chapter 6) wherein trees and shrubs would be planted
strategically around the airport notwithstanding the expansion of the southern
runway (9R/27L). It is recommended that this plan be implemented and that
government officials, business owners, and the public at large be included to
ensure its proper implementation.
viii
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the advice and information provided
to him by the Broward County Aviation Department including but not limited to
Mr. Jamie McCluskie, Mr. Dan Bartholomew, Mrs. Helena James-Rendleman,
Ms. Annabelle Cumberbatch, Ms. Marie Irvin, and Mr. John Pokryske. Kindest
thanks are also extended to Mr. Sergey Kireyev, Ms. Birgit Olkuch, and Mr.
Aaron Smith with the Florida Department of Transportation-Aviation (FDOT-A),
and to Ms. Amy Anderson with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The author also wishes to thank in earnest Professors Ann-Margaret
Esnard, Yanmei Li, David C. Prosperi, Diana Mitsova-Boneva, and Department
Chairman Jacobus Vos for their outstanding advice and enlightening
recommendations which led to the eventual development of this plan. Final
thanks go to Florida Atlantic University and the stellar employees of the
University who successfully maintain the School of Urban and Regional Planning
DeGrove Library and related student services, and who have provided
exceptional advice and information during the author’s years of study at FAU.
ix
Chapter One
Introduction
Airport greenhouse gases (GHG) present a hidden danger to human life in
and around the airport operations area (AOA). Whether you are an airport
employee or a visiting passenger, you will be exposed to some of these gases.
These gases come chiefly from jet engine and ramp vehicle exhaust. The extent
to which these dangerous gases may exist is not limited to just airport runways; it
also impacts homes and businesses in the immediate vicinity. Researchers at the
University of California-Davis (Trendowski, n.d.) and also at the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management (2003) found that these airport GHG
hazards are known to deplete the oxygen in the air and create adverse levels of
nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), carbon
monoxide (CO), and other toxins in the air. Schlenker and Walker (2011)
discovered that a one standard deviation increase in airport air pollution can lead
to an additional one million dollar increase in hospitalization costs for respiratory
and heart admissions for people living within ten kilometers of one of the twelve
largest California airports. When one considers the cumulative costs and physical
effects of airport GHG at the global scale, the impact can be staggering. It is
clear that the world’s lack of attention to GHG and related health threats
necessitates airport GHG mitigation.
1
The resolution of this problem is not without real challenges such as safety
and cost. The research in this report does not offer an overall remedy for all
airports, nor does it present a panacea that addresses GHG universally,
including those pollutants that come from nearby factories. Moreover, this
planning project report discusses how a carbon sink can reduce GHG toxins in
and around an airport like Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL)
using photosynthesis and an optimal variety of native flora planted at the airport.
The following questions naturally emerge. Are native species truly ideal for this
purpose, or should random choices of non-native species be permitted? Where
should these plants go? Should airports plant trees and shrubs just anywhere, or
are there regions such as the AOA which preclude the planting of certain foliage
(such as near the tarmac)? Furthermore, do the benefits outweigh the costs of
implementing such mitigation projects? If the net effect yields more oxygen and
fewer GHG, how do these benefits calculate into dollars and cents versus the
overall costs of buying trees and shrubs, planting them, and then maintaining
them through periodic landscaping? Finally, how can FLL implement these ideas
into a simple, cost-effective plan that can be replicated elsewhere?
Consideration of these questions should encourage airport planners in the
U.S. and other parts of the world to pursue similar steps to mitigate airport GHG.
As Greenskies (2004), Duchene and Fuller (2011), and Moussiopoulos et al
(1997) report, airports such as Amsterdam, Zürich, and Athens respectively have
2
already implemented similar procedures, ideas, and methods to curtail airport
GHG and served as models for similar projects elsewhere. The importance of
sharing the success of plans such as these could lead to improved air quality
worldwide and could yield better discoveries in GHG mitigation overall for
scientists and urban planners, not just for airport planners at FLL. Regardless,
information gleaned from the European models will be utilized herein to serve as
a foundation for mitigating GHG at FLL while other regional ideas from the United
States will be considered as a backdrop for the actual airport GHG strategic
mitigation plan presented at the end of this report.
This report is divided into seven chapters which culminate with an actual
strategic plan for implementation. The report begins with this first chapter—
Chapter One—entitled “Introduction,” wherein the effects of GHG are presented
briefly. This information leads to Chapter Two, “Substantive Approach,” which
provides a literature review on the topic. Subtopics of the literature review include
world encouragement to curtail GHG, effects of GHG such as costs to society
and impact on human health and the environment, plans for sustainability
including a discussion of electric ramp vehicles and roof top gardens,
comparable airport GHG mitigation projects which feature airport fees as a
means of recouping the costs of the impact of GHG on society, and a brief
overview of wildlife hazard mitigation which becomes necessary when one
considers attractants such as seeds and berries to birds and other animals.
3
Chapter Three, “Planning Context,” discusses Broward County, Florida
with specific reference to the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport.
Maps are provided with a brief introduction to the region which includes various
statistics about the community at large and about FLL, such as passenger and
freight reports. Additionally, literature is reviewed pertaining to the Broward
County Aviation Department (BCAD)—the authority over FLL—which includes
their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) Advisory Circulars, which specify what can be placed in
the vicinity of an airport; and other plans which are already in effect for FLL.
This review leads to the project’s methodology in Chapter Four, “Problem
Statement and Research Methods,” which describes the suitability analysis for
native South Florida trees and shrubs which can be used in the airport carbon
sink and which could offer best carbon sequestration. The current arrangement
of trees and shrubs at the airport is also discussed with criticism included for
those plants surrounding the airport which are non-native or which do not
maximize carbon sequestration. Additionally, financial data and mapping of the
airport using geographical information systems (GIS) are presented for the costbenefit analysis and illustrative purposes respectfully. The results of the analysis
appear in calculated form in Chapter Five.
4
Chapter Five presents the “Analysis and Findings” and reveals the
findings of the suitability analysis, the distribution mapping, and the cost-benefit
analysis for the planting of native trees and shrubs in the vicinity of FLL. The
results appear in tabular and map form with a brief discussion of the impact of
each component on the project at large. This information will determine whether
the GHG strategic mitigation plan is feasible or not feasible to implement at FLL.
Chapter Six presents a strategic plan to be implemented by the airport
entitled “A GHG Strategic Mitigation Plan for FLL,” which develops the planting of
trees and shrubs into a workable plan that can be implemented by the airport
over time, or otherwise used for future study. Airport planners at FLL were
consulted for their advice. One hopes the plan will lead to fruition and that the
airport and immediate community may benefit considerably from such a GHG
strategic mitigation plan.
Finally, Chapter Seven, “Conclusions and Recommendations,” presents
the conclusions that arise from the report and relates how the plan will benefit the
immediate community and the world by and large. This chapter also presents
ideas for future study and discusses how the plan connects to the greater
planning context, such as the contribution to the world goal of reducing GHG.
5
Chapter Two
Substantive Approach
The research discussed in this chapter pertains to the necessity and
importance of airport GHG mitigation and useful ideas and projects that can
enhance the strategic mitigation plan for FLL. The following topics are included in
the survey of literature that follows: world encouragement to curb airport GHG
(including airline organizations), effects of airport GHG (such as the impact on
human health and who is responsible), plans towards sustainability, comparable
airport GHG mitigation projects (such as carbon sinks), and wildlife hazard
mitigation (because of plant attractants in carbon sinks). This information
appears as subchapters presented below.
World Encouragement to Curb Airport GHG
The increase of GHG from sources such as automobile and airplane traffic
creates hazards for human life. According to Kump et al (2010; p.2), greenhouse
gases are those which warm the Earth’s surface by “absorbing outgoing infrared
radiation” and ultimately reduce sharply the amount of oxygen (O2) left for us to
breathe. In Advances in Urban Ecology, Alberti (2009; p. 168) cites urban
development as the key factor in the increase of GHG and suggests that
6
reduction of fossil fuel combustion emitted into the air is the best way to control
toxins and prevent air pollution. Bartle (2006) states that airplane GHG are also
believed to contribute considerably to global warming. Therefore, a need
presently exists in which to reduce airport GHG globally and on a massive scale.
Airplane traffic generates considerable amounts of air pollution and GHG.
For instance, Blair Tindall of the Sierra Club (2003) discovered that airplane
pollution creates 17.45 ounces per passenger per mile while automobiles
contribute 9.45 ounces and Amtrak train service only 3 ounces. Granted that
more automobiles exist than airplanes, these figures can be staggering when one
considers the cumulative cost to society of airplane and automobile traffic. For
this reason, Earth Talk suggests that public transportation is the greatest
alternative, and since a greater number of cars currently travel the Earth’s
roadways, airplanes—which sandwich in hundreds of passengers into a form of
mass transportation—actually serve a better form of transportation than cars or
trains—especially for long distances (About.com, n.d.). Therefore, the Sierra
Club and Earth Talk would concur that we must keep air transportation and make
some serious strides toward mitigating airport GHG and curtailing air pollution.
This realization has spread across the globe and has been discussed
significantly by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and the Kyoto Protocol. According to
7
Oberthür (2003), the United Nations has been pressuring the ICAO and the IMO
to regulate emissions by controlling “bunker fuels,” or aircraft and ship fuel.
Although many nations—some of which are economically challenged and unable
to comply readily with the request—have balked at the issue for political reasons,
the ICAO and the IMO are considering detailed measures in compliance with the
Kyoto Protocol. Oberthür (2003; p.196) cites “emission trading, voluntary
agreements, operational measures, and emission-related levies” as means by
which to reduce aviation GHG. Nevertheless, the author complains that the ICAO
and the IMO are not behaving proactively, and that most nations are ignoring the
situation rather than realizing the effect of airport GHG on climate change.
In contrast to what Oberthür opines, Mendes and Santos (2008) argue
that the European Union (EU) has reacted positively to the challenge of reducing
airplane GHG. For instance, the EU has levied environmental taxes on air
transportation through an EU “emissions trading scheme” (Mendes and Santos,
2008; p.189). The goal of these measures is to reduce the most significant toxins
from EU air pollution including sulfur oxides, sulfur acid, and CH4. However,
projected figures for 2050 show that CO2, contrails, soot aerosols, and
stratospheric H2O will actually double in some cases. Mendes and Santos (2008)
propose an emissions charge to target these air toxins based on travel
destinations—such as Paris to London or London to Tokyo—based on aircraft
type and “price elasticity,” such as the nature of travel (business or pleasure).
8
According to Mendes and Santos (2008), the EU takes the prospect of increased
GHG in 2050 very seriously and strives to reduce GHG by tying in the externality
to the economic costs of air travel.
Where has the EU put these tax funds? Fern (n.d.) reports that the EU has
invested its resources heavily into forests. While the idea may appeal to those
who view forests as a panacea to mitigating GHG, Fern believes that reducing
deforestation is no excuse for ignoring the need to reduce “emissions from
burning fossil fuel” (Fern, n.d.). In other words, the EU can build as many forests
as it wants, but if the EU does not control the source, airport GHG may continue
to increase, and the net effect on society will be felt all over the world. The world
looks to the EU for guidance and leadership, and if the EU cannot reduce
emissions as Oberthür (2003) and Mendes and Santos (2008) have suggested,
the problem will only get bigger.
This argument is why Marcotullio (2003) studied globalization as it
pertains to Asia-Pacific cities. The Pacific rim is growing dramatically and may
eventually rival the Western world by 2050. However, at the time that Marcotullio
(2003) published his findings, Asia-Pacific cities did not have a problem with
environmental issues such as GHG so much as the EU and the United States
possessed. Much of the Asia-Pacific rim was clearly not as developed, but it may
be so now. Plans for airport projects such as Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong,
9
Kansai in Osaka, Inchon in Seoul, and Dong Maung in Bangkok underscore the
possibility for environmental problems including an increase in airport GHG in the
next few decades (Marcotullio, 2003; pp.226-7). Regardless of city size, these
airports represent potential for “reterritorialization of capital” and may transfer the
focus of attention away from EU and United States destinations (Marcotullio,
2003; pp.226-7). The question is, what will the world do about controlling GHG in
places like China? If the EU and the United States are having a hard time
coordinating GHG policy in their own countries, how can developing nations like
those in Asia and the Pacific rim control GHG effectively in theirs?
Nonetheless, researchers including Nederveen, Konings, and Stoop
(2003) and Bassett and Shandas (2010) theorize that there is potential in the
making for transportation innovation and GHG management. Nederveen et al
(2003) suggest that future technology may yield better airplanes that could
reduce GHG emissions around the world. Likewise, Bassett and Shandas (2010)
believe that climate action plans are the answer, and that entities such as
airports can do considerably more to control GHG emissions than cities are
presently doing. Regardless of what other theorists may have said, Nederveen
(2003) and Bassett and Shandas (2010) remain optimistic about the world’s
ability to mitigate airport GHG in some fashion or form.
10
In summary, ICAO and IMO have maintained the need to respond to
airport GHG with due vigilance. While organizations like Fern belittle the
achievements of the EU and the United States, it is important to bear in mind
that—as Mendes and Santos (2008), Nederveen et al (2003), and Bassett and
Shandas (2010) explain—technology and contemporary planning are leading the
way for a better tomorrow. Moreover, wherever there is potential for change in
the direction we are heading with GHG, one can only hope that the world can be
saved effectively from the negative picture Oberthür (2003), Kump et al (2010),
Alberti (2009), and Tindall of the Sierra Club (2003) have painted. For this
reason, we look forward to a sustainable approach to handling airport GHG
worldwide, given the myriad effects on communities and their inhabitants.
Effects of Airport GHG
While air transportation is known to create a number of externalities
including noise and air pollution, airport GHG greatly damage the environment
and animal and human life in a myriad ways. For instance, what human beings
breathe into their lungs from being near an active aircraft could pose a threat to
the lungs and the heart. In “Urban Planning and Air Pollution Control,” Kurtzweg
(1973) was one of the first scientists to identify airplane-borne chemical factors
which can impede overall health including the consumption of nitrates, sulfuric
compounds, and carbon monoxide. Herndon et al (2005) found similar results in
11
their study entitled “Particulate Emissions from In-Use Commercial Aircraft”
wherein particulate matter (PM) are identified as toxins that are dangerous to the
health of human beings and other life forms in general.
It is now generally known that there is a plethora of toxins that can be
found in and around any airport. Peter Cork with “Fairfield Residents Against
Airport Noise” (1999; p. 1-3) lists the following toxins commonly found at major
airports: freon, methyl bromide, dichloromethane, dichloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone,
isobutylaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, benzaldehyde, butane, pentane, hexane,
dimethyl disulfide, phenol, octane, anthracene, dimethylnapthalene, flouranthene,
naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, sulfites, nitrites, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen trioxide, nitric acid, sulfur oxides, sulfur
dioxide, sulfuric acid, urea, ammonia, carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate
matter (PM10, PM2.5). With prolonged exposure to a combination of these
chemicals, Cork states that various symptoms can form: “asphyxiation, cancer,
conjunctive irritation, coughing, drowsiness, dyspnea, flushing, headache, heart
disease, kidney damage, lung disease, lymphoma, mental depression, muscle
weakness, nasal effects, pulmonary irritation, pulse rate decrease, skin and eye
irritation, systemic irritation, tumors, vomiting, and wheezing” (1999; pp. 1-2).
Although difficult to prove, the resultant conditions from exposure to airport toxins
are clearly dangerous to the health of human beings.
12
Consequently, medical experts have taken great interest in the subject.
For example, Lynne Eldridge, M.D., believes that air pollution in places such as
airports produces deadly toxins that may contribute to lung cancer through
“oxidative stress,” or damage to cells of the body through oxidation (Eldridge,
2011). However, Beverly Cohen et al at the New York University School of
Medicine Institute of Environmental Medicine (2008; p. 119) agrees with the
findings that airport-borne PM is dangerous to human health, but the effect of
toxins downwind from airports on residents in the study was not “remarkable.”
This discovery parallels findings in Larry West’s article (West, n.d.) that United
States cancer deaths are on the decline for the first time in almost eighty years.
Nevertheless, West concedes that heart disease figures have not changed.
These authors present conflicting views on the current status of airport
GHG with relation to human health. All would agree with Kurtzweg (1973) that
toxins from aircrafts exist in some shape or form, but Cohen (2008) and West
(n.d.) would argue that complaints about the severity of these effects on human
health are not evident. Some might say that difficulty exists wherein doctors do
not know whether lung cancer from planes might be mixed with cancer from
smoking or other sources including genetic makeup (West, n.d.). Therefore,
Eldridge (2011) and Herndon et al (2005) warn against the dangers of particulate
matter from airplane exhaust and the recirculation of toxins at the airport, and
they also indicate that additional dangers from airport GHG may exist which can
13
affect the environment and create a greater toll on human health and society. For
instance, airport GHG have other direct and indirect effects on airport operations.
For instance, the prospect of human illness directly affects local businesses in
and around the airport. Should airport employees such as ramp agents become
sick from toxic fumes directly from aircraft, they oftentimes leave the company or
claim health benefits to fight infections or general ill health. These problems
ramify into costs for the company to hire new workers either to supplement the
labor of disabled workers or else to replace these workers who either leave or
take long periods of time off from work. If one considers the arguments of
Kurtzweg (1973), Eldridge (2011), or Herndon (2005), the likelihood exists that
such problems on the airport operations area (AOA) could exist.
These airport GHG effects are not limited to ramp workers alone. Pilots
and co-pilots often come into contact with engine exhaust during routine aircraft
checks before takeoff. Airport GHG can then drift into terminal buildings and
around buildings into loading points and parking garages. Likewise, people who
venture in and out of these terminal buildings including sky caps, airport staff,
and passengers breathe the same toxins that pass into these buildings directly
from the AOA. Airport GHG travel in and around the airport, and toxic fumes can
sometimes spread to neighboring sites including homes and local businesses
that surround the airport (Cohen, 2008).
14
Businesses could be held liable someday for emitting air pollution from
aircraft engines including airport GHG although there are very few cases that
have been prosecuted to date. The problem resulting from this situation is that
the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff suing the businesses to prove that airport
GHG and PM are directly responsible for illness or death of the individual.
Regardless, it is within the best interests of airlines and other related companies
to work vigilantly to find ways to reduce air pollution—specifically to mitigate
airport GHG with toxic substances such as NOx and CO—in order to avoid losses
because of sick employees or passengers who might litigate over exposure to
these air-borne toxins.
Overall, one must consider what the effect might be of airport GHG on the
whole environment. One must ask then who is responsible: the airline or related
businesses, the company that constructs the aircraft, the airport authority, or
even the FAA. To track airport GHG as they emanate from the jet, scientists may
someday utilize studies to track toxins from jet to lungs. Already MorenoJiménez and Hodgart (2003) and Theophanides and Anastassopoulou (2009)
are using geographical information systems (GIS) to map the effects of airport
GHG on the whole environment. While it remains unclear who is directly
responsible for each molecule as airport GHG diffuse, there is presently a
science for studying the effect of airport GHG on the whole environment—not just
human beings, but plants and animals as well.
15
Inasmuch as the impacts of airport GHG on health and society are such
critical topics for scientific research, it is clear that room exists for an integrated
study into the net effect of airport GHG on the whole environment. The authors’
findings underscore the adverse effects of airport GHG and the probable
increase of health problems as a direct result of an increase of air pollution over
the last half-century. Moreover, they invite inquiry into the overall effects on
human health and economic concerns such as health costs and responsibility.
