Automation surprises in aviation continue to be a significant safety concern and the community’s search for effective strategies to mitigate them are ongoing. The literature has offered two fundamentally divergent directions, based on different ideas about the nature of cognition and collaboration with automation. In this paper, we report the results of a field study that empirically compared and contrasted two models of automation surprises: a normative individual-cognition model and a sensemaking model based on distributed cognition. Our data prove a good fit for the sense-making model. This finding is relevant for aviation safety, since our understanding of the cognitive processes that govern human interaction with automation drive what we need to do to reduce the frequency of automation-induced events.
While tourism and air transport are recovering from the impacts of the Covid pandemic, it seems timely to draw a synthetic view of future stakes combining the following topics: the greenhouse gas emissions scenarios for tourism, regarding which recent work has improved their understanding; the climatic impact of aviation, almost 60% of which is due to non-CO 2 emissions; alternative fuels (biofuels, E-fuels, hydrogen) and engine designs (fuel cells...) which are complex and controversial issues, and whose potentials should be assessed regarding their timing, environmental impacts, and their ability to meet long distance travel requirements. This paper analyses the extent to which the new options regarding fuels and engines can help decarbonize tourism and air transport. The answer is that they can partly contribute but do not render obsolete previous work on substitutions between types of tourism (short versus long distance...), between transport modes (ground transport versus air), length of stay, etc. Following this step, the paper deals with the position of aviation players and the type of arguments they use. We conclude on the necessity to make strategic choices among the options to avoid wasting investments.
MULTIFILE
The development of sustainable aviation turns out to be a 30 year transition process. How to manage this transition process is a crucial for the change and success of the aviation sector in future. The foreseen solutions are mostly driven by technological innovation and improvements of procedures and regulations. The question is if these tools are sufficient to manage the innovation of an entire sector with 100 years legacy or are changes in business models, societal values and human behaviour part of the instrument mix aviation can use? New or adapted innovation models and tools are needed to use the full mix of instruments. The article explores the use of a modified Cyclic Innovation Model which is developed by researchers of TU Delft. The development of Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and the outlook