Environmental impacts on soil and groundwater at airports: origin, contaminants of concern and environmental risks

Environmental impacts of airports are similar to those of many industries, though their operations expand over a very large area. Most international impact assessment studies and environmental management programmes have been giving less focus on the impacts to soil and groundwater than desirable. This may be the result of the large attention given to air and noise pollution, relegating other environmental descriptors to a second role, even when the first are comparatively less relevant. One reason that contributes to such ‘‘biased’’ evaluation is the lack of systematic information about impacts to soil and groundwater from airport activities, something the present study intends to help correct. Results presented here include the review of over seven hundred documents and online databases, with the objective of obtaining the following information to support environmental studies: (i) which operations are responsible for chemical releases?; (ii) where are these releases located?; (iii) which contaminants of concern are released?; (iv) what are the associated environmental risks? Results showed that the main impacts occur as a result of fuel storage, stormwater runoff and drainage systems, fuel hydrant systems, fuel transport and refuelling, atmospheric deposition, rescue and fire fighting training areas, winter operations, electrical substations, storage of chemical products by airport owners or tenants, and maintenance of green areas. A new method for ranking environmental risks of organic substances, based on chemical properties, is proposed and applied. Results show that the contaminants with the highest risks are the perfluorochemicals, benzene, trichloroethylene and CCl4.

Methodological aspects of a mathematical programming model to evaluate soil tillage technologies in a risky environment

In this work we develop a methodology for the economic evaluation of soil tillage technologies, in a risky environment, and to capture the influence of farmer behaviour on his technology choice. The model has short-term activities, that change with the type of year, and long-term activities, in which sets of traction investment activities are included. Although these activities do not change with the type of year, they lead to different availability of resources for each type of year, since the same tractor has different available fieldwork days under different weather conditions. We prove that the model is sensitive to the greater income variability resulting from the use of alternative technologies and to the balance between income and risk, accounting for the probability of occurrence of each state of nature and giving an investment solution that considers the best production plan for each type of year. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.