Granted that very few studies have been made of air pollution on plants and
animals and other aspects of the environment, science may yield new
discoveries into the effects of airport GHG on all flora and fauna. Regardless, the
research and scholarship reviewed clearly indicates that airport GHG cause more
damage than good to society, and that human health may be adversely affected
by exposure to chemicals such as sulfuric compounds, NOx, and CO.
16
Towards Air Transportation Sustainability
The impact of airport GHG on human health begs the question whether or
not aviation is currently sustainable, and what plans can society develop to
change a negative outcome. Earth Talk (n.d.) suggests that air transport is wholly
justifiable and useful for mass transportation. However, some authors such as de
Sherbinin, Schiller, and Pulsipher (2007) argue that air transportation is
contributing far too much to climate change than previously reported by past
research. The authors found that megacities such as Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro,
and Shanghai have experienced more air pollution from the 1960s to the 1980s
from airplane exhaust than any other type of fossil fuel combustion (de Sherbinin,
2007; pp. 49, 55, 60). As a result, steps are now underway to reduce certain
kinds of air freight traffic globally.
De Sherbinin et al (2007) would agree with the Sierra Club (2003), as
discussed earlier, that air traffic GHG statistics parallel those for automobile
traffic. However, de Sherbinin et al would not agree with Earth Talk (n.d.) that we
should keep air traffic status quo simply because air travel is a useful means of
mass transportation. Moreover, de Sherbinin et al (2007) hold that air
transportation in general is not wholly sustainable for the years to come—not just
from the aspect of airport GHG and its effect on human life, but also related
topics including shortage of aircraft fuel and overall size of industry. Researchers
17
such as Viton (1989) anticipated that these factors would come to play early in
the next century despite measures taken to make vehicles of the future—
including aircraft—more fuel efficient and environmentally-sound.
On the other hand, Knoflacher (2006) and Daley (2008) have examined air
transportation planning for sustainability and would disagree greatly with
researchers like de Sherbinin. Knoflacher (2006) believes that the problem is not
the airplane per se; more and more fuel efficient aircraft are most definitely the
way of the future. But as Knoflacher (2006) expounds, the key to sustainability is
what to do about the everyday use of the modern car. De Sherbinin (2007)
suggests that cars generate more GHG than aircraft. In fact, Daley (2008)
believes that air transport could be the secret to sustainable development in the
future for regions where automobiles and ships cannot gain easy access.
Although airport GHG clearly pose a problem, society simply cannot live without
air transportation.
Nonetheless, Bartle (2006) warns Knoflacher and Daley on this point by
citing that current trends reported in “The Sustainable Development of U.S. Air
Transportation” are pointing towards significant problems for the future. These
factors may ramify into and possibly influence sustainability of air transportation
in other regions on the globe. Bartle (2006; p.214) encourages reducing the use
of air travel and increasing taxes on air travel to reduce the “external costs
18
caused by air pollution.” Bartle’s (2006; p.215) best solution is to reform critical
institutions globally—something that will combine environmental, economic,
financial, and social factors, and that will address natural resources, standard of
living, and elimination of poverty.
Development of these concepts may reduce dependence on fossil fueled
aircraft while better airplanes are constructed. Regardless of how long it may
take to implement these measures, Bartle (2006; p.222) insists upon continuation
of fuel taxes, “balancing mobility goals with resource preservation,” financing
incentives to build better airports, conducting more cost-benefit analyses,
studying emissions reductions, taxing international flights for creating GHG,
enforcing the Kyoto Protocol, and enhancing the informational bonds among the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA, and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). One would hope that these initiatives will lead
the world—especially the United States—to a more sustainable future for aviation
and global travel.
Sharing such optimism, Dodman (2009) discusses sustainability briefly in
“An Analysis of Urban Greenhouse Emissions Inventories.” Dodman found that
with the exception of China, the most densely populated regions—such as
Tokyo, London, Toronto, or New York City—are presently using less energy for
“private passenger transport” and emit less GHG (Dodman, 2009; p. 193).
19
Alternatively, airports are more fuel efficient and so is most public transportation.
Dodman suggests that measuring GHG per region is one of the best ways to
curb airport GHG and to promote a healthy competition among cities to see who
can mitigate airport GHG the best (2009; p. 197). In this respect, and although
current airport GHG levels are not sustainable, it is wise to suggest methods
such as monitoring airport GHG around the world as a means of encouraging
world cooperation pertaining to airport GHG mitigation. Granted that
technological innovations are important, Dodman cites behavior changes—such
as less frequent use of air transportation—as another important key to a
sustainable future for aviation in general.
Many of these authors suggest a number of ways by which airports can
become sustainable in the years to come. Knoflacher (2006), Bartle (2006), and
Dodman (2009) would agree with the Burbank Airport authority in California that
sustainability is obtainable through a number of steps (Burbank, n.d.). For
instance, Burbank has sponsored such improvements as electric ground service
equipment, diesel parking lot shuttle buses, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) hangars, waste recycling and landfill-avoidance
projects, water recycling and catch basins, faucet aerators, and energy-efficient
cooling systems. Camfil-Farr (n.d.) add to this proposal a means by which to
reduce smog that enters back into the air terminal, namely the introduction of
particle filters (“Hi-Flo,” “Opakfil Green,” “Ecopleat Green,” “Camcarb Metal,”
20
“Camcarb Green,” and “GDM 300”—just to name a few). By using monitoring
devices such as the Camfil-Farr’s “Gigacheck” to detect nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and carbon compounds, it is possible to prevent airport GHG from
entering the terminal building.
These ideas have been discussed extensively during the past decade and
have led to interesting sustainability projects in United States airports such as
Seattle, Washington and Austin, Texas. For instance, Seattle, Washington
spearheaded several initiatives to reduce airport GHG that have yielded a certain
degree of success (Rice, 2010). Through territorialization of carbon and the use
of carbon sinks (described later), Seattle is managing GHG in places where
smog and air pollution usually accumulate, such as the Seattle-Tacoma “SEATAC” International Airport and the Boeing landing strip used for testing aircraft.
Seattle’s action plan to meet airport GHG reduction objectives has led to energy
conservation and improved transportation planning, thereby yielding greater
potential for a sustainable future with considerable success for overall airport
GHG mitigation (Rice, 2010).
Similarly, the community of Austin, Texas has achieved great success with
its climate action plan (Muraya, 2008). Addressing the need to reduce airport
GHG in order to avoid global warming, the city voluntarily complied with the
Kyoto Protocol to (1) convert more to solar energy, (2) embrace carbon neutrality
21
to avoid such a large carbon footprint, (3) build more LEED-like energy-efficient
buildings, (4) increase regional forestation wherever possible, and (5) promote
green technology and more GHG-efficient transportation (Muraya, 2008; p. 32-3).
As a result of this project, Austin, TX leads the nation with GHG mitigation
strategies that have ultimately reduced those GHG found at the regional airport.
These ideas promote considerable GHG reduction and show that sustainability is
possible for airports worldwide.
In order to formulate a workable plan for airport GHG mitigation and for
achieving sustainability for the project, some of the following ideas have been
suggested: using electric ramp vehicles such as the push-back tow and the
baggage wagons; making efficient use of outdoor lighting (i.e., use only essential
lights at night); planting green roofs to reduce the effects of a heat island around
the airport; utilizing efficient air cooling and heating systems inside airport
terminals; and planting foliage around the airport to absorb the GHG that
accumulate around the airport. The latter idea, known as carbon sequestration, is
normally achieved through carbon sinks—some of which are natural and others
which are man-made(Kump, Kasting, & Crane, 2010, p. 332). Carbon sinks are
reservoirs that absorb CO2 via biochemical processes and photosynthesis by
plants. Examples of carbon sinks include the ocean and some forested regions,
such as those located around cities and possibly airports.
22
These ideas can be found in many climate action plans (CAPs) as a way
to mitigate airport GHG. However, without addressing the net effect of jet engine
exhaust on the tarmac, a CAP will be found lackluster. It is of paramount
importance for any CAP to control the CO, CO2, NOx, and PM such as sulfuric
compounds that builds up around the airport—not so much as a matter of energy
efficiency, but to reduce air pollution and the buildup of breathable toxins.
Regardless of the reason, CAPs are useful and recommended as a means by
which to improve oxygen levels—something jet engines require as do human
beings on the ramp, inside the terminal, and on the plane. In light of this idea,
businesses have a vested reason to support a sustainable vision for the airport.
In review of these concepts, society will likely pursue those goals which
benefit everyone by and large. Therefore, to reach a certain sustainable future,
airport planners must take all steps necessary to reduce airport GHG which
include embracing electric vehicles and green roofs in addition to considering
carbon sinks around the airport. If everyone can safely breathe the air, and if
plants and animals are not harmed in the process, then one can say that plans—
including GHG mitigation plans—are beneficial to society. Such a plan to mitigate
airport GHG at FLL would ultimately lend itself to a broad sustainable vision for
the immediate airport region which will be discussed later on in further detail.
23
Comparable Airport GHG Mitigation Projects
One of the most significant developments in aviation which will impact
airport GHG in the future is the rise of the aerotropolis. According to John
Kasarda (2009), an aerotropolis is an airport like Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport or
Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport wherein normal airline functions of the airport also
include hotels, apartments, shops, business offices, information technology
complexes, wholesale markets, religious centers, and recreational complexes.
The aerotropolis means that more people will come to the airport to work and
become exposed to the adverse effects of airport GHG. Giuliano and Small
(1991) identify airport centers like Los Angeles’ LAX as job magnets for
commerce and industry which can effectually bring in even more people—
workers, visitors, and consumers—from overseas.
The net effect of having so many people clustered around airports
underlines the importance of reducing airport GHG in order to reduce health
hazards wherever possible. As Prosperi (2008) would argue in “MIA: Miami
International Airport or Miami Innovation Area,” the responsibility for protecting
systems of airports like that of Miami International Airport, Palm Beach
International Airport, and FLL, lies with the urban planner. Planners must
examine the potential of larger-sized airports, such as the aerotropolis, and
determine how safe the working environment truly is. As Bruinsma, Gorter, and
Nijkamp (2000) explain, businesses will not relocate willfully to a smog-filled
24
location if they can avoid it. For instance, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport offers a
number of amenities including intermodal networks, but without addressing the
needs of businesses that wanted to move in, the airport could have become a
veritable ghost town (Bruinsma, Gorter, & Nijkamp, 2000).
To make a large international airport like Schiphol attractive as a “greenfriendly” commercial center, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, the airport authority,
engaged upon a massive airport GHG mitigation plan that involved planting of
clustered two-meter high birch trees airside and landside of the airport (2010).
Furthermore, the authority proposed to monitor airport GHG with special monitors
placed strategically around the airport(Schiphol, 2010). MacHaris et al (2007)
also cite recent success with electric vehicles towards a program of airport
sustainability. These factors combine into an effective plan that could be used as
a model for other airports around the world, and they show that even though the
airport has expanded greatly in size since the construction of Schiphol as an
aerotropolis and world business center, room can be left for green construction,
green energy, and breathable air.
It is true that Amsterdam is also revered for its railway shipment systems
and the fact that GHG can be mitigated by transferring passengers and freight to
electric rail systems rather than plane, bus, truck, or automobile. Caris et al
(2008) noted that freight rail has been very popular, but waterway transport is just
25
as advantageous if not more practical in a country such as the Netherlands which
is surrounded by water. The significance of the Dutch model draws attention to
the similarity of Miami International Airport and FLL to Amsterdam Schiphol. The
two United States airports could clearly benefit from an airport GHG mitigation
plan based on the Schiphol model. Moreover, Amsterdam’s overall success has
led to its notoriety as the “green airport,” or the airport to copy—as MacHaris et al
(2007) imply. Airports such as Zürich, Switzerland; Stockholm, Sweden; and San
Francisco, California have developed plans similar to the Amsterdam Schiphol
Airport model for GHG mitigation.
Stockholm and Zürich are two cities whose airports have developed
remarkable GHG mitigation plans that have met with considerable success.
Soneryd (2004) relates that Swedish airport regulation is similar to the system in
place within the United States. For instance, there is an FAA and there is also an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that functions like an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). Through communication between the Swedish
government and the airlines, people’s voices have been heard concerning
environmental protection and people’s rights. In another study, Lidskog and
Soneryd (2000) identify CO2 buildup as a critical component of most EIAs and
stressed the importance of developing an ecologically sustainable transport
system that benefitted all areas of transport including plane and rail. As a result
of that study and similar studies, plans were drawn to make Stockholm’s main
26
airport, Arlanda, environmentally-conscious with energy efficient ramp vehicles
and carbon sinks placed strategically around the airport. To offset the impact of
air travelers in Arlanda with respect to their carbon footprints, Gössling et al
(2009) report that Swedish airport authorities proposed a voluntary carbonoffsetting scheme to compensate airplane emissions. Even though Arlanda
initially was not willing to participate in this project, other airports including
Gothenburg shared positive results from carbon-offsetting (Gössling et al, 2009;
p. 7). As Soneryd and Gössling suggest, Sweden’s dedication to the airport
environment points to bold new ideas that can serve for as a useful model for
airports elsewhere in the world.
In light of these initiatives at Amsterdam Schiphol and Stockholm Arlanda,
one might say that the calculations of airplane exhaust to the environment are a
very sensitive topic. Lu and Morrell (2001) cite a number of European airport
programs similar to Sweden’s that have tried voluntary offsets and environmental
charges to passengers’ airfare, including Zürich and Amsterdam Schiphol.
According to Cabanatuan in the San Francisco Chronicle (2009), some American
airports like San Francisco International Airport have also developed programs
by which passengers can pay for the cost of CO2 emissions during their flight
from San Francisco by charging the offset voluntarily by credit card art a kiosk
located inside the air terminal. This opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases is
popular, but as Lu and Morrell (2001) report, the net revenue from these projects
27
does not compensate nearly enough compared to the total cost to the
environment. In other words, the emissions charges on flights to and from
Amsterdam, Stockholm, Zürich, or San Francisco do not go far enough to
counteract the increase of externalities like greenhouse gases at these airports.
In conclusion, the growing size of airports into entities such as Kasarda’s
aerotropolis highlights the need to control airplane emissions at a larger scale.
Large airports like Amsterdam Schiphol require special attention because they
attract a number of multi-national corporations and bring with them countless
business travelers from all over the world. As a result, Amsterdam Schiphol,
Stockholm Arlanda, and Zürich Messe have gone “green”—that is to say, these
airports have embraced electric ramp vehicles and carbon sinks as a way to
reduce greenhouse gas buildup at the airport. To monitor the air quality levels at
Amsterdam Schiphol, the airport authority has placed special air monitors
strategically around the airport and dutifully studies the aviation-related GHG in
the region. Stockholm and Zürich copied the Amsterdam model and built carbon
sinks around the AOA. Moreover, Amsterdam, Zürich, and San Francisco have
gone so far as to either charge for the GHG reduction directly to air fares, or
solicit voluntary donations at kiosks at the airport like San Francisco. Clearly,
airports in the future will need to address GHG mitigation through one or several
of the ideas used in these airport models.
28
Granted that these airport models maximize landcover with trees and
shrubs, one may wonder what the long term effects may be on animal life as
well. Should trees and shrubs bear fruit, what hazards can one expect near the
runway? How can airport planners avoid possible airstrikes?
Wildlife Hazard Mitigation
Human beings share their environment with other creatures that often
depend on the same resources including air and water. Granted that there is
usually plenty of space for human beings and other creatures such as birds,
conflict between the two can occur when a plane is taking off from a runway near
an estuary or an area fraught with animal life. Ultimately, one hears of birds being
sucked into aircraft engines, such as the case of US Airways Flight 1549 from
New York LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina on January 15, 2009.
These instances of bird strikes are becoming far too common not just in the
United States, but overseas as well. For instance, on November 10, 2008, there
was a Ryanair Boeing 737 from Frankfurt to Rome which had to make an
emergency landing after bird strikes knocked all engines out of commission and
forced a landing wherein the landing gear collapsed (Shea, 2009). These cases
underscore the importance of finding a balance between caring for the
environment and safely maintaining the needs of human beings.
29
One can easily see how the number of conflicts could rise over the years
as the quantity of aircraft in the skies increases. This situation begs the question
of what to do with saving animal and possibly even human lives in the future.
Human and animal safety necessitates mitigation through monitoring and taking
steps towards increased wildlife management in the vicinity of airports. As
Embry-Riddle University’s Wildlife Management Studies have reported on these
activities, airlines and airports—in other words, both public and private sectors—
have taken an active interest in the maintenance of wildlife near airfields and
associated populated urban regions (Embry-Riddle University, n.d.). Wildlife
management has included everything from manipulation of the targeted habitats
using predators to repelling or even killing those hazards that present a danger to
aircraft.
Several methods are now implemented to control wildlife hazards in a safe
and humane way. Of course, the easiest way to mitigate wildlife hazards is to
reduce the number of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in the vicinity and to keep
foliage surrounding the airport trimmed back as much as possible. Animals like
deer like to hide in thickets, and birds tend to congregate on tree limbs. If an
airport has too many of these elements near the runways and airport terminals,
Airport Wildlife Consultants (2011) suggest that animals will grow too
accustomed to living around aircraft and venture too close to jets during takeoff
30
and landing. To address these issues, Airport Wildlife Consultants (2011) has
conducted wildlife surveys and has appropriately designed wildlife management
plans which use mechanical control of the habitat, chemical control to dissuade
animals from living near airports, and population control with lethal and non-lethal
measures to limit the number of animals from living near airports. The success of
Airport Wildlife Consultants shows that in case of an emergency, such as the
congregation of birds and other wildlife near New York’s JFK International
Airport, immediate response is necessary to mitigate wildlife hazards of any kind,
whether bird or mammal.
There are certain species which are most hazardous to aircraft and which
can be found near many airports in the United States. According to Airport
Wildlife (n.d.), the top twelve hazardous animals include—in order of greatest
number of strikes—white-tailed deer, vultures, Canadian geese, cranes, ospreys,
cormorants and pelicans, ducks of all kinds, hawks, eagles, rock doves, gulls,
and herons. Of these twelve species on the wildlife hazard mitigation list, many
such as geese, ducks, doves, gulls, and herons are known to thrive in the John
U. Lloyd State Park habitat located just within a mile of the North Runway of FLL.
While it is true that these animals do not come regularly into contact with aircraft
landing and taking off at FLL, there is considerable concern over the planting of
sea grape trees and other flora which may attract some birds to the landscaped
regions along the outside rim of the AOA with the promise of fruit and places to
31
roost. Inasmuch as airports in other locations of the United States, such as New
York’s LaGuardia and JFK Airports, have experienced more trouble with less
foliage around each respective airport, one can easily see the immediate danger
of planting fruit-bearing trees like the sea grape and similar bird-friendly shrubs
around air terminals and active runways at FLL.
With regard to wildlife management surrounding FLL, one notes that the
habitat surrounding the airport provides amply for the food and water of birds and
even some mammals. These creatures will be drawn to improper landscaping,
such as dense underbrush or fruit-bearing trees, which often looks attractive to
airport visitors, but even more so to hazardous wildlife. Embry-Riddle stresses
the need of airports like FLL to consider carefully the local habitat and nearby
parks and wildlife refuges, such as John U. Lloyd State Park (Embry-Riddle
University, n.d.). Consequently, it is of paramount importance to plan airport
growth and expansion warily by controlling land uses so that hazards such as
bird and mammal strikes can be avoided.
The FAA has monitored wildlife strike activity over the years and has
issued Advisory Circulars that specify what wildlife hazard mitigation procedures
must be put into place. Granted that birds can often be seen near FLL—
especially near the berms along the South Runway, the FAA reports that as of
August 27, 2011, virtually no wildlife strikes have occurred within the vicinity of
32
FLL and its runways since the database was inaugurated on January 1, 1990
(FAA, 2011). This information comes from the Wildlife Mitigation database on
which details are kept pertaining to the airport, airline, aircraft type, engine type,
list of damage, and species hit. Moreover, the FAA has not required FLL to
maintain a Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan. The ramifications of the FAA’s
decision are discussed further in the analytical section of this report.
Summary
World organizations including ICAO and the EU have encouraged the
reduction of GHG from airports. These GHG contribute considerably to the
detriment of human health through the accumulation of CO, CO2, NOx, and PM
involving sulfuric compounds. People who consume these GHG include airport
employees and even passengers who frequently visit the airport. Responsibility
for mitigating airport GHG lies with the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers, and
even the airport authorities including the FAA.
Plans for sustainability which include electric ramp vehicles, roof top
gardens, and airport sinks are underway in most places around the world.
Popular destinations such as Amsterdam, Stockholm, Zürich, and San Francisco
have instituted airport GHG mitigation projects which feature airport fees as a
33
means of recouping the costs of mitigating GHG. An additional problem not
routinely discussed includes wildlife hazard mitigation, which becomes necessary
when one considers how carbon sinks such as shrubs are also attractants that
lure birds and other animals too closely to aircraft and their engines.
34
Chapter Three
The Planning Context
The focus of this report is on the reduction of airport greenhouse gases at
the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport. FLL is an international
airport that serves all of Broward County, Florida and is named for the county
seat, Fort Lauderdale, and the next closest municipality to the airport, namely
Hollywood. There is one other important airport located in Broward County which
caters principally to private aircraft, propeller freight, and air charters, specifically
the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Both airports are located centrally on the
eastern seaboard along the coast of Florida.
Geography and Location
FLL can be found in Broward County, Florida approximately twenty-five
miles due north from downtown Miami. People from all over the world come to
Fort Lauderdale for conferences and to visit the beaches. Broward County covers
some 1,220 square miles, which computes to approximately 766,016 acres, and
covers thirty-one municipalities, some of which include: Cooper City, Coral
Springs, Dania Beach, Davie, Deerfield Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Hallandale
Beach, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Pompano Beach, Southwest
35
Ranches, Sunrise, Tamarac, Weston, and Wilton Manors. The map in Figure 1,
created using ArcMap Version 10.0, shows Broward County with FLL next to the
communities of Dania Beach, Hollywood, and Fort Lauderdale. Further detail of
the airport can be seen in Figure 2 including Snyder Park and the community of
Melaleuca Gardens along the southern ridge of the airport.
Figure 1: Map of Municipalities in Broward County, Florida (GIS)
Data Sources: Broward County GIS and Florida Geographic Data Library
Projection: NAD83 HARN State Plane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet
Map designed on 2-8-12 by John Bradford. FAU research only.
36
Figure 2: Map of FLL and Environs (GIS)
Data Source: Broward County GIS
Projection: NAD83 HARN State Plane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet
Map designed on 2-8-12 by John Bradford. FAU research only.
Visitor data and airport statistics for 2010 appear in Table 1(sunny.org,
2011). The table shows the importance of FLL and the traffic it generates. Over
twenty-two million people were processed through the airport in 2010 which
netted tens of millions of dollars for the local economy. Accordingly, FLL is a
veritable money-maker that features hundreds of domestic and international
flights daily. Unfortunately, these same flights can create clouds of GHG on the
runway and the AOA, and affect the lives of thousands of people every day
(Schlenker & Walker, 2011). As previously discussed in Chapter 2, GHG can
travel beyond the AOA and reach curb-side and even inside the air terminal.
37
Table 1: FLL Visitor Statistics, 2010
10.84 million
2.4 million
22.4 million
621
36
1.8 million
$8.69 billion
$36.5 million
TOTAL 2010 VISITORS (includes
international and domestic passengers
who disembark and do not transit
through the air terminal)
INTERNATIONAL VISITORS
(disembark at FLL and do not transit)
Canadian: 835,947
Latin American: 558,426
European: 364,952
Scandinavian: 226,143
United Kingdom: 181,947
Other Foreign visitors: 236,748
TOTAL AIR PASSENGER
ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES
AT FLL (IN 2010) (includes passengers
who transit through airport and do not
disembark at FLL)
DAILY AIRLINE
ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES
SCHEDULED AIRLINES AT FLL
BROWARD COUNTY POPULATION
(IN 2010)
TOTAL VISITOR EXPENDITURES
(IN 2010)
2010 TOURISM GENERATED TAX
REVENUES derived from
5% bed tax collected by area hotels
Source: sunny.org, 2011.
38
Governance Network
The interaction and interdependency of key government offices highlight
the dynamic forces at play that provide governance over airport activities at FLL.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework and layers of airport authority which
govern each office and in effect regulate others. This unique system of checks
and balances ensure that no one department or agency has more influence over
airport issues than another. For instance, the FAA has considerable pull over
airport regulated size, while FDOT-A can specify runway clearance dimensions
that are not already determined by the FAA in one of their Advisory Circulars.
Additionally, BCAD can argue how those clearance dimensions are to be
interpreted locally as a matter of practicality.
The checks and balances system works efficiently among aviation-related
agencies and bureaus, but BCAD must also answer to the EPA, which comes
under a different federal umbrella. The EIS (FLL, 2008) drafted to the EPA in
order to answer air quality issues also specifies regulations for wetlands and
noise mitigation. These problems are not routinely addressed by the FAA or any
other agency except the EPA. Conflict among these different government
agencies and departments can sometimes lead to Congressional debate and
eventual resolution in a legislative decision, or else it results in court action.
39
Nevertheless, according to the tenets of our system of government, the ultimate
governing power rests with the general public.
The net effect of this interplay among government offices at FLL results in
decision-making for the people by the people. Granted that residents of
Melaleuca Gardens (see Figure 2) challenged FLL recently on the issue of
expanding the southern runway, measures were taken to mitigate the impact of
aircraft engine noise, and plans have been made to follow through with runway
expansion. Borrowing from this model of cooperation, Quay (2010) in
“Anticipatory Governance” supports getting all parties involved with controlling
carbon emissions—especially at sensitive GHG locations like airports. In this
way, FLL stands to benefit by getting all agencies, business owners, and the
general public involved in the process of creating a practical carbon sink to
mitigate airport GHG.
40
Figure 3 (Created by John Bradford at FAU, 12-6-11):
41
Physical Layout
FLL is strategically located near the ocean to utilize the easterly winds and
easy access routes along the eastern coast of the United States. The airport
makes use of two principal runways—the northern runway (9L/27R) and the
southern runway (9R/27L), the latter of which will be expanded in the next few
years. There is also a diagonal runway which is not normally used and which will
be removed in conjunction with the expansion of the southern runway. These
runways are true hubs for GHG accumulation, for planes generate tons of CO,
CO2, and NOx even as they taxi to the runway or wait for departure at the edge of
a runway. Granted that the air off the ocean may help to dissipate some of the
accumulations of GHG at FLL, airport GHG still collect near the runways,
taxiways, and air terminals.
The aerial view of FLL in Figure 4 gives depth to the air terminals which
surround the parking garage and rental car facilities located in the center of the
image. One can see that foliage presently exists around the airport and that the
islands between taxiways and runways consist of mostly short grass. Currently,
the airport has pockets of native and non-native trees and shrubs which appear
by the terminal buildings, roadways, and berms on the south side of the airport.
Many of the extant trees and shrubs require much upkeep and landscaping and
do not maximize the utilizable space in and around the airport to reduce GHG.
42
Their design was chiefly to beautify the airport surroundings, and in the case of
the Cypresses, to absorb rainwater that accumulates in ditches near the
bioretention pond by the northern runway (9L/27R). These plants do not
adequately address the needs of an airport carbon sink.
Figure 4: FLL Study Area (facing westward)
Source: fllareal.jpg at longtermparking.com, 2011.
In addition to constructing a carbon sink at the airport, planting more
native species of South Florida trees and shrubs will create a vital north-south
link of greenery to promote and foster oxygen distribution and to reduce GHG
throughout the South Florida region. According to Bueno et al (1995) in “South
Florida Greenways: A Conceptual Framework for the Ecological Reconnectivity
of the Region,” the vitality of South Florida depends on ribbons of ecological
fabric to be interwoven within the communities. These ribbons include strips of
43
public space such as the Everglades and slivers of park space and trees such as
the network of greenspace along Park Road in Broward County, Florida. These
“greenway” networks distribute air more effectively than mere planting of trees in
one’s backyard and create a necessary ecological balance with drainage canals
and reservoir levees (Bueno et al, 1995; p. 247).
Previous Attempts to Address Problem
With its wide open spaces and buildup of GHG, FLL is in great need of
ecosystem management. The problem exists not just with the buildup of carbon
emissions, but also with the effect on water and greenways throughout South
Florida. These issues generate a prevalent concern that South Florida’s
environment is suffering, and that large GHG-producing systems like FLL are
clearly to blame. The arguments here are what to do about managing GHG at
FLL, and how can the use of greenspace in the way of a carbon sink enhance
this plan? FLL has tried to address the problem before, and reference is made
thereto in FLL’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (FLL, 2008). Under the
relevant heading of “Air Quality” in the EIS, FLL states that it has met the
following ten goals:
(1) “pollution controls devices or systems;”
44
(2) “paving and maintenance” to reduce dust;
(3) “application of water or dust suppressants;”
(4) addition of water or asphalt to suppress dust on unpaved roads;
(5) securing PM from roadways “and other paved areas;”
(6) “landscaping or planting of vegetation;”
(7) utilization of filters or hoods to control PM;
(8) “confining abrasive blasting where possible;”
(9) “enclosure or covering of conveyor systems;” and
(10) “limiting the height of open storage piles.” (FLL, 2008; pp. 6.B-2,3)
In light of these recommendations, FLL has sought to control air quality
around the AOA and other locations. Some of these other locations include the
“terminal curbfront,” the “north side of the airport beyond Interstate 595 east of
Snyder Park,” the “off-airport parking lot east of Interstate 95,” and the residential
communities south of Runway 9R/27L, namely the homes of Melaleuca Gardens
(FLL, 2008; p. 6.B-35). See Figure 2 for location of these sites. A “pollutant
dispersion analysis” was conducted and included in the EIS with the timeframe of
2009 through 2020 in order to prove that the Broward County Aviation
Department was indeed addressing the issues of air pollution and airport GHG
(FLL, 2008; p. 6.B-35). This analysis had ten scenarios presented on page 6.B-6
including existing conditions in 2005, and the best alternative (D2) shows that the
airport hopes to reduce GHG by 2020.
45
The presentation of data according to Alternative D2 in the EIS shows that
with the exception of anticipated southern runway construction aimed for 2015,
the airport should be able to maintain aircraft GHG emissions such that by 2020,
the total pollutant emissions of CO, NOx, SOx, PM, and similar GHG from aircraft
should reach 4,510.32 tons per year (FLL, 2008; p. 6.B-34). Granted that FLL’s
expected quantities are not ideal, it should be noted that annual emissions for
ground service equipment, roadways, parking garages, and other sources
combined contribute to 7,499.18 tons per year, which is sixty-two point four
percent (62.4%) of total FLL airport-related GHG emissions by 2020 (12,009.50
tons per year). Nevertheless, Alternative D2 is still better than no action at all.
Of all the initiatives FLL has pursued, the one factor which could decrease
GHG emissions the most is item (6), specifically “landscaping or planting of
vegetation” (FLL, 2008; p. 6.B-2). If the airport were to maximize arable land
cover with native trees and shrubs and to concentrate on the use of a carbon
sink to reduce GHG at FLL, these goals mentioned in the EIS could be met with
better response. As it were, FLL has planted many trees and shrubs strategically
around the airport to beautify surroundings with native and non-native species.
One purpose of this research is to determine the optimal variety of native species
of tree and shrub and to locate ideal locations around the airport which would
46
benefit the most from a carbon sink. More on this topic appears in the following
two chapters.
47
Chapter Four
Problem Statement and Research Methods
Information reviewed in the preceding chapters emphasizes how GHG
may be accumulating at FLL insofar as a veritable carbon sink does not presently
exist by which to reduce the toxins in the air. It was established in Chapter 2 of
this report that GHG present a danger to the environment and to human life.
Granted that FLL’s EIS does address some of these concerns, there is no
strategic plan in place as of yet to mitigate the airport’s GHG. Models of other
airports’ plans—including those of Amsterdam, Zürich, and Stockholm—have
been reviewed for the practicality of establishing a similar one at FLL.
Additionally, San Francisco’s voluntary carbon off-setting program has been
studied for the possibility of applying such a program at FLL. However, it is clear
from the literature and from conversation with FLL’s Airport Planning Manager
Dan Bartholomew (Oct 19, 2010) that FLL presently does not have in place a
plan with which to address airport GHG.
The problem with FLL’s GHG is how to mitigate safely and cheaply the
toxins that come from engine exhaust at the airport. Granted that roof top
gardens can be constructed on the roofs of some airport terminals, and that
diesel-burning ramp vehicles can be replaced with electric engines, the question
remains: what else can be done to reduce GHG from airplane exhaust?
48
Therefore, for the purpose of formulating an effective research question, one
must ask: can a carbon sink and carbon sequestration safely and cheaply reduce
the GHG at FLL through the use of native trees and shrubs around the airport?
Moreover, where should this vegetation go—i.e., solely by active runways or else
at places landside near airport buildings?
Suitability Analysis
Microsoft Excel and SPSS/PASW were used to identify those trees and
shrubs which meet recommended Florida standards and would be useful for
constructing a carbon sink (see Appendix 1 for full detailed listing). Plants were
clustered for optimized qualities, such as exposure to full daily sunlight and
summer flooding and rain. The codebook used for this purpose is presented in
Table 2, and the alphabetical listing of all possible native trees and shrubs with
all measurable qualities appears in Table 3. Qualities were somewhat
subjectively assigned a categorical number—0, 1, or 2—based on the desirability
of each attribute or quality. For instance, numbers of zero are considered
optimal—such as a plant’s ability to resist direct sunlight—while numbers of one
and two are considered least preferred (in that order)—such as a plant’s poor
ability to withstand direct sunlight. The only two non-categorical variables used in
this study include the name of the plant and its height.
49
Categorical numbers were then multiplied by a different computed weight
for each construct using a base of 10 instead of a base of 100. For example, a
computed weight of 0.9 (in base 10) is equivalent to a computed weight of 9% (in
base 100). These weights were also determined somewhat subjectively, but
clearly illustrate the desirability of each key construct. As an example, the height
of plants is perhaps the most important variable and was therefore, given a
computed weight of “1.” However, the preferred closeness of certain plants to the
same species would be considered the least important construct in this model,
and therefore, the construct was given a computed weight of “0.4.”
The summation of weighted numerical values in each row of data was
computed and tallied to the extreme right-hand side of the spreadsheets (see
Chapter 5 for calculations). Height for each row was calculated with a computed
weight of 10% (1.0 of 10.0 in the following tables) and was transformed later on
using a logarithm of each value in order to make large and small numbers less
pronounced. The choice between the two formats yields one with fewer outliers,
namely the one with logarithms. Trees and shrubs were then ranked from most
functional in the proposed carbon sink at FLL (sums closest to zero) to most
ineffective (sums of largest number). More detail on each species of tree or shrub
referenced in this study appears in Appendix 1. The findings of this suitability
analysis appear in Chapter 5.
50
Table 2: Florida Tree and Shrub Codebook
Construct
Computed
Weight (%)
Computed Weight
(as of base 10)
Range (weighted value for ranking purposes)
1.
Name
Common name of tree or shrub species
2.
Water
9%
0.9 of 10.0
High (1.8), Medium (.9), or Low (0) requirement for standing water (seasonal)
3.
Soil
9%
0.9 of 10.0
Sand, Any, or Mixed (0); Scrub or Marsh (.9), or Forest or Swamp (1.8)
preferred soil-types
4.
Foliage
7%
0.7 of 10.0
High (0), Medium (.7), or Low (1.4) density of leaves
5.
Pruning
5%
0.5 of 10.0
High (1.0), Medium (.5), or Low (0) implies frequency of pruning
6.
Fertilize
4%
0.4 of 10.0
Medium (.8), Low (.4), or None (0) indicates frequency of fertilization
7.
Sun
8%
0.8 of 10.0
High (0), Medium (.8), and Low (1.6) tolerance for sun
8.
Proximity
4%
0.4 of 10.0
All (0) means plant grows anywhere, while Like (.8) means plant prefers
to grow near its own kind
9.
Climate
8%
0.8 of 10.0
All or S Florida (0), C Florida (.8), or N Florida (1.6) indicates the region
the species would ordinarily prefer
10.
Wind
7%
0.7 of 10.0
High (0), Medium (.7), or Low (1.4) tolerance of gales
51
Construct
Computed
Weight (%)
Computed Weight
(as of base 10)
Range (weighted value for ranking purposes)
11.
Wildlife
8%
0.8 of 10.0
High (1.6), Medium (.8), or Low (0) desirability among animals for nest-making
12.
Berry
8%
0.8 of 10.0
Yes (1.6) or None (0) implies production of berries or seeds
13.
Flower
5%
0.5 of 10.0
Yes (1.0) or None (0) yields insect and bird attracting flowers
14.
Fruit
8%
0.8 of 10.0
Yes (1.6) or None (0) indicates that the species produces some kind of fruit large
enough to attract small animals (e.g., opossums, raccoons, birds, and deer)
15.
Height*
10%
1.0 of 10.0
Interval numbers ranging from zero to 100 feet which determine the standard
height of the species at which it matures and can be easily pruned if necessary
(*10% and logarithm of each species’ height is compared. See Chapter 5.)
16.
Sum
100%
10.0 of 10.0
Ratio numbers calculated by adding each row across
52
Table 3: Florida Trees and Shrubs (Alphabetically)
Name
Water
Soil
Foliage
Pruning
Fertilize
Acacia
Sun
Proximity
Medium
Sand
Medium
Low
None
High
All
American Elm
Low
Sand
High
High
None
High
Like
Bald Cypress
High
Swamp
Low
None
None
High
Like
Beachcreeper
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
High
All
Beautyberry
Low
Sand
Low
High
None
Medium
All
Bigflower Pawpaw
Medium
Scrub
High
None
None
High
All
Bitterwood
Low
Marsh
Medium
Medium
None
High
All
Black Ironwood
Medium
Mixed
High
High
Low
Medium
All
Black Mangrove
High
Marsh
High
High
None
High
Like
Buttonbush
High
Swamp
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Buttonwood
Low
Sand
High
Medium
None
High
All
Chapman's Oak
Low
Sand
High
Medium
None
High
All
Cherokee Bean
Low
Sand
High
High
Medium
High
All
Coastal St. J.-W.
Medium
Marsh
High
None
None
High
Like
Coastplain Willow
Medium
Marsh
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Coco Plum
Medium
Scrub
High
Medium
None
High
All
Coconut Palm
Medium
Sand
Low
Medium
Medium
High
All
Coin Vine
High
Swamp
Medium
None
None
Medium
Like
Dahoon Holly
High
Marsh
Low
Medium
None
High
Like
53
Climate
All
Florida
N
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
Wind
Wildlife
Berry
Flower
Fruit
Height
High
Low
None
None
None
15 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
None
20 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
50 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
3 feet
High
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
6 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
6 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
Yes
20 feet
Low
High
Yes
Yes
None
30 feet
Medium
High
None
None
None
50 feet
High
Medium
None
Yes
None
12 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
5 feet
High
Low
Yes
None
None
10 feet
High
High
None
Yes
Yes
16 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
3 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
None
25 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
10 feet
High
High
None
Yes
Yes
20 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
Yes
5 feet
Medium
High
None
None
Yes
25 feet
Deerberry
Low
Sand
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Devil's Wlkg. Stick
Medium
Any
Medium
High
None
High
All
Doctorbush
Low
Sand
Medium
High
None
High
All
Dwarf Live Oak
Medium
Scrub
High
High
None
High
Like
Elderberry
Low
Mixed
Medium
Low
None
Medium
All
Ficus
Medium
Sand
High
High
None
High
All
Fiddlewood
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Firebush
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
High
All
Florida Privet
Medium
Sand
High
None
None
High
All
Florida Rosemary
Low
Scrub
Low
None
None
High
All
Geiger Tree
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Gray Nicker
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
None
Medium
All
Graytwig/Whitewood
Medium
Sand
High
Medium
None
High
Like
Ground Oak
Medium
Scrub
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
All
Groundsel
High
Marsh
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Gumbo Limbo
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
High
All
Indigo Bush
Medium
Marsh
Low
High
None
Medium
All
Inkberry
Medium
Marsh
High
Medium
None
Medium
Like
Jamaica Caper
High
Scrub
High
Medium
None
High
All
Jungle Plum
Low
Mixed
Medium
High
None
Low
All
Lancewood
Medium
Any
Medium
High
None
Medium
Like
Lantana
Medium
Sand
High
High
None
Medium
Like
54
C
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
N
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
High
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
5 feet
Medium
High
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
3 feet
High
Medium
None
Yes
None
3 feet
Medium
High
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
10 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
15 feet
High
High
None
Yes
Yes
10 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
8 feet
High
Medium
None
None
None
5 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
25 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
10 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
15 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
1 foot
High
Low
None
None
None
7 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
25 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
3 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
None
4 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
15 feet
Low
High
None
Yes
Yes
40 feet
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
25 feet
High
Low
Yes
Yes
None
5 feet
Laurel Oak
Any
Any
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
All
Lignum Vitae
Medium
Sand
Medium
Low
None
High
All
Live Oak
Medium
Sand
Medium
High
None
High
All
Loblolly Bay
Medium
Marsh
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Like
Mahogany
Low
Sand
Medium
Medium
None
High
Like
Marlberry
Low
Mixed
Medium
Medium
None
Medium
All
Myrsine
Medium
Any
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Myrtle Oak
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Paurotis Palm
High
Sand
Medium
Medium
Low
High
All
Persimmon
Low
Swamp
High
High
None
High
All
Pigeon Plum
Medium
Mixed
Medium
High
Low
Medium
All
Pineland Acacia
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
None
High
All
Pineland Snowberry
Low
Forest
High
Low
None
Medium
Like
Poisonwood
Low
Any
Medium
High
None
Medium
All
Pond Apple
Medium
Marsh
Low
None
None
High
All
Queensdelight
Low
Scrub
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Like
Red Mangrove
High
Marsh
High
High
None
High
Like
Red Maple
Low
Sand
High
Medium
None
High
Like
Red Mulberry
Low
Marsh
Medium
None
Medium
Medium
All
Reticulate Pawpaw
Medium
Scrub
High
None
None
High
All
Rouge Plant
High
Sand
High
High
Medium
Medium
All
Roundpod St. J.-W.
Medium
Marsh
High
None
None
High
Like
55
S
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
N
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
N
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
N
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
N
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
High
High
None
Yes
None
60 feet
High
Low
Yes
Yes
None
15 feet
Low
Medium
None
None
None
60 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
40 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
Yes
35 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
Yes
12 feet
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
5 feet
High
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
Low
High
None
Yes
Yes
40 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
30 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
10 feet
Medium
Medium
Yes
None
None
10 feet
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
Low
High
None
Yes
Yes
15 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
Yes
3 feet
Medium
High
None
None
None
20 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
Yes
25 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
Yes
25 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
5 feet
Medium
High
Yes
Yes
None
6 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
3 feet
Royal Palm
Medium
Sand
Low
None
Medium
High
All
Sabal Palm
Medium
Scrub
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Like
Sand Live Oak
Low
Sand
High
Medium
None
High
All
Sand Pine
Low
Sand
Low
None
None
High
Like
Sandweed
Medium
Sand
High
None
None
High
Like
Saw Palmetto
Low
Scrub
Medium
High
None
High
All
Scrub Hickory
Low
Scrub
Medium
None
None
Medium
Like
Sea Lavender
Medium
Sand
High
None
None
Medium
Like
Seagrape
Medium
Sand
High
High
None
High
All
Shiny Blueberry
Low
Sand
High
Medium
None
Low
All
Slash Pine
Low
Sand
Low
None
None
High
Like
Southern Dewberry
Low
Sand
Low
High
None
High
Like
Southern Magnolia
Low
Forest
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
All
Spanish Bayonet
Medium
Any
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Spicewood
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
Low
High
All
St. John's Wort
Medium
Sand
High
None
None
High
Like
Staggerbush
Low
Scrub
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
All
Stoppers
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
Low
High
All
Strangler Fig
High
Marsh
High
High
None
Medium
All
Strongbark
Medium
Mixed
Medium
Low
Low
High
All
Swamp Bay
High
Marsh
Medium
None
None
Medium
Like
Swamp Cyrilla
High
Swamp
Medium
None
None
High
All
56
S
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
N
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
All
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
High
Medium
None
Yes
None
20 feet
High
High
Yes
Yes
None
15 feet
High
Low
Yes
None
None
5 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
25 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
4 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
10 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
10 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
6 feet
High
High
None
Yes
Yes
25 feet
Low
High
None
Yes
Yes
2 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
75 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
1 foot
Medium
Low
None
Yes
None
60 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
10 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
Yes
20 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
3 feet
Medium
Medium
None
None
Yes
3 feet
Medium
Low
None
Yes
Yes
20 feet
Low
Medium
Yes
None
None
30 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
Yes
7 feet
Medium
Medium
None
None
Yes
25 feet
Medium
Low
None
None
None
30 feet
Swamp Dogwood
Low
Swamp
Medium
Medium
None
High
All
Sweet Bay
High
Sand
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Like
Sycamore
High
Sand
High
High
Medium
High
All
Tamarind
Low
Mixed
High
High
None
High
All
Tarflower
Medium
Scrub
Medium
None
None
Medium
All
Tawnyberry
Medium
Mixed
High
High
None
High
All
Torchwood
Medium
Mixed
Medium
None
None
High
All
Turkey Oak
Medium
Marsh
Medium
High
None
Medium
Like
Varnishleaf
Medium
Sand
Medium
None
Medium
Medium
All
Velvet Wild Coffee
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
All
Water Hickory
Low
Scrub
Medium
Medium
None
Medium
Like
Water Toothleaf
High
Swamp
Low
Medium
None
Low
All
Wax Myrtle
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
None
Medium
All
White Mangrove
High
Marsh
High
High
None
Medium
Like
Wild Coffee
Medium
Sand
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
All
Wild Lime
Medium
Scrub
High
High
Medium
High
Like
Willow Bustic
Medium
Sand
High
High
None
High
All
Winged Sumac
Medium
Sand
Medium
High
Low
Medium
All
57
S
Florida
C
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
C
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
C
Florida
All
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
C
Florida
S
Florida
S
Florida
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
15 feet
Medium
High
None
None
Yes
30 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
60 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
40 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
8 feet
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
None
30 feet
Medium
High
Yes
None
None
20 feet
Medium
High
Yes
None
None
20 feet
Low
Medium
None
Yes
None
10 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
5 feet
High
Low
None
Yes
None
80 feet
High
Low
None
None
None
4 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
20 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
None
20 feet
Medium
Medium
None
Yes
None
5 feet
High
High
None
Yes
Yes
15 feet
Medium
Low
Yes
Yes
None
20 feet
Medium
High
None
Yes
Yes
25 feet
This suitability analysis determines which native South Florida trees and
shrubs should be used in the airport carbon sink and which could offer the best
carbon sequestration. The current arrangement of trees and shrubs was chosen
for beautification purposes and includes some plants—like the sea-grape tree—
which attract wildlife and may pose a threat of air strikes with birds and other
animals inasmuch as these plants can be found along the median and near the
air terminals—all within the vicinity of the northern runway. Granted that trees like
the cypress are valuable to absorb water from torrential downpours in the
summer, these trees are presently located in the lower basin near the active
northern runway. They may grow excessively tall, and they do not maximize
carbon sequestration as much as a plant with more foliage. Pictures of existing
trees and shrubs taken near FLL in 2012 appear in Figures 5, 6, and 7.
Figure 5: Berm along South Runway (9R/27L)
58
Figure 6: Sea-Grape in Airport Highway Median
Figure 7: Sparse Cypress Trees near North Runway (9L/27R)
59
Plant Distribution Mapping
According to Ormsby (2008; p. 538), Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) can be defined as a “computerized system for the creation, management,
query, analysis, and display of spatial data.” Through computer-aided
visualization, analysis, and presentation of a spatial problem, it is sometimes
easier to map a solution than to describe it in words. For the purpose of this
study, GIS (specifically ArcMap Version 10) was utilized to map the airport
region, the anticipated expansion of the southern runway (9R/27L), and the
proposed distribution of plants around FLL.
The trees and shrubs recommended by this report can be planted two to
three feet away from each other in virtually any of the approved regions at FLL.
These regions appear on the map in Chapter 5 and were measured using GIS to
calculate a precise number of acres. The ratio of one acre to 43,560 square feet
facilitated the approximation of how many trees and shrubs can then be planted
in the airport vicinity. The total number of trees and shrubs was subsequently
applied to a cost-benefit analysis and included the use of a fixed rate for CO2
conversion into dollars for each tree’s worth in the carbon sink.
Figure 8 identifies key regions from the Broward County Land Use Plan
dedicated to FLL and marked as “T” for transportation which can be used for
60
airport expansion projects including runway extension and a carbon sink. Not all
areas will be used for the purpose of plant distribution, but the map in this figure
shows where land is owned by BCAD and has been reserved by the County for
any kind of future development including the strategic planting of native flora in
important places that are away from the AOA and runway protection zones (RPZ)
where tall trees and shrubs may interfere with aircraft landing and taking off.
Figure 8: FLL in the Broward County Land Use Plan (2008)
Source: Broward County, 2007
61
Cost-Benefit Analysis
In order to determine the soundness of this project, cost benefit analysis
(CBA) was performed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and numerical data.
First developed by French engineer Jules Dupuit in 1848 and later improved by
the U.S. government in 1936, CBA—or Benefit Cost Analysis as it is sometimes
referred to—compares total costs of a project against total savings (San José
State University, n.d.). These costs and benefits are expressed in dollars and
cents and adjusted for the time value of money using a percentage rate known
as an “internal rate of return” (Reh, n.d.). If benefits minus costs are positive, the
project is deemed useful; if the comparison is negative, it means that the project
is too costly to undertake.
Moreover, CBA requires that special consideration be paid to valuation of
human life. San José State University’s Department of Economics (n.d.) stresses
the point of placing a dollar value on all aspects of human life. For instance,
people who work in the oil fields or mining should receive higher pay in return for
increased risks (San José State University, n.d.). This logic suggests that there
must be a way to express the oxygen problem at FLL in terms of dollars and
cents. GreenerChoices.org (2009) found that one acre produces enough oxygen
each year for eighteen people to last a lifetime and that the expected conversion
rate in dollars of any given tree or shrub equates to $8.47 per pound of oxygen
62
per year. This O2-production rate is amazing when one considers that according
to Answers.com (n.d.), the typical leafy green plant can process as much as
forty-eight pounds of CO2 per year.
A critical factor in the GHG strategic mitigation plan’s viability is that CBA
benefits must outweigh the costs of implementation. If the net effect yields more
oxygen and fewer GHG, then these benefits can be calculated into dollars and
cents and should exceed the overall costs of buying trees and shrubs, planting
them, and then maintaining them through periodic landscaping. According to the
BCAD Finance Director (James-Rendleman, August 29, 2011), the airport spent
$237,123 in 2010 alone just to landscape the various parts of FLL. BCAD
Finance Director Helena James-Rendleman said that maintenance costs in 2010
were less than usual that fiscal year, and that maintenance costs for 2011 and
2012 were expected to be even higher. In light of FLL’s operating budget
constraints for landscaping needs, trees and shrubs were ranked more highly for
their ability not to require frequent pruning and landscaping.
Granted that FLL’s current beautification plan makes coming to the airport
ever more appealing, the combination of these plants does not yield the same
maximization of carbon sequestration as a combination of native plants with large
green leaves and short, stocky height. While some plants may not be as colorful
as the bright ixora, or as magnificent as the trees on the berms which must come
63
down for the southern runway expansion, it is still necessary to think practically
about what economical trees and shrubs belong in FLL’s carbon sink. Bear in
mind that Amsterdam planted solely relatively inexpensive birch trees side by
side like an army of trees ready to attack the airport’s GHG. It is this same fiscal
practicality with which FLL’s trees and shrubs must be selected.
Therefore, the CBA includes the following data. Costs are divided into
capital and operating expenditures. Initial capital expenditures of procuring trees
and shrubs and planting them are expected to be considerably less than the
cumulative annual operating costs of landscaping. Benefits are then computed
with the GreenerChoices (2009) dollar formula and the number of trees per
square footage of suitable FLL land cover calculated by GIS. Final analysis will
be performed using net present value, which accounts for the internal rate of
return on the investment using the U.S. prime lending rate in 2012.
This budget does not take into consideration the cost of wildlife hazard
mitigation which ranges from inexpensive treatments, such as chemical
dispersants, to expensive devices, such as the mechanized bird cry of hawks
used to scare away other animals (AirportWildlife.com, n.d.). Because the FAA
(Pokryske, 2011) does not presently require FLL—or any other South Florida
airport, for that matter—to conduct wildlife hazard management, this cost was
omitted from the analysis.
64
Summary
A suitability analysis of 103 possible trees and shrubs found natively in
South Florida was performed to derive and rank those most suitable for use in a
carbon sink around FLL. This analysis utilized fourteen categories including
water, soil, foliage, pruning, fertilizing, sun exposure, proximity to other plants,
climate, wind exposure, attractiveness to wildlife, berries, flowers, large fruits,
and height. Each tree or shrub was then ranked and clustered based on the sum
of weighted data. Results of the suitability analysis appear in the next chapter.
Cost-benefit analysis was then performed by converting photosynthesis
into dollars and cents and multiplying that rate by the recommended number of
trees added to the ecosystem. The recommended number of trees was
calculated by measuring the space for each tree or shrub—one plant with two to
three square feet of space separating it from other plants in all directions—within
the allowable regions at FLL determined through GIS. Cost-benefit analysis
compared the benefits of reducing carbon emissions in dollars and cents to the
costs of procuring, planting, and maintaining the recommended trees and shrubs.
The findings of this analysis appear in the next chapter.
65
Chapter Five
Analysis and Findings
The focus of this analysis is on the viability of a carbon sink at FLL which
utilizes native Florida species of trees and shrubs in selected regions around the
airport that do not conflict with airport clearance restrictions, such as the AOA
and the runway protection zones (RPZ). The analysis is divided into three
sections—the suitability analysis of 103 native Florida trees and shrubs, the plant
distribution mapping around the airport, and the cost-benefit analysis of financing
the carbon sink.
This analysis affirmatively answers the research question presented in the
previous chapter, namely whether or not a carbon sink can safely and cheaply
mitigate greenhouse gases at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport. Cost-benefit analyses using discount rates of one percent, two percent,
and three percent underscore a total net present value of the carbon sink in the
thousands of dollars, which implies that the project is viable. Plant distribution
mapping indicates that there is plenty of land on which to plant the trees and
shrubs recommended by the suitability analysis.
66
Suitability Analysis
The list of 103 native Florida trees and shrubs was compiled using the
codebook which appears in Chapter 4 and then processed according to the total
summation of each row. Table 4 (logarithm) and Table 15 (no logarithm) in
Appendix 2 shows the immediate ranking of all 103 trees and shrubs in Microsoft
Excel format. It is important to note that the height variable in this table was not
yet transformed by logarithm. Granted that certain suitable native Florida trees
and shrubs—such as St. John’s Wort or Buttonwood—appear at the top of the
recommended list as might be expected, many others could be outliers in the
data. For instance, Coastal St. John’s Wort and Roundpod St. John’s Wort are
not truly suitable for the soil-type near the airport. Nevertheless, because the
structure of the weight system gives more consideration to height, Coastal St.
John’s Wort and Roundpod St. John’s Wort rank higher than more suitable trees
and shrubs such as the Acacia, Ficus, or Gumbo Limbo.
To transform the data into something that is more useful for this suitability
analysis, the logarithm of the height variable was taken to make the data “flatter,”
or to make outliers like the height of Coastal St. John’s Wort less significant in
comparison to the Buttonwood, which can mature at five feet, or to the Ficus,
which can mature at ten feet. The unique feature of logarithmic transformation is
that smaller and larger values become less pronounced. As an example, the
67
Coastal St. John’s Wort matures at three feet, which becomes .4771 at logarithm
base 10. This way, there is less difference in terms of height between this shrub
and the Ficus, which measures 1.000 at logarithm base 10. The Ficus would now
be preferred over the Coastal St. John’s Wort since the Ficus possesses more
desirable qualities, such as height, foliage, soil-type, and so forth.
Table 5 shows the Microsoft Excel ranking of all 103 trees and shrubs with
respect to the logarithmic transformation of the height variable—e.g., logarithm of
three feet equals .4771 (base 10). The sums of each row are then recalculated
and ranked according to most suitable (sums closest to zero) versus most
undesirable (sums that are highest). There is a clear difference in the results
from “with no logarithm” and “with logarithm.” For instance, the logarithmic
approach yields more trees and shrubs that are common to South Florida like
Buttonwood, Acacia, Ficus, Gumbo Limbo, Myrtle Oak, and Sandweed. Even
though outliers such as Coastal St. John’s Wort still appear, this suitability
analysis was designed to formulate a simple list of suggested native trees and
shrubs for planting at FLL as part of a GHG strategic mitigation plan.
68
Table 4: Florida Trees and Shrubs (With Logarithm)
Name
Buttonwood
St. John's Wort
Acacia
Water
Soil
Foliage
Pruning
Fertilize
Sun
Proximity
Climate
Wind
Wildlife
Berry
Flower
Fruit
Height
Sum
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6990
1.1990
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4771
2.1771
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1761
2.3761
Florida Privet
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.9031
2.8031
Ficus
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0000
2.9000
Gumbo Limbo
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3979
2.9979
Myrtle Oak
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0.6990
3.1990
Sandweed
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.6021
3.3021
Reticulate Pawpaw
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.6990
3.4990
Bigflower Pawpaw
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.7782
3.5782
Pineland Acacia
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.0000
3.6000
Beachcreeper
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
0.4771
3.7771
Coastal St. J.-W.
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.4771
4.0771
Roundpod St. J.-W.
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.4771
4.0771
Graytwig/Whitewood
0.9
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.1761
4.3761
Spanish Bayonet
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.0000
4.4000
Sand Live Oak
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
0.6990
4.5990
Chapman's Oak
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
1.0000
4.9000
Sea Lavender
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
0.7782
4.9782
Groundsel
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8451
5.0451
Lignum Vitae
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
1
0
1.1761
5.3761
0
0
0
1
0.8
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
1.7782
5.3782
Sycamore
69
Florida Rosemary
0
0.9
1.4
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0.8
0
0
0
0.6990
5.3990
Swamp Cyrilla
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
1.4771
5.4771
Geiger Tree
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
1.3979
5.4979
Gray Nicker
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
1.0000
5.6000
Doctorbush
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
0.4771
5.6771
0
1.8
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6990
5.6990
Slash Pine
1.8
0
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8751
5.8751
Dwarf Live Oak
0.9
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.8
0
1
0
0.4771
5.8771
Lantana
0.9
0
0
1
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
1
0
0.6990
5.9990
Southern Dewberry
1.8
0
1.4
1
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.0000
6.0000
Tarflower
0.9
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
0.9031
6.0031
Fiddlewood
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
1.1761
6.0761
Royal Palm
Bald Cypress
0.9
0
1.4
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
1
0
1.3010
6.2010
Paurotis Palm
0
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
1.3010
6.3010
Red Mangrove
0
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
0
0
1.3010
6.3010
Willow Bustic
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
1.6
1
0
1.3010
6.5010
Live Oak
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
0.8
0
0
0
1.7782
6.5782
Black Mangrove
0
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
0
0
1.6990
6.6990
Water Toothleaf
0
1.8
1.4
0.5
0
1.6
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0.6021
6.7021
Firebush
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.0000
6.8000
Velvet Wild Coffee
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
0.6990
6.8990
Wild Coffee
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
0.6990
6.8990
Tamarind
1.8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
1.6021
6.9021
Strongbark
0.9
0
0.7
0
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
0.8451
6.9451
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
1
0
1.0792
6.9792
1.8
0
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
1.3979
6.9979
Buttonbush
Sand Pine
70
Spicewood
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
1.3010
7.1010
Stoppers
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
1.3010
7.1010
Indigo Bush
0.9
0.9
1.4
1
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
0.4771
7.1771
Laurel Oak
0
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
0
1.7782
7.1782
Coin Vine
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
1.6
0.6990
7.3990
Jamaica Caper
0
0.9
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.1761
7.4761
Tawnyberry
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
1.4771
7.4771
Seagrape
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.3979
7.4979
Torchwood
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.6
0
0
1.3010
7.6010
0
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
1.3010
7.7010
Scrub Hickory
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
1.0000
7.8000
Coastplain Willow
0.9
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
1.3979
7.9979
Elderberry
White Mangrove
0
0.9
0
1
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
1.3010
8.1010
Deerberry
1.8
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
0.6990
8.1990
Varnishleaf
0.9
0
0.7
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.8
1.4
0.8
0
1
0
1.0000
8.2000
Rouge Plant
0
0
0
1
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
0.7782
8.2782
Red Maple
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
1.3979
8.5979
Inkberry
0.9
0.9
0
0.5
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
0.6021
8.6021
Mahogany
1.8
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
1.5441
8.6441
0
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
1.3979
8.6979
1.8
0.9
0.7
1
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
1.0000
8.7000
0
0.9
0
1
0
0.8
0
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.6
0
0
1.4771
8.7771
Devil's Wlkg. Stick
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
1.3010
8.8010
Cherokee Bean
1.8
0
0
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.2041
9.0041
Swamp Bay
Saw Palmetto
Strangler Fig
Sweet Bay
Water Hickory
0
0
0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.4771
9.0771
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
1.7782
9.0782
71
Southern Magnolia
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.8
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
1.7782
9.0782
Wax Myrtle
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.3010
9.1010
Beautyberry
1.8
0
1.4
1
0
0.8
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
0.7782
9.1782
Myrsine
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
1.3010
9.4010
Coco Plum
0.9
0.9
0
1
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.0000
9.5000
Ground Oak
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
0.0000
9.5000
Coconut Palm
0.9
0
1.4
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.3010
9.6010
Dahoon Holly
0
0.9
1.4
0.5
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.3979
9.6979
Lancewood
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
1.3979
9.6979
Poisonwood
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
1.3010
9.7010
Marlberry
1.8
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
1.0792
9.7792
American Elm
1.8
0
0
1
0
0
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
1.3010
9.8010
Pond Apple
0.9
0.9
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.1761
9.9761
Winged Sumac
0.9
0
0.7
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.3979
10.0979
Bitterwood
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
1.3010
10.1010
Black Ironwood
0.9
0
0
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
1.4
1.6
1.6
1
0
1.4771
10.1771
Pigeon Plum
0.9
0
0.7
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.4771
10.1771
Wild Lime
0.9
0.9
0
1
0.8
0
0.8
0.8
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.1761
10.5761
Staggerbush
1.8
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
0
1.6
0.4771
10.5771
Shiny Blueberry
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
1.6
0
0.8
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
0.3010
10.6010
Sabal Palm
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
1.6
1.6
1
0
1.1761
10.6761
Swamp Dogwood
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.1761
10.8761
Pineland Snowberry
1.8
1.8
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
0
0
1.0000
10.9000
Turkey Oak
0.9
0.9
0.7
1
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.6
0
0
1.3010
11.1010
Loblolly Bay
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
1.6021
11.1021
Red Mulberry
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0.8
0.8
0
1.6
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
1.3979
11.2979
72
Persimmon
1.8
1.8
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.6021
11.8021
Queensdelight
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
0.4771
12.4771
Jungle Plum
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
1.6
0
0.8
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
1.6021
13.1021
73
In order to determine the reliability of tree and shrub ranking, SPSS/PASW
was implemented using “Analyze/Classify” and processing the tree and shrub
data with Two Step, K-Means, and Hierarchical Clustering. Clustering involves
the use of algorithms to analyze concepts like sub-space modeling (“two step
clustering”)—which looks for patterns between group members and relevant
attributes; centroidism (“k-means clustering”)—which looks for grouping data
points through a single mean vector; and connectivity (“hierarchical clustering”)—
which looks for distance between data points.
The results of these three forms of analytical clustering include (1) no
logarithmic transformation of the height variable (see Appendix 2 for findings),
and (2) logarithmic transformation of the height variable (see Figure 9 and Tables
5 and 6). Analysis revealed that there was convergence with the numbers in the
data with respect to height in both (1) no logarithm and (2) logarithm. This
discovery of convergence should not be surprising inasmuch as the data is the
same with only a logarithmic transformation effect on the one variable, namely
height. These findings imply that the numbers are more or less in sequential
order with very little variation between the ranking sums of each row. In other
words, there was insufficient variation in the data to support clustering in any of
the three tests: two-step, k-means, and hierarchical clustering.
74
Figure 9: Two-Step Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)
Table 5: K-Means Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)
Iteration Historya
Change in Cluster
Centers
Iteration
1
2
1
3.995
3.749
2
.076
.085
3
.000
.000
a. Convergence achieved due to no
or small change in cluster centers.
The maximum absolute coordinate
change for any center is .000. The
current iteration is 3. The minimum
distance between initial centers is
11.903.
75
Table 6: Hierarchical Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (Logarithm)
Agglomeration Schedule
Cluster Combined
Stage
Cluster 1
Stage Cluster First Appears
Cluster 2
Coefficients
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Next Stage
1
49
50
.000
0
0
13
2
43
44
.000
0
0
35
3
13
14
.000
0
0
11
4
88
91
.013
0
0
17
5
9
10
.013
0
0
11
6
17
18
.181
0
0
70
7
37
40
.317
0
0
73
8
25
26
.419
0
0
12
9
11
12
.795
0
0
18
10
4
8
.980
0
0
22
11
9
13
1.002
5
3
22
12
25
34
1.086
8
0
32
13
46
49
1.122
0
1
51
14
65
67
1.153
0
0
80
15
83
84
1.459
0
0
28
16
3
6
1.496
0
0
21
17
76
88
1.506
0
4
29
18
11
16
1.536
9
0
27
19
85
89
1.603
0
0
53
20
38
55
1.624
0
0
54
21
3
5
1.757
16
0
34
22
4
9
1.897
10
11
27
23
15
19
1.901
0
0
44
24
27
32
1.952
0
0
61
25
42
56
2.135
0
0
38
26
96
101
2.269
0
0
94
27
4
11
2.291
22
18
44
28
77
83
2.306
0
15
43
29
76
81
2.313
17
0
48
30
24
28
2.358
0
0
68
31
61
66
2.440
0
0
42
32
25
33
2.487
12
0
46
76
33
59
74
2.489
0
0
65
34
2
3
2.602
0
21
39
35
35
43
2.720
0
2
46
36
21
36
2.731
0
0
45
37
58
64
2.736
0
0
66
38
42
54
2.874
25
0
51
39
2
7
2.877
34
0
59
40
39
45
2.926
0
0
73
41
79
92
2.959
0
0
63
42
60
61
2.989
0
31
67
43
71
77
3.040
0
28
58
44
4
15
3.079
27
23
76
45
21
31
3.095
36
0
54
46
25
35
3.304
32
35
64
47
41
47
3.324
0
0
79
48
72
76
3.585
0
29
57
49
69
75
3.729
0
0
65
50
62
78
3.747
0
0
74
51
42
46
3.752
38
13
84
52
100
102
3.768
0
0
91
53
85
93
3.807
19
0
72
54
21
38
3.864
45
20
81
55
82
87
3.957
0
0
77
56
29
48
4.049
0
0
93
57
72
80
4.053
48
0
63
58
71
90
4.056
43
0
74
59
1
2
4.094
0
39
76
60
53
68
4.116
0
0
84
61
27
30
4.191
24
0
71
62
95
98
4.346
0
0
69
63
72
79
4.407
57
41
72
64
25
51
4.409
46
0
71
65
59
69
4.459
33
49
80
66
57
58
4.526
0
37
78
67
60
63
4.653
42
0
75
68
23
24
4.711
0
30
79
69
95
99
4.862
62
0
88
70
17
20
4.883
6
0
89
77
71
25
27
4.942
64
61
81
72
72
85
5.085
63
53
77
73
37
39
5.312
7
40
86
74
62
71
5.493
50
58
90
75
52
60
5.524
0
67
83
76
1
4
5.569
59
44
89
77
72
82
5.652
72
55
82
78
57
70
5.837
66
0
83
79
23
41
6.074
68
47
97
80
59
65
6.311
65
14
92
81
21
25
6.592
54
71
85
82
72
73
6.672
77
0
87
83
52
57
6.834
75
78
90
84
42
53
6.913
51
60
95
85
21
22
7.070
81
0
86
86
21
37
7.225
85
73
93
87
72
94
7.476
82
0
94
88
95
97
7.548
69
0
98
89
1
17
7.853
76
70
100
90
52
62
8.213
83
74
96
91
100
103
8.241
52
0
101
92
59
86
8.382
80
0
96
93
21
29
8.702
86
56
95
94
72
96
8.735
87
26
98
95
21
42
9.484
93
84
97
96
52
59
9.867
90
92
99
97
21
23
10.311
95
79
100
98
72
95
11.153
94
88
99
99
52
72
11.895
96
98
101
100
1
21
15.789
89
97
102
101
52
100
18.546
99
91
102
102
1
52
29.672
100
101
0
78
Because these three statistical analyses did not produce clustered groups
of data, the trees and shrubs cannot be readily grouped into “best suited,”
“medium suited,” “poorly suited,” and so on. Therefore, the top twenty rankings
were subjectively selected as an appropriate list of suitable trees and shrubs for
planting at FLL. The top twenty recommended trees and shrubs (with logarithm
applied) appear in Table 9 and retain their same ranking order as determined by
the calculation of each row’s sum (closest to zero implies better suitability). It
highlights fewer outliers, such as the Coastal St. John’s Wort. Moreover, the
majority of these trees and shrubs include plants that are readily sold in nurseries
across South Florida and should not produce problems for procurement when the
strategic plan for creating a carbon sink at FLL is put into place.
Lack of clustering could have occurred because of correlation factors
among the variables. “Factor Analysis” in SPSS/PASW explained the variability
among correlated variables in terms of uncorrelated variables, commonly
referred to as factors. This model used extraction, principal components, and
Varimax rotation using Kaiser normalization. Tables 7 and 8 show respectively
how critical variables “Water” and “Sum” perform with (1) small coefficients and
(2) small coefficients suppressed. Further analysis of these components revealed
that (a) “Height” and “Pruning” and (b) “Fruit” and “Berry” had significant
relevance to the overall study.
79
Table 7: Factor Analysis with Coefficients
Communalities
Initial
Extraction
Water
1.000
.902
Soil
1.000
.581
Foliage
1.000
.735
Pruning
1.000
.605
Fertilize
1.000
.420
Sun
1.000
.759
Proximity
1.000
.562
Climate
1.000
.644
Wind
1.000
.519
Wildlife
1.000
.717
Berry
1.000
.715
Flower
1.000
.595
Fruit
1.000
.686
Height
1.000
.687
Sum
1.000
.966
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
Water
.200
.050
-.389
.413
.578
.452
Soil
.132
.644
.216
-.225
.022
-.226
Foliage
.102
.390
-.240
.120
-.532
.467
Pruning
.453
-.516
.243
-.104
.251
.002
Fertilize
.407
-.030
-.298
-.189
-.358
.004
Sun
.387
.220
-.051
.539
-.251
-.451
-.043
.421
.308
-.235
.475
-.087
Climate
.304
.618
.193
.324
.135
.092
Wind
.685
-.118
.142
.091
.013
-.087
Wildlife
.748
-.164
.219
-.194
-.125
-.168
Berry
.068
-.392
.455
.580
-.087
.083
Proximity
80
Flower
.310
-.306
-.581
.026
.147
-.212
Fruit
.596
.116
-.383
-.394
.113
.049
Height
.304
-.133
.432
-.303
-.163
.522
Sum
.955
.160
.047
.108
.075
.095
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 6 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
Water
.030
-.035
.040
.030
.947
.027
Soil
.071
.690
.193
.087
-.211
.103
Foliage
-.037
.001
.071
.850
.063
-.041
Pruning
.573
-.202
-.086
-.406
.075
-.241
Fertilize
.342
-.222
.362
.317
-.138
.055
Sun
.353
.089
-.177
.216
-.047
.739
-.063
.662
.089
-.300
.068
-.133
Climate
.204
.611
-.156
.285
.294
.192
Wind
.711
.009
-.034
-.021
.063
.091
Wildlife
.812
.008
.103
-.048
-.209
-.031
Berry
.237
-.215
-.778
-.045
.064
.032
Flower
.224
-.432
.410
-.170
.244
.319
Fruit
.451
.034
.666
.081
.167
-.056
Height
.390
.037
-.134
.202
-.095
-.682
Sum
.879
.213
.113
.206
.295
.081
Proximity
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
81
Table 8: Factor Analysis with Coefficients Suppressed
Communalities
Initial
Extraction
Water
1.000
.902
Soil
1.000
.581
Foliage
1.000
.735
Pruning
1.000
.605
Fertilize
1.000
.420
Sun
1.000
.759
Proximity
1.000
.562
Climate
1.000
.644
Wind
1.000
.519
Wildlife
1.000
.717
Berry
1.000
.715
Flower
1.000
.595
Fruit
1.000
.686
Height
1.000
.687
Sum
1.000
.966
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
Water
.200
Soil
.132
Foliage
3
4
5
6
-.389
.413
.644
.216
-.225
.102
.390
-.240
.120
-.532
Pruning
.453
-.516
.243
-.104
.251
Fertilize
.407
-.298
-.189
-.358
Sun
.387
.539
-.251
Proximity
.220
.308
-.235
.475
.324
.135
-.125
.304
.618
.193
Wind
.685
-.118
.142
Wildlife
.748
-.164
.219
-.194
-.392
.455
.580
82
.452
-.226
.421
Climate
Berry
.578
.467
-.451
-.168
Flower
.310
-.306
-.581
.147
Fruit
.596
.116
-.383
-.394
.113
Height
.304
-.133
.432
-.303
-.163
Sum
.955
.160
-.212
.522
.108
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 6 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
3
4
5
Water
6
.947
Soil
.690
.193
-.211
Foliage
.103
.850
Pruning
.573
-.202
Fertilize
.342
-.222
Sun
.353
Proximity
-.406
.362
.317
-.177
.216
.739
-.300
-.133
.662
.611
Climate
.204
Wind
.711
Wildlife
.812
-.156
.285
Berry
.237
-.215
-.778
Flower
.224
-.432
.410
Fruit
.451
.666
Height
.390
-.134
.202
Sum
.879
.113
.206
.103
.213
-.241
-.138
.294
.192
-.209
-.170
.244
.319
.167
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
83
-.682
.295
Table 9: Top Twenty Trees and Shrubs
Ranking
Name of Tree or Shrub
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9*
10*
11
12
13*
14*
15
16
17
18
19
20*
Buttonwood
St. John’s Wort
Acacia
Florida Privet
Ficus
Gumbo Limbo
Myrtle Oak
Sandweed
Reticulate Pawpaw
Bigflower Pawpaw
Pineland Acacia
Beachcreeper
Coastal St. John’s Wort
Roundpod St. John’s Wort
Graytwig/Whitewood
Spanish Bayonet
Sand Live Oak
Chapman’s Oak
Sea Lavender
Groundsel
*Trees and shrubs ranked 9, 10, 13, 14, and 20 in this list do not match
the preferred soil-type at FLL and are most likely outliers in the data. The trees
and shrubs listed in the top ten are frequently planted in Broward County and
should prove no problem for placement near the airport. Additional varieties on
this list which are common to South Florida can be utilized as needs be.
84
Plant Distribution Mapping
GIS was implemented to map the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport and the outlying area that surround the AOA. Accordingly, the map which
appears in Figure 10 was developed to show proximity of the areas owned by the
airport in relation to neighboring communities such as Dania Beach and Fort
Lauderdale. The North and South Runways were marked in gray in Figure 10 in
order to highlight the extremely short distance of the runways to major
thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and Federal Highway, the latter of which
serves the airport passenger terminal loop. The nearness of these runways to
neighboring streets and vehicular traffic precludes the planting of trees and
shrubs in some locations.
More importantly, Figure 10 shows where trees and shrubs may be
distributed in various locations around FLL. Granted that the AOA and all four
RPZs are restricted because of FAR Part 77 (FAA, n.d.), suitable regions for
planting trees and shrubs are limited to those areas marked in dark green along
the periphery of the FLL vicinity. It should be noted that trees and shrubs may be
planted around the eastern edge of the South Runway because of the proposed
runway elevation and bridge over Federal Highway. Trees and shrubs are not
expected to interfere with the operations of aircraft waiting at the holding bay, or
taking off from and landing on the South Runway.
85
Figure 10: FLL Plant Distribution Areas
Data Source: Broward County GIS
Projection: NAD83 HARN State Plane Florida East FIPS 0901 Feet
Map designed on 3-1-12 by John Bradford. FAU research only.
86
To compute the total acreage of land occupied by these suitable areas,
GIS was utilized and yielded the aggregate result that appears in Table 10. The
majority of the areas selected in the plant distribution map appear on the eastern
side of the airport inasmuch as the western side consists of mostly hangars,
office buildings, and parking lots which cannot be readily used for planting trees
and shrubs. Moreover, the total land area which can be used for plant distribution
amounts to 202.64 acres, the greatest part of which belongs to the region
surrounding the eastern part of the South Runway (87.84 acres). The first column
in Table 10 shows feature identification numbers (FID), where features refer to
the segmented parts of airport land used in mapping the area around FLL.
Table 10: Acreage for Suitable Areas
FID
Locator
Number
22
31
33
Acres
Description of Region
12.55
87.84
17.87
Leading into the airport passenger terminal loop
Behind east holding bay for South Runway
Southwest corner in Dania Beach where Griffin Road
and Federal Highway intersect
Near the out ramp headed south from the airport
passenger terminal loop
Behind the easternmost curve around Federal Hwy.
which leads into the airport passenger terminal loop
Parallel strip next to Interstate 95
Oval surrounding bio-retention pond
Median between opposing lanes on Federal Highway
69
8.36
130
20.92
145
191
227
26.99
15.54
12.57
Total:
202.64
87
Cost-Benefit Analysis
In order to compute the proper number of trees and shrubs, one must
multiply the total number of acres calculated through plant distribution mapping
by the average number of trees or shrubs allotted per acre. If one assumes tree
bases will be roughly one foot in diameter, and if one allows an average of three
feet between plants by pruning them well under five feet, the formula for arriving
at the proper number of trees and shrubs, n, is the equation: 4n + 3, where 4n
repeats every four feet skipping the 3 feet where no trees or shrubs would be
planted. This equation allows for a border and assumes a perfect square.
In other words, a shrub would be planted every four feet starting on the
third foot ([4 x 0] + 3 = 3). Shrub #2 would be planted at the seventh foot ([4 x 1]
+ 3 = 7), shrub #3 would be planted at the eleventh foot ([4 x 2] + 3 = 11), and so
on, leaving space between for the trees and shrubs to grow. Figure 11 shows
how this planting works where “T” stands for a tree or shrub and “*” stands for a
vacant foot of space.
Figure 11: Spacing between Trees and Shrubs
Tree:
*
*
T
*
*
*
T
*
*
_*_
_T_
*
Feet:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
88
To calculate the total number of trees or shrubs needed per acre of land,
one must multiply (4n + 3) rows by (4n + 3) columns—or (4n + 3)2—and then set
this equation equal to the total number of square feet in an acre: 43,560 square
feet. To arrive at the greatest possible number of trees and shrubs per acre while
allowing for three feet between each tree or shrub, one sets both parts equal and
solves for the number of trees and shrubs, n:
(4n + 3)2 = 43,560
4n + 3 = 208.71
n = 51.43.
In other words, roughly fifty trees or shrubs can be safely planted per acre of land
by allowing for three feet of space between each tree or shrub multilaterally.
By multiplying fifty trees or shrubs per acre by the total number of acres
for plant distribution at FLL which appear in Table 10, one arrives at an
approximate total of 10,725 trees and shrubs which would be needed for creating
the carbon sink described in this report. Prices for trees and shrubs referenced in
the top twenty recommended species from the suitability analysis in this chapter
may vary depending upon the nursery and quantity of trees and shrubs procured.
However, the supplier must comply with a Request for Letters of Intent from the
Broward Commission—the government body in charge of FLL—and may offer a
89
suitable arrangement which satisfies the requirements for both the 10,725 trees
and shrubs and an acceptable price for each. For the purpose of completing this
cost-benefit analysis, the average price assigned to the 10,725 trees and shrubs
was ten dollars a plant, which was factored into the start-up capital costs of
creating the carbon sink.
The operating costs—namely, the maintenance of the trees and shrubs—
are expected to be cut in half by virtue of having plants like the Buttonwood that
do not grow nearly as fast as the Sea-Grape, which can be found presently all
over the medians of Federal Highway near the airport passenger terminal loop.
Granted that earlier expenditures have already been paid for, future operating
costs in the way of tree and shrub maintenance will be recalculated somewhat
subjectively as $75,000, which is a fraction of the cost of what was paid for by
BCAD in 2010 (see Chapter 4). By using trees and shrubs that require less
pruning like the Buttonwood or Ficus, landscaping and maintenance costs should
amount to a figure less than $100,000 a year. It is noted herein that landscaping
was provided in 2012 by Prestige Property Maintenance, Inc. with a renewable
contract for two one-year periods for an estimated amount of $1,152,192 and an
irrigation repair parts allowance in 2012 for $10,000.
The benefit of the carbon sink was calculated by multiplying the 10,725
trees and shrubs by the $8.47 per tree CO2–to-O2 conversion figure developed
90
by GreenerChoices (2009). Therefore, the total intangible benefit of the carbon
sink amounts to $90,840.75. This dollar figure represents the value of carbon
sequestration in order to increase the amount of oxygen at FLL. Tangible
benefits, such as stormwater and runoff mitigation, are difficult to calculate and
hard to measure. Even though tangible benefits were not included in this
analysis, it is important to mention that they exist.
The net benefit of creating the carbon sink appears in the cost-benefit
analysis shown in the following Microsoft Excel spreadsheets using a discount
rate sensitivity of one percent, two percent, and three percent. The net present
value of the project for each discount rate appears in the tables that follow.
According to these results, it is possible to determine that benefits outweigh the
costs, which underscores the viability of the carbon sink.
91
Table 11: Cost-Benefit Analysis (Discount at 1%)
Year
2012
Capital
Costs
107.250
Operating
Costs*
Total Costs
Total
Benefits
Net
Benefits**
Factor***
Period
NPV
0.000
107.250
0
-107.250
0.990
1
-106.188
2013
75.000
75.000
90.841
15.841
0.980
2
15.529
2014
75.750
75.750
90.841
15.091
0.971
3
14.647
2015
76.508
76.508
90.841
14.334
0.961
4
13.774
2016
77.273
77.273
90.841
13.568
0.951
5
12.910
2017
78.045
78.045
90.841
12.796
0.942
6
12.054
2018
78.826
78.826
90.841
12.015
0.933
7
11.207
2019
79.614
79.614
90.841
11.227
0.923
8
10.368
2020
80.410
80.410
90.841
10.431
0.914
9
9.537
2021
81.214
81.214
90.841
9.627
0.905
10
8.715
2022
82.026
82.026
90.841
8.815
0.896
11
7.901
2023
82.847
82.847
90.841
7.994
0.887
12
7.095
2024
83.675
83.675
90.841
7.166
0.879
13
6.296
2025
84.512
84.512
90.841
6.329
0.870
14
5.506
2026
85.357
85.357
90.841
5.484
0.861
15
4.724
2027
86.211
86.211
90.841
4.630
0.853
16
3.949
2028
87.073
87.073
90.841
3.768
0.844
17
3.182
2029
87.943
87.943
90.841
2.898
0.836
18
2.422
2030
88.823
88.823
90.841
2.018
0.828
19
1.671
2031
89.711
89.711
90.841
1.130
0.820
20
0.926
2032
90.608
90.608
90.841
0.233
0.811
21
0.189
Total
NPV:
* Recurrent (operating) costs stabilize by 2013, growing at a constant rate of 3% thereafter
**Net benefits reflect total benefits minus total costs
***Discount rate of 1%
All amounts appear in thousands of dollars.
92
46.413
Table 12: Cost Benefit Analysis (Discount at 2%)
Capital
Costs
Operating
Costs*
Total Costs
Total
Benefits
107.250
0.000
107.250
0
-107.250
0.980
1
-105.147
2013
75.000
75.000
90.841
15.841
0.961
2
15.226
2014
75.750
75.750
90.841
15.091
0.942
3
14.221
2015
76.508
76.508
90.841
14.334
0.924
4
13.242
2016
77.273
77.273
90.841
13.568
0.906
5
12.289
2017
78.045
78.045
90.841
12.796
0.888
6
11.362
2018
78.826
78.826
90.841
12.015
0.871
7
10.460
2019
79.614
79.614
90.841
11.227
0.853
8
9.582
2020
80.410
80.410
90.841
10.431
0.837
9
8.728
2021
81.214
81.214
90.841
9.627
0.820
10
7.897
2022
82.026
82.026
90.841
8.815
0.804
11
7.089
2023
82.847
82.847
90.841
7.994
0.788
12
6.303
2024
83.675
83.675
90.841
7.166
0.773
13
5.539
2025
84.512
84.512
90.841
6.329
0.758
14
4.797
2026
85.357
85.357
90.841
5.484
0.743
15
4.075
2027
86.211
86.211
90.841
4.630
0.728
16
3.373
2028
87.073
87.073
90.841
3.768
0.714
17
2.691
2029
87.943
87.943
90.841
2.898
0.700
18
2.029
2030
88.823
88.823
90.841
2.018
0.686
19
1.385
2031
89.711
89.711
90.841
1.130
0.673
20
0.760
2032
90.608
90.608
90.841
0.233
0.660
21
0.154
Year
2012
Net
Benefits**
Factor***
Period
NPV
Total
NPV:
* Recurrent (operating) costs stabilize by 2013, growing at a constant rate of 3% thereafter
**Net benefits reflect total benefits minus total costs
***Discount rate of 2%
All amounts appear in thousands of dollars.
93
36.056
Table 13: Cost-Benefit Analysis (Discount at 3%)
Year
2012
Capital
Costs
107.250
Operating
Costs*
Total Costs
Total
Benefits
Net
Benefits**
Factor***
Period
NPV
0.000
107.250
0
-107.250
0.971
1
-104.126
2013
75.000
75.000
90.841
15.841
0.943
2
14.932
2014
75.750
75.750
90.841
15.091
0.915
3
13.810
2015
76.508
76.508
90.841
14.334
0.888
4
12.735
2016
77.273
77.273
90.841
13.568
0.863
5
11.704
2017
78.045
78.045
90.841
12.796
0.837
6
10.716
2018
78.826
78.826
90.841
12.015
0.813
7
9.769
2019
79.614
79.614
90.841
11.227
0.789
8
8.863
2020
80.410
80.410
90.841
10.431
0.766
9
7.994
2021
81.214
81.214
90.841
9.627
0.744
10
7.163
2022
82.026
82.026
90.841
8.815
0.722
11
6.368
2023
82.847
82.847
90.841
7.994
0.701
12
5.607
2024
83.675
83.675
90.841
7.166
0.681
13
4.880
2025
84.512
84.512
90.841
6.329
0.661
14
4.184
2026
85.357
85.357
90.841
5.484
0.642
15
3.520
2027
86.211
86.211
90.841
4.630
0.623
16
2.886
2028
87.073
87.073
90.841
3.768
0.605
17
2.280
2029
87.943
87.943
90.841
2.898
0.587
18
1.702
2030
88.823
88.823
90.841
2.018
0.570
19
1.151
2031
89.711
89.711
90.841
1.130
0.554
20
0.626
2032
90.608
90.608
90.841
0.233
0.538
21
0.125
Total
NPV:
* Recurrent (operating) costs stabilize by 2013, growing at a constant rate of 3% thereafter
**Net benefits reflect total benefits minus total costs
***Discount rate of 3%
All amounts appear in thousands of dollars.
94
26.889
Summary
The total net present value shown in each of the three preceding
spreadsheets indicates the viability of the carbon sink at FLL. The discount rate
associated with each net present value—one percent, two percent, and three
percent—reflects the going rate available at most banks and is tied to the prime
lending rate of the United States Treasury. With most figures constant and the
operating costs adjusted for inflation over a period of twenty years, the net
present value of each component is reflected by the product of net benefits times
the discount rate factor (1 divided by [1 plus the discount rate], quantity raised to
the power of the particular period). Because the $8.47 CO2-to-O2 formula does
not change for inflation, the total benefits of the carbon sink were calculated as
$90,841 per year and remain fixed throughout the spreadsheets.
It is important to note that in the first year, trees and shrubs must be
planted and will not yield a return on the investment until the next full year in
which the trees and shrubs begin carbon sequestration. Costs associated with
the planting of trees and shrubs will be covered by existing services provided by
the County contractor, Prestige Property Maintenance, Inc. New contracts may
be drawn for affordable landscaping near the $75,000 mark. This figure was
adjusted for inflation with a three percent consumer price index each year over
this study’s twenty-year period.
95
Chapter Six
A GHG Strategic Mitigation Plan for FLL
The recommended plan type for FLL’s GHG mitigation plan is the strategic
plan. This plan was chosen primarily for its brevity and preciseness in carrying
out a simple project within a fixed amount of time. Donnelly (1984; p.1) believes
that strategic plans close “the gap between the annual business plan and the
traditional long-range plan.” Bryson (1995) would concur with Donnelly and add
that strategic plans clarify organizational mandates and missions so that complex
tasks are simplified into easy to adopt strategies. These aspects of a strategic
plan are uniquely well-suited for the proposed implementation of trees and
shrubs around FLL as a viable carbon sink.
Plan Formulation
Design of the strategic plan requires a process by which to formulate and
adopt strategies towards managing key issues. Bryson (1995; p.155) stresses
the need to establish a vision for the project. Camillus (1986) underlines the need
for a framework of planning versus control. In other words, planners must have a
visionary idea that does not dictate all details in the plan, like the precise choice
of plants in the carbon sink, the exact costs specified in the Request for Letters of
96
Interest, and so forth. Camillus argues that a strategic plan should focus on the
process, linkages, administrative duties, timing, and output as they pertain to the
project. These ideas would preclude the mundane measuring of inches
separating trees and shrubs from becoming the focus of the carbon sink strategic
plan and would emphasize the overall goals of the project with respect to a
measurable action plan (Fogg, 1999; p.93).
To organize the strategic plan, certain rules must be followed. Bryson
(1995) stresses the basics: who are the leaders, who are the benefactors, and
what goals do they all have in common. With respect to this paradigm, the FLL
GHG strategic mitigation plan would note that the Broward Commission and the
airport planners at BCAD are the leaders in this case, and the benefactors would
be the employees and passengers at the airport, not to mention the residents in
neighboring communities like Melaleuca Gardens. These parties share the
common goal of reducing carbon emissions at the airport and increasing the flow
of oxygen around the airport in order to stave off oxidative stress and related
health problems attributed to GHG. To address the mission, additional goals
arise in the form of creating a carbon sink at FLL comprised of suitable native
Florida trees and shrubs to be planted in recommended areas within the airport
region.
97
Mission Statement
Given the people, one must determine a shared vision, or mission
statement, that will galvanize support for the strategic plan. Bryson (1995; p.155)
would make the goal of the leaders and benefactors as clear as possible. Many
ideas may arise from the carbon sink project, but the central goal remains the
same: “To mitigate greenhouse gases at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport through the creation of a carbon sink comprised of native
Florida trees and shrubs which will sequester the carbon in the air and increase
the flow of oxygen around the airport region.” Additional benefits can be included
in this mission statement, such as “reduction of oxidative stress,” “improvement
of the air quality,” and “decreasing health risks associated with GHG and related
toxins in the air.” The formal strategic plan which appears later on in this chapter
carefully presents the vision for this strategic plan.
Developing a Budget
Prioritization of goals leads to budgetary concerns. Donnelly (1984) asks
of each strategic plan—is it fiscally feasible? What is the budget for this project,
and where will the money come from? To answer these questions, one must
refer to the cost-benefit analyses presented in Chapter 5. The capital cost will be
98
somewhat expensive—approximately $107,250 to be spent on a one-time cash
outlay for the procurement of the recommended trees and shrubs. Operational
costs will be a fraction of present-day maintenance costs for services around the
airport region. The benefits reflect a social value and therefore, have no physical
cash equivalent for use in the strategic plan. Nevertheless, the vision for this
strategic plan clearly retains the creation of a carbon sink as the critical goal in
this project regardless of cost, and the net benefit of mitigating GHG is seen as a
positive, not a minus in this process.
Plan Effectiveness
The strategic plan must take on structure to achieve the effectiveness of
the overall project. Camillus (1986; p.107) cites the following components of an
effective strategic plan: input (such as the cost of trees and shrubs and
maintenance), workload (maintenance and physical labor), output (more oxygen
and less GHG), effectiveness (distribution of oxygen around the airport), and
efficiency (quantity of air per jet redeemed). Of all the Camilllus’ components, the
one problematic standard is efficiency, for it is difficult to measure gases that are
emitted from a jet engine. One solution might be to procure gas-measuring
devices and place them strategically around the airport. However, this prospect
might be too costly and could defeat the purpose of creating a safe and cheap
99
manner by which to mitigate GHG. Another option might be to follow the Greek
example (Moussiopoulos, 1997) and study GHG using geographical information
systems (GIS). However, one must first measure the gases in the air, which
would necessitate the procurement of a gas-measuring device similar to what the
Dutch are using in Amsterdam (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, 2010). For the
purpose of this plan, it is recommended that the viability and survival rate of each
tree and shrub count towards the efficiency of the project in place of the actual
measurement of oxygen and GHG around FLL. If all trees and shrubs manage to
survive after planting, it could be said that the carbon sink succeeded in
mitigating GHG by virtue of the plants using CO2 for photosynthesis, resulting in
carbon sequestration into the ground. If over fifty percent of the trees and shrubs
die after planting, one might say the carbon sink was a failure.
Plan Components
These concerns translate into principal components of the strategic plan.
Camillus (1986; p.214) emphasizes that in a strategic plan, there exists the need
to “define the problem, evaluate the problem, transmit information, decide upon
an action, and monitor progress.” This process leads to what Bryson (1995;
p.166) identifies as “strategy implementation.” The problem herein is GHG. The
solution is a carbon sink. The problem is then compounded by the question how.
100
Information is gathered on the terrain and potential locations for suitable trees
and shrubs, which leads to the next question, what. Planners and contracted
maintenance employees will decide what kind of bush or tree to plant. Ultimately,
progress would be measured over time to see if any plants or trees die, or if there
are any unforeseen changes in the airport region that might prove detrimental to
the integrity of the carbon sink strategic plan.
Bryson’s proposal is useful in providing structure for the strategic plan, but
there is one element that is missing from his rubric. Fogg (1999) believes that the
key is to involve all people associated with the project. This prospect would entail
enlisting committees of airport and airline employees, contract workers, and
neighboring residents who might be affected by the noise or GHG directly.
Additionally, participants could include new-hired people and even old staff to
facilitate implementation of this strategic plan. Fogg (1999; p.234) also stresses
the point of using teams wherever possible and to know the culture of the staff
before embarking upon a new plan that has never been tested.
Communication in a plan of this type is the key to its overall success.
People must see the reason behind the work before they will endorse the project.
Moreover, Fogg (1999; p.366) argues that there must be performance review and
reward for a job well done. This idea means that someone like an airport planner
must check on the status of the plan at all times. Additionally, Donnelly (1984;
101
p.107) warns against “marrying” compensation with planning. To award workers
with cash all the time can lead to misinformation from the workers who may
consistently pursue the money instead of good work (Donnelly, 1984; p.107).
Finally, there must be a backup plan in case communication reports that the
project has failed (Donnelly, 1984; p.86). If maintenance workers report that trees
and shrubs are dying, an airport planner must study the situation and consider
other alternatives. One may have to resort to simple landscaping with suitable
grass or some other aspect of beautification for the airport region, or else leave
the region bare.
The integrity of the actors in a strategic plan is critical to the functioning of
the project. Camillus (1986) underlines the need to set responsibility standards
for all actors. For instance, in the case of the airport planner who discovers that
the plan is failing because the trees and shrubs are dying, what are his or her
prerogatives, and how must he or she act as a public servant? The airport
planner must communicate with his superiors, with the Broward Commission,
and the general public. It is of paramount importance that public servants keep
lines of communication open with the general public, and it is for this reason that
committees be formed with residents of Dania Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and
Hollywood in order to facilitate the planting of suitable trees or shrubs. Residents
may have additional recommendations and may suggest inclusion of additional
parcels of land for plant distribution. They may even vote in their local
102
commissions to enforce laws to maintain the integrity of the carbon sink which
prohibit chopping down a tree or removing a shrub.
Future Growth
One final recommendation for this strategic plan is to anticipate future
growth. If the carbon sink is a success, what should come next? A committee
might be needed to discuss available options which can include the purchase of
a GHG-monitoring device similar to what is used at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport,
or which could require acquisition of other land parcels within the airport vicinity
so that the carbon sink can be expanded. This committee would work with the
airport planners to review the following strategic plan agenda items taken from
Donnelly (1984; pp.62-3): overview, opportunities, marketing, strategies, assets,
and organization. From reviewing these items, the entire carbon sink team can
prioritize improved actions in the future and further the process of reducing GHG
beyond the scope of merely planting trees and shrubs on a few hundred acres at
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. For instance, are roof top
gardens the next best option, or should the airport pursue electric engine ramp
vehicles and the like to reduce further the GHG at FLL?
103
“Vision of Success”
The hardest part of developing a strategic plan is developing a sound
“vision of success.” Bryson (1995; pp.161-164) identifies ten pointers with regard
to developing visions for strategic plans and includes the following caveats in
writing them. Table 14 shows how the FLL GHG strategic mitigation plan
corresponds to Bryson’s ideas.
Based on these observations and in compliance with the directions given
by Bryson (1995), the strategic plan for the “FLL Carbon Sink” was formulated
using a list of initiatives, goals, and related ideas that appear in Figure 12. Critical
to the implementation of the plan, the collaboration of BCAD employees, airline
and related business employees, and neighboring residents was accentuated to
ensure that everyone should have a voice in deciding how GHG were mitigated
much to his or her approval thereof. Without proper input from all participants,
this plan would miss the point of trying to benefit human life and the environment
through GHG mitigation. The principal goal of this plan is to protect the health
and welfare of the whole community—airport employees, airport passengers, and
even nearby residents of places like Melaleuca Gardens.
104
Table 14: Comparing the Plan with Bryson’s (1995) Ten Pointers
1
Bryson
Remember that usually a vision of success
is not to improve the organization per se
2
Wait until one or more cycles of strategic
planning before trying to develop a vision of
success
3
Include outcomes and benefits early in the
vision of success rather than waiting for the
end to discuss them
Develop the vision of success out of past
decisions and actions as much as possible
4
5
Make your vision of success inspirational
6
Enhance the vision statement with the
proper degree of tension to encourage
effective change in the organization
Have planning team members prepare a
draft of the vision of success individually
and then collaborate on the final product
7
8
Review the vision statement with a
normative process
9
Reach consensus on the vision of success
with all key decision makers
Disseminate the vision statement to as
many actors as possible
10
105
GHG Strategic Mitigation Plan
The carbon sink is not designed to improve
BCAD or the operations at FLL; the goal is to
reduce GHG at the airport and make the air
less toxic to the environment
The airport has known about the GHG
problem since writing the EIS back in 2008;
the time is now to employ some method by
which to reduce GHG before the situation
gets any worse
Fewer carbon emissions into the air will
definitely benefit human life and improve the
ecosystem
BCAD has tried to address this problem
before in the EIS (2008), and the greatest
attempt to remedy the situation was a
beautification project with mixed native and
non-native plants located along the
entranceway to the airport passenger
terminal loop
There is nothing greater than embracing the
environment and making it better
Employees at FLL must breathe airport air; to
ignore the situation with GHG leads to
continued health risks from oxidative stress
This vision of success has been developed
by the student and professors at Florida
Atlantic University and may be revised at any
point by FLL personnel
The plan can be reviewed normatively within
one to five years as the trees and shrubs
grow
It is anticipated that the Broward Commission
will endorse this plan and fund the project
This plan should be made available to all
people including the general public and the
private sector that conduct business with FLL
Figure 12:
FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GREENHOUSE GAS STRATEGIC MITIGATION PLAN VISION OF SUCCESS
Future
Projecting current environmental trends, a student at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) developed this vision of what the
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) might look like in the year 2014:
Services
• Inappropriate non-native plants which do not reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) sufficiently enough will be removed from
airport vicinity.
• Native Florida trees and shrubs including Buttonwood, Acacia, and Ficus will be planted to replace non-native plants.
• Animals will not be tempted to congregate near trees and shrubs, thereby reducing the threat of airstrikes.
• Visitors to and employees of the airport will enjoy seeing native Florida species of plants.
• Within one year after having planted the new trees and shrubs, FLL employees and airport passengers will breathe
fewer toxins in the air.
• Fewer lung and heart complications will result in fewer visits to regional hospitals.
• FLL will broaden the scope of airport/community relationships with Dania Beach and Fort Lauderdale by including
residents and city leaders in plan implementation.
• Plan implementation will be accompanied by widespread advertisement and public notice to encourage businesses and
the general public in Broward County, Florida to come to the airport.
• FLL will become a world model for airport GHG mitigation.
Technology
•
•
•
•
•
Airport planners will use computers to map specific regions with recommended native Florida trees and shrubs.
Bulldozers and construction equipment will remove non-native plants from the airport vicinity.
Recommended native Florida trees and shrubs will be planted using construction equipment.
Irrigation systems will be employed to water all trees and shrubs as needed.
Trees and shrubs will be maintained by service crews as needed.
Personnel
• Greater emphasis will be placed on the staff's need for continuing education on airport environmental issues.
• Same airport personnel will keep their jobs.
Facilities
•
•
•
•
Airport land will be used for planting trees and shrubs in order to mitigate GHG at FLL.
Fenced-in airport regions will be the temporary storage center for construction equipment.
Non-native plants will be moved to landfill along with the removal of the berms by the South Runway.
All native Florida trees and shrubs will be planted by 2014 .
Community Demographics
• There will continue to be a diverse population working at, visiting, and using FLL.
• There will be more people of color and more people of all ages using the airport.
Community Input
• The airport will actively seek and effectively use input from airport business groups and the community in planning
and evaluating the airport’s GHG mitigation project. Such efforts will hopefully raise the community's awareness of
the airport’s goal of being a better neighbor and will produce advocates for its support.
Funding
• FLL and the Federal Aviation Administration will play a major role in funding this project.
106
Chapter Seven
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport is a busy
metropolitan airport located in South Florida which serves tens of millions of
passengers each year. This activity creates large quantities of GHG that emit
from aircraft taking off and landing. Accumulation of GHG has raised concern
that health problems could arise from excessive exposure to carbon emissions
and PM. ICAO, IMO, and the Kyoto Protocol concur that it is of paramount
importance that airports like FLL take an active stance towards mitigating GHG
and improving airport air quality.
The purpose of this report was to test the hypothesis whether or not a
carbon sink can safely and cheaply mitigate greenhouse gases at FLL through
the planting of native Florida trees and shrubs at various locations around the
airport. The findings of this report suggest that a GHG strategic mitigation plan
can be implemented. Moreover, the literature review confirmed that this project
should work in the same way that other airports such as Amsterdam Schiphol
Airport in the Netherlands have managed to reduce carbon emissions through
carbon sinks built strategically around the airport. Based on the European model,
the FLL carbon sink was designed to replace non-native and sometimes invasive
flora presently used for beautification purposes with native Florida trees and
107
shrubs that would work best in the ecosystem. FLL had tried to address GHG
once before in their EIS; however, the result accomplished very little aside from
airport beautification (FLL, 2008).
Discussion
The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood region sandwiches FLL and forces
residents to think carefully about the air they are breathing. It is not just the
airport employees who breathe in GHG; visitors to the airport and people who
live nearby may be breathing in toxic gases as well. The argument debated by
the research question posed in this report is not whether the airport and the
community should do something about the buildup of GHG at FLL. The question
is how. For that reason, it was recommended in this report that a carbon sink be
constructed strategically around the airport using the following criteria found in
this report’s suitability analysis:
1.
Plants should thrive well in South Florida weather.
2.
Plants should be accustomed to South Florida soil.
3.
Plants should have ample foliage to absorb carbon.
4.
Plants should require very little pruning.
5.
Plants should need very little fertilizing, if at all.
108
6.
Plants can stand strong sun exposure.
7.
Plants should not require living near same species only.
8.
Plants should withstand harsh South Florida climate.
9.
Plants should stand up to harsh winds (sometimes gales).
10.
Plants do not attract wildlife for nesting, fruit-eating, etc.
11.
Plants do not produce berries nor seed pods.
12.
Plants do not generate flowers.
13.
Plants do not create fruit that attract birds and other animals.
14.
Plants are neither too short nor too tall.
This suitability analysis yielded a list of the top twenty ranking native South
Florida trees and shrubs. Many of the species on the list were trees. However,
there is enough of a variety on the list to select any kind of plant that would be
ideally suited for various locations cited in plant distribution mapping. A total of
roughly two hundred acres around the edges of the AOA were identified for the
purpose of planting any of the trees and shrubs mentioned on the suitability list.
Airport planners should have sufficient leeway in deciding exactly which tree or
shrub should go where within the specific regions identified by plant distribution
mapping through GIS.
Cost-benefit analysis of GHG mitigation at FLL revealed that the project is
in fact feasible and yields a positive net present value for construction of the
109
airport carbon sink. At a discount rate of one percent for the CBA, the NPV was
approximately $46,000. At two percent, the NPV was approximately $36,000.
And finally at three percent, the NPV was $26,000. This information underscores
the viability of the project regardless of the internal rate of return and reflects the
social benefit of reducing GHG and improving the circulation of oxygen at FLL.
Moreover, the CBA suggests that a carbon sink would prove useful in airport
planning as a way to beautify safely and improve air quality cheaply. Granted that
it would be advantageous to monitor the airport air quality using devices which
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport presently uses, the current system of watching
plants closely to see whether trees or shrubs thrive once planted may prove just
as useful in determining the overall success of this plan.
This plan to create a carbon sink with thousands of native trees and
shrubs is a gigantic undertaking. However, with this plan realized over time,
benefits are expected to outweigh the costs through the social return on this
investment. Airport employees will breathe more easily, and so will residents in
neighborhoods such as Melaleuca Gardens, which is located right next-door to
the soon-to-be-expanded South Runway. If one could put a price on oxygen,
would one be willing to pay $8.47 a tree to ensure that one does not breathe in
PM and toxic jet fumes? That formula was used in this report, and granted that
many people would place a value on oxygen at a much higher standard, it is only
110
fair to say that trees are a vital resource on this planet, and the more one can
plant near places like FLL, the better life is for everyone.
Airport planners must not forget the importance of the environment when
studying passenger miles and calculating space for new jet arrivals. Without
optimal air quality—passengers, employees, and nearby residents may suffer in
terms of health and well-being. Planners must study the airport environment and
determine whether or not there is too much tarmac and not enough foliage. Even
if one area is appropriated for use as AOA at FLL, there must be an area
elsewhere that can still be used as a part of the carbon sink. Failure to respect
the environment is to invite disaster: bird strikes by aircraft landing and taking off,
greater dispersion of GHG in the outlying regions, and increase in health
problems associated with the inhalation of carbon emissions, nitrogen oxides,
and various PM. Planners must act appropriately and accordingly.
Recommendations
It is recommended that this strategic plan, or “vision of success,” be
implemented as soon as possible in order to reap the benefits of a viable carbon
sink at FLL. This plan will successfully mitigate GHG from principal sources of
carbon emissions including aircraft engines and ramp vehicle exhaust. GHG
111
mitigation is important for the future of FLL and its neighboring communities, and
it relies upon the planting of new trees and shrubs that are properly suited for the
airport ecosystem. By implementing this plan, airport planners can successfully
and masterfully reduce carbon emissions, increase oxygen distribution, and
promote better health of airport employees and visitors, not to mention improve
on air quality for nearby residents in neighborhoods like Melaleuca Gardens.
The recommendations contained herein are designed to benefit people
and wildlife that thrive in the airport’s ecosystem. Without addressing the needs
of the ecosystem first, one may make mistakes—such as planting trees that grow
too tall or require too much water and pruning. The needs of the FLL ecosystem
have been discussed and stressed throughout this report, and the
recommendations to plant a certain variety come with a caveat that if the airport
plants solely for beautification purposes, the benefits of a carbon sink may be
reduced considerably. It is for this reason that airport planners at FLL should try
to attain a balance of trees and shrubs as they select individual plants for the
regions chosen for planting around the airport.
Ideally, all areas at FLL should be available for planting trees and shrubs.
However, it is known that trees and shrubs cannot be planted in locations such
as the AOA or RPZs, and therefore the fenced off areas protecting these regions
were not included in the analysis. Instead, areas which are presently used, such
112
as the median separating lanes of travel along Federal Highway, or those regions
which should become available, such as the back lot behind the eastern edge of
the South Runway, were recommended for plant distribution and included in the
airport mapping.
Besides the airport carbon sink, there are other opportunities that are
available which are highly recommended for the future. For instance, roof top
gardens, or “green roofs,” can be built to some degree on the roofs of airport
terminals. These roof top gardens may reduce the heat absorbed by the terminal
roofs and increase the amount of oxygen distributed at the airport. However, a
caveat exists towards erecting tall trees or shrubs with shallow root systems, for
these plants become projectiles—sometimes deadly—whenever hurricane winds
or strong thunderstorms visit the region. Therefore, appropriate trees and shrubs
are recommended for roof top gardens at FLL, and a separate study may be
required to identify those plants ideally suited for this purpose.
It is also recommended that more electric-battery type vehicles be
employed at the airport. This list includes ramp vehicles, taxi limousines, and
even those public buses that visit the airport passenger traffic loop. Presently, the
airport accumulates considerable amounts of exhaust from these vehicles both
airside and landside. Therefore, it is recommended that a CBA be conducted to
determine the cost-worthiness of buying new vehicles and reducing GHG at the
113
airport. The model used for airplane exhaust in this study used a carbon sink
comprised of trees and shrubs. It may be necessary to consider other study
options with the ramp vehicles, taxi limousines, and public buses. For instance,
how much suitable land and how many carbon sinks are required for to reduce all
GHG at the airport?
Moreover, it is recommended that aircraft designers at Boeing, Airbus, and
Embraer look into making aircraft that are GHG-sensitive. It is not enough that
today’s aircraft are fuel efficient. Airplanes of the future must be GHG-efficient
and must not emit tons of carbon emissions and PM into the air—especially in
urban regions like Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, or Dania Beach (Melaleuca
Gardens). It has been suggested that some car companies take an interest in
reducing GHG with their car engines, and this prospect leads one to wonder what
can be done about the GHG that accumulate at airports like FLL. Therefore, it is
recommended that aircraft companies embrace new technology that makes
“green aircraft” for air travel of the future.
Future Applications
The most important message of this report goes to the airport planners
and employees in public service. If airports like Amsterdam, Zürich, and
114
Stockholm can lead the way for GHG mitigation, what is stopping airports like
FLL from doing the same? It is incumbent upon planners of the future at all
airports to reduce carbon emissions and encourage airlines and airport-related
companies to pursue a “green” world that benefits from projects such as carbon
sinks. Moreover, if FLL’s carbon sink is a success, one can replicate this project
elsewhere—such as small regional airports like the Fort Lauderdale Commercial
Airport, or larger airports like New York LaGuardia or New York John F. Kennedy
Airports. The goal with these airport carbon sinks is to reduce GHG ubiquitously
and improve the global picture of carbon mission mitigation as recommended by
ICAO, IMO, and the Kyoto Protocol.
There are other options. First, it was suggested in the literature review that
an offset be established for passengers who travel by plane. In other words, if
one chooses to fly, one can charge a fee calibrated for the length of travel which
will cover the costs of procuring land, planting a tree or shrub, and then watering
and caring for it. Granted that this idea is voluntary in most places, it may be
required one day on a permanent basis to offset the damage created by a blast
of GHG from an airplane’s engine. Second, passengers may be forced to choose
between traveling, or not traveling at all in order to mitigate GHG. Should the
price of air fuel become exorbitant in the years to come, this prospect may be
more imminent than previously imagined. For instance, would one be willing to fly
to New York from Fort Lauderdale for $10,000 in the economy section if the price
115
of fuel goes up too high and an offset for GHG mitigation is then added to the
price of the ticket?
Presently, the general public has the choice of flying based on utility. If it
serves the purpose and the people can afford the price of the ticket, people will
fly and utilize the airport and its services. The question remains: how do we curb
GHG in the years to come? Should we begin now with carbon sinks and
implement voluntary offset programs soon thereafter? Should we tell the general
public not to fly because of the dangers they present to people who work at or
visit the airport? Do these people care about what GHG do to communities like
Melaleuca Gardens that live on the periphery of the airport?
Granted that airport travel will probably increase over the next decade
provided that airplane fuel does not preclude it, one must consider the prospects
for mitigating GHG worldwide. Airports must reach out to neighboring
communities like Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and Dania Beach, and these cities
must help in the construction of carbon sinks in other neighboring regions in
order to reduce carbon emissions and PM in the atmosphere. Ordinances must
be passed to restrict the felling of a tree or removal of a shrub so that carbon
sinks may be protected against vandal attacks. Without the world’s attention and
mutual cooperation, GHG accumulation may increase dramatically over the next
several decades. Consequently, it is imperative that airports like FLL act now to
116
mitigate GHG through the use of carbon sinks—a cheap and safe method by
which to reduce carbon emissions and increase oxygen flow virtually
everywhere.
117
REFERENCES
AirportWildlife.com. (n.d.). Top 12 Hazardous Species to Aircraft. Retrieved
August 27, 2011, from Loomacres Wildlife Management:
http://airportwildlife.com/top12.php
Airport Wildlife Consultants. (2011). Summary of Qualifications. Retrieved August
27, 2011, from Airport Wildlife Consultants:
http://www.awcphx.com/resume/airport-resume.htm
Alberti, M. (2009). Advances of Urban Ecology. New York, NY: Springer.
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. (2010). Het Is Er Allemaal. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
Answers.com. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2012, from How much oxygen does a
tree produce?:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_oxygen_does_one_tree_produce&already
Asked=1&rtitle=How_much_oxygen_does_a_tree_produce&isLookUp=1
Bartholomew, D. (2010, October 19). Airport Planning Manager. (J. Bradford,
Interviewer)
Bartle, J. (2006). The Sustainable Development of U.S. Air Transportation. Public
Works Management and Policy , 10, 214-224.
Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Innovation and Climate Action Planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association , 76 (4), 435-450.
Bruinsma, F., Gorter, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2000). Multimodal Infrastructure,
Transport Networks, and the International Relocation of Firms. Transportation
Planning and Technology , 23 (3), 259-281.
Bryson, J.M. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bueno, J., Tsihrintzis, V., & Alvarez, L. (1995). South Florida Greenways: A
Conceptual Framework for the Ecological Reconnectivity of the Region.
Landscape and Urban Planning , 33, 247-266.
118
Burbank, California. (n.d.). Sustainability. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from
Burbank Airport: http://www.burbankairport.com/noise/sustainability.html
Cabanatuan, M. (September 18, 2009). New Kiosks at SFO First to Sell Carbon
Offsets. The San Francisco Chronicle , pp. 1,5.
Camfil-Farr. (n.d.). Future Demands: Airports and Air Travel. Retrieved January
2, 2012, from Clean Air For Airports:
www.camfilfarr.com/Global/Documents/Brochure/Airports_segment_brochure_E
N-GB.pdf
Camillus, J.C. (1986). Strategic Planning and Management Control. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Caris, A., MacHaris, C., & Janssens, G. (2008). Planning Problems in Intermodal
Freight Transport: Accomplishments and Prospects. Transportation Planning and
Technology , 31 (3), 277-302.
Cohen, B., Bronzaft, A. L., Heikkinen, M., Goodman, J., & Nadas, A. (2008).
Airport-Related Air Pollution and Noise. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene , 5 (2), 119-129.
Cork, P. (August 10, 1999). Health Issues. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from
F.R.A.A.N. News Release:
http://badgerysacpnp.homestead.com/files/airportairpollution.htm
Daley, B. (January 9, 2008). Is Air Transport an Effective Tool for Sustainable
Development. Retrieved January 7, 2012, from Wiley Interscience:
www.interscience.wiley.com
de Sherbinin, A., Schiller, A., & Pulsipher, A. (2007). The Vulnerability of Global
Cities to Climate Hazards. Environment and Urbanization , 19, 39-64.
Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming Cities for Climate Change? An Analysis of Urban
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories. Environment and Urbanization , 21,
185-201.
Donnelly, R.M. (1984). Guidebook to Planning. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
119
Duchene, N., & Fuller, I. (2011). Comparison of Measured and Modelled NO2
Values at Zurich Airport. Environment and Pollution , 44 (1-4/2011), 342-350.
Earth Talk. (n.d.). Flying vs. Driving: Which is Better for the Environment?
Retrieved January 7, 2012, from About.com Environmental Issues:
http:/environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/fly_vs_drive.htm
Eldridge, L. (October 29, 2011). Does Air Pollution Cause Lung Cancer?
Retrieved January 2, 2012, from About.com Lung Cancer:
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/lungcancerairpollution.htm
Embry-Riddle University. (n.d.). Wildlife Management. Retrieved August 27,
2011, from Airport Wildlife Mitigation:
http://pluto.pr.erau.edu/~wildlife/WildlifeManagement.htm
Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
Retrieved March 3, 2012, from FAA Federal Air Regulations:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/
Federal Aviation Administration. (August 27, 2011). Search the FAA Wildlife
Strike Database. Retrieved August 27, 2011, from Airport Technology R&D
Branch, Airport Wildlife Hazard Mitigation: http://wildlifemitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/database.aspx
Fern. (n.d.). Tracking EU Policies Focusing on Forests. Retrieved January 7,
2012, from FERN Campaign: http://www.fern.org/campaign/carbontrading/wwhat-are-carbon-sinks
Fogg, C.D. (1999). Implementing Your Strategic Plan. New York: American
Management Association.
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. (2008). Environmental Impact
Statement. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Broward County Aviation Department.
Giuliano, G., & Small, K. (1991). Subcenters in the Los Angeles Region.
Regional Science and Urban Economics , 21, 163-182.
Gössling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, R., & Hultman, J. (2009).
Swedish Air Travelers and Voluntary Carbon Offsets. Current Issues in Tourism ,
12 (1), 1-19.
GreenerChocies.org. (n.d.). Carbon footprint calculator and offsets. Retrieved
February 5, 2012, from Energy Saving Center: Calculators:
120
http://www.greenerchoices.org/energysavingathome.cfm?page=Toolkit#Carbonfo
otprintcalculators
Greenskies. (2004). Health Impacts. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from Air Quality
Around Airports: www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Factsheetquality.pdf
Herndon, S., Onasch, T, Frank, B., Marr, L., Jayne, J., Canagaratna, M., Grygas,
J., Lanni, T., Anderson, B., Worsnop, D., Miake-Lye, R.. (2005). Particulate
emissions from In-Use Commercial Aircrafts. Aerosol Science and Technology ,
39 (8), 799-809.
James-Rendleman, H. (August 29, 2011). Director of Finance, Broward County
Aviation Department. (J. Bradford, Interviewer)
Kasarda, J. (April 2009). Airport Cities. Urban Land , 56-60.
Knoflacher, H. (2006). A New Way to Organize Parking: The Key to a Successful
Sustainable Transport System for the Future. Environment and Urbanization , 18,
387-400.
Kump, L., Kasting, J., & Crane, R. (2010). The Earth System. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kurtzweg, J. (1973). Urban Planning and Air Pollution Control. Journal of the
American Planning Association , 39 (2), 82-92.
Lidskog, R., & Soneryd, L. (2000). Transport Infrastructure Investment and
Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden. Environment and Planning A , 32,
1465-1479.
Lu, C., & Morrell, P. (2001). Evaluation and Implications of Environmental
Charges on Commercial Flights. Transport Reviews , 21 (3), 377-395.
MacHaris, C., Van Mierlo, J., & Van Den Bossche, P. (2007). Combining
Intermodal Transport With Electric Vehicles: Towards More Sustainable
Solutions. Transportation Planning and Technology , 30 (2-3), 311-323.
Marcotullio, P. (2003). Globalization, Urban Form and Environmental Conditions
in Asia-Pacific Cities. Urban Studies , 40 (2), 219-247.
Margerum, R. (1997). Integrated Approaches to Environmental Planning and
Management. Journal of Planning Literature , 11, 459-475.
121
Mendes, L., & Santos, G. (2008). Using Economic Instruments to Address
Emissions from Air Transport in the European Union. Environment and Planning
A , 40, 189-209.
Moreno-Jiménez, A., & Hodgart, R. (2003). Modelling a Single Type of
Environmental Impact from an Obnoxious Transport Activity. Environment and
Planning A , 35, 931-946.
Moussiopoulos, N. (1997). Analysis of the Impact of the New Athens Airport on
Urban Air Quality with Contemporary Air Pollution Models. International Journal
of Environment and Pollution , 8 (3-6), 427-435.
Muraya, N. (2008). Austin Climate Protection Plan “Possibly the Most Aggressive
City Greenhouse-Gas Reduction Plan.” Energy Engineering , 105 (2), 32-46.
Nederveen, A., Konings, J., & Stoop, J. (2003). Globalization, International
Transport and the Global Environment. Transportation Planning and Technology,
26 (1), 41-67.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. (June 2003). Executive
Summary. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from Controlling Airport-Related Air
Pollution: www.nescaum.org/documents/aviation_final_report.pdf/
Oberthür, S. (2003). Institutional Interaction to Address Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from International Transport. Climate Policy , 3 (3), 191-205.
Ollis, S., & Redfield, G. (2010). 2010 South Florida Environmental Report.
Tallahassee, FL: South Florida Water Management District.
Ormsby, T., Napoleon, E., Burke, R., Groessl, C., Bowden, L. (2008). Getting to
Know ArcGIS Desktop. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
Pokryske, J. (August 23, 2011). Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
Operations Supervisor. (J. Bradford, Interviewer)
Prosperi, D. (2008). MIA: Miami International Airport or Miami Innovation Area.
Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Florida
Atlantic University.
Quay, R. (2010). Anticipatory Governance. Journal of the American Planning
Association , 76 (4), 496-511.
122
Reh, F.J. (n.d.). Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from
About.com Management:
http://management.about.com/cs/money/a/CostBenefit.htm
Rice, J. (2010). Climate, Carbon, and Territory: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in
Seattle, WA. Annals of the Assocation of American Geographers , 100 (4), 929937.
San José State University Department of Economics. (n.d.). An Introduction to
Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from SJSU:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cba.htm
Schlenker, W., & Walker, W. R. (2011). Airports, Air Pollution, and
Contemporaneous Health. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Shea, D. (February 15, 2009). Bird Strike. Retrieved January 13, 2012, from The
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/bird-strike-what-mayhave_n_158271.html
Soneryd, L. (2004). Hearing as a Way of Dwelling. Society and Space , 22 (5),
737-753.
sunny.org. (February 2011). Visitors' Statistics. Retrieved January 14, 2012, from
Greater Fort Lauderdale:
http://www.sunny.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articleID=986&sectionID=9
Theophanides, M., & Anastassopoulou, J. (2009). Air Pollution Simulation and
Geographical Information System (GIS) Applied to Athens International Airport.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A , 44 (8), 758-766.
Tindall, B. (November 2003). Trains, Planes and Pains. Retrieved January 7,
2012, from The Sierra Club Magazine:
http:/www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200311/trains.asp
Trendowski, J. (n.d.). Airport Air Quality (AAQ). Retrieved January 2, 2012, from
The Alphabet Soup of Airport Air Quality: airquality.ucdavis.edu/pages/events
2008/.../TRENDOWSKI.pdf
Viton, P. (1989). Economic Contributions to Transportation Planning II. Journal of
Planning Literature , 4, 270-285.
123
West, L. (n.d.). U.S. Cancer Deaths Decline for First Time Since 1930. Retrieved
January 2, 2012, from About.com Environmental Issues:
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/uscancerdeaths.htm
124
APPENDIX 1
This section is a listing of native trees and shrubs found
In Florida (www.floridasnature.com/floridatrees1.htm).
125
APPENDIX 2
This section contains findings pertaining to FL
tree and shrub rankings without logarithm.
161
Table 15: Florida Trees and Shrubs (No Logarithm)
Name
St. John's Wort
Buttonwood
Water
Soil
Foliage
Pruning
Fertilize
Sun
Proximity
Climate
Wind
Wildlife
Berry
Flower
Fruit
Height
Sum
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4.7
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5.5
Beachcreeper
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
3
6.3
Coastal St. J.-W.
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
6.6
Roundpod St. J.-W.
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
6.6
Sandweed
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
6.7
Reticulate Pawpaw
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
6.9
Southern Dewberry
1.8
0
1.4
1
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
7
Myrtle Oak
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
5
7.5
Doctorbush
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
3
8.2
Dwarf Live Oak
0.9
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.8
0
1
0
3
8.4
Bigflower Pawpaw
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
8.8
Sand Live Oak
1.8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
5
9.4
0
0.9
1.4
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0.8
0
0
0
5
9.7
Indigo Bush
0.9
0.9
1.4
1
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
3
9.7
Florida Privet
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
9.9
0
1.8
1.4
0.5
0
1.6
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
4
10.1
Sea Lavender
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
6
10.2
Lantana
0.9
0
0
1
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
1
0
5
10.3
Ground Oak
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
1
10.5
Velvet Wild Coffee
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
5
11.2
Wild Coffee
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
5
11.2
Florida Rosemary
Water Toothleaf
162
Groundsel
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
11.2
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
1.6
5
11.7
Ficus
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
11.9
Inkberry
0.9
0.9
0
0.5
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
4
12
Shiny Blueberry
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
1.6
0
0.8
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
2
12.3
Deerberry
1.8
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
5
12.5
Pineland Acacia
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
12.6
Tarflower
0.9
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
8
13.1
Staggerbush
1.8
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
0
1.6
3
13.1
Spanish Bayonet
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
13.4
0
0
0
1
0.8
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
6
13.5
Strongbark
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
7
13.6
Chapman's Oak
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
10
13.9
Beautyberry
1.8
0
1.4
1
0
0.8
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
6
14.4
Gray Nicker
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
10
14.6
Queensdelight
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
3
15
Firebush
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
10
15.8
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
16.2
Scrub Hickory
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
10
16.8
Varnishleaf
0.9
0
0.7
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.8
1.4
0.8
0
1
0
10
17.2
Saw Palmetto
1.8
0.9
0.7
1
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
10
17.7
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
0.8
0
1
0
12
17.9
Graytwig/Whitewood
0.9
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0
15
18.2
Coco Plum
0.9
0.9
0
1
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
10
18.5
Lignum Vitae
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
1
0
15
19.2
Fiddlewood
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
15
19.9
Coin Vine
Rouge Plant
Acacia
Buttonbush
163
Pineland Snowberry
1.8
1.8
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
0
0
10
19.9
Marlberry
1.8
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
12
20.7
0
0.9
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
15
21.3
Cherokee Bean
1.8
0
0
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
16
23.8
Pond Apple
0.9
0.9
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
15
23.8
Wild Lime
0.9
0.9
0
1
0.8
0
0.8
0.8
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
15
24.4
Sabal Palm
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.8
0
0.8
0
0
1.6
1.6
1
0
15
24.5
Swamp Dogwood
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
15
24.7
Royal Palm
Jamaica Caper
0.9
0
1.4
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
1
0
20
24.9
Paurotis Palm
0
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
1
0
20
25
Red Mangrove
0
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
0
0
20
25
Willow Bustic
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
1.6
1
0
20
25.2
Spicewood
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
20
25.8
Stoppers
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
20
25.8
Torchwood
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.6
0
0
20
26.3
0
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
20
26.4
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
26.6
0
0.9
0
1
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
20
26.8
Devil's Wlkg. Stick
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1
0
20
27.5
Coconut Palm
0.9
0
1.4
0.5
0.8
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
20
27.8
Wax Myrtle
0.9
0
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
20
27.8
Myrsine
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
1.6
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
20
28.1
Poisonwood
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
20
28.4
American Elm
1.8
0
0
1
0
0
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
20
28.5
Bitterwood
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
20
28.8
Geiger Tree
0.9
0
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
25
29.1
Elderberry
Gumbo Limbo
White Mangrove
164
Turkey Oak
0.9
0.9
0.7
1
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.6
0
0
20
29.8
Sand Pine
1.8
0
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
25
30.6
Seagrape
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
1.6
25
31.1
Coastplain Willow
0.9
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
25
31.6
Red Maple
1.8
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
25
32.2
Swamp Bay
0
0.9
0.7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
1.6
25
32.3
Lancewood
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0.8
0.8
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
25
33.3
0
0.9
1.4
0.5
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
0
1.6
25
33.3
Dahoon Holly
Winged Sumac
0.9
0
0.7
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
25
33.7
Swamp Cyrilla
0
1.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
30
34
Red Mulberry
1.8
0.9
0.7
0
0.8
0.8
0
1.6
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
25
34.9
Tawnyberry
0.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
1.6
1
0
30
36
Strangler Fig
0
0.9
0
1
0
0.8
0
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.6
0
0
30
37.3
Sweet Bay
0
0
0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
0
1.6
30
37.6
Black Ironwood
0.9
0
0
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
1.4
1.6
1.6
1
0
30
38.7
Pigeon Plum
0.9
0
0.7
1
0.4
0.8
0
0
0.7
1.6
0
1
1.6
30
38.7
Mahogany
1.8
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
0
0
1
1.6
35
42.1
Tamarind
1.8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
1
0
40
45.3
Loblolly Bay
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0
1
0
40
49.5
Persimmon
1.8
1.8
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
40
50.2
Jungle Plum
1.8
0
0.7
1
0
1.6
0
0.8
1.4
1.6
0
1
1.6
40
51.5
Bald Cypress
0
1.8
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
54
Black Mangrove
0
0.9
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.7
1.6
0
0
0
50
55
Sycamore
0
0
0
1
0.8
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
60
63.6
0.9
0
0.7
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
0.8
0
0
0
60
64.8
0
0
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1.6
0
1
0
60
65.4
Live Oak
Laurel Oak
165
Water Hickory
1.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
1
0
60
67.3
Southern Magnolia
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.8
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
1
0
60
67.3
Slash Pine
1.8
0
1.4
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
79
166
Figure 13: Two-Step Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (No Logarithm)
Table 16: K-Means Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (No Logarithm)
Iteration Historya
Change in Cluster
Centers
Iteration
1
2
1
15.118
20.923
2
.000
.000
a. Convergence achieved due to no
or small change in cluster centers.
The maximum absolute coordinate
change for any center is .000. The
current iteration is 2. The minimum
distance between initial centers is
74.300.
167
Table 17: Hierarchical Clustering with Trees and Shrubs (No Logarithm)
Agglomeration Schedule
Cluster Combined
Stage
Cluster 1
Stage Cluster First Appears
Cluster 2
Coefficients
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Next Stage
1
61
62
.000
0
0
29
2
21
22
.000
0
0
31
3
4
5
.000
0
0
7
4
29
32
1.280
0
0
14
5
6
7
1.680
0
0
12
6
68
69
2.260
0
0
24
7
3
4
2.520
0
3
28
8
58
60
2.880
0
0
34
9
67
71
2.900
0
0
22
10
63
64
3.100
0
0
34
11
13
19
3.260
0
0
65
12
6
9
3.600
5
0
26
13
53
56
3.660
0
0
44
14
29
37
3.780
4
0
38
15
101
102
3.860
0
0
81
16
10
11
3.920
0
0
32
17
41
43
4.220
0
0
25
18
52
54
4.260
0
0
44
19
12
18
4.540
0
0
35
20
80
82
4.660
0
0
33
21
47
48
4.820
0
0
30
22
67
70
4.830
9
0
47
23
59
66
4.880
0
0
60
24
68
73
5.030
6
0
61
25
41
42
5.150
17
0
58
26
2
6
5.167
0
12
45
27
88
90
5.200
0
0
70
28
1
3
5.340
0
7
45
29
57
61
5.400
0
1
52
30
45
47
5.490
0
21
73
31
21
26
5.500
2
0
64
32
10
15
5.530
16
0
69
168
33
80
83
5.810
20
0
57
34
58
63
5.915
8
10
52
35
12
16
5.940
19
0
65
36
87
89
6.020
0
0
48
37
14
17
6.060
0
0
71
38
25
29
6.173
0
14
42
39
77
78
6.240
0
0
53
40
99
100
6.300
0
0
49
41
31
38
6.380
0
0
83
42
25
35
6.725
38
0
92
43
28
36
6.740
0
0
55
44
52
53
6.790
18
13
62
45
1
2
6.895
28
26
74
46
23
30
7.060
0
0
68
47
67
72
7.513
22
0
51
48
86
87
7.650
0
36
70
49
98
99
7.720
0
40
81
50
96
97
7.820
0
0
97
51
67
75
7.945
47
0
61
52
57
58
8.043
29
34
60
53
77
79
8.180
39
0
57
54
65
74
8.380
0
0
78
55
28
33
8.460
43
0
76
56
93
94
8.460
0
0
66
57
77
80
8.542
53
33
63
58
41
46
8.727
25
0
67
59
20
27
8.760
0
0
83
60
57
59
9.080
52
23
79
61
67
68
9.197
51
24
79
62
52
55
9.300
44
0
77
63
77
81
9.510
57
0
80
64
21
24
9.580
31
0
71
65
12
13
9.710
35
11
75
66
93
95
9.730
56
0
90
67
39
41
9.995
0
58
72
68
23
34
10.280
46
0
76
69
8
10
10.640
0
32
74
70
86
88
10.750
48
27
86
169
71
14
21
11.310
37
64
75
72
39
44
12.128
67
0
85
73
40
45
12.693
0
30
89
74
1
8
13.292
45
69
91
75
12
14
13.448
65
71
84
76
23
28
13.464
68
55
84
77
51
52
14.304
0
62
93
78
65
76
14.690
54
0
87
79
57
67
14.909
60
61
93
80
77
85
15.303
63
0
87
81
98
101
15.887
49
15
99
82
49
50
16.020
0
0
85
83
20
31
16.085
59
41
88
84
12
23
19.168
75
76
88
85
39
49
19.488
72
82
89
86
84
86
25.252
0
70
94
87
65
77
28.512
78
80
95
88
12
20
30.226
84
83
91
89
39
40
32.536
85
73
92
90
92
93
33.320
0
66
97
91
1
12
38.958
74
88
96
92
25
39
41.739
42
89
96
93
51
57
44.886
77
79
98
94
84
91
63.023
86
0
95
95
65
84
90.930
87
94
98
96
1
25
122.089
91
92
100
97
92
96
145.448
90
50
101
98
51
65
174.102
93
95
100
99
98
103
411.448
81
0
101
100
1
51
633.268
96
98
102
101
92
98
753.924
97
99
102
102
1
92
3463.691
100
101
0
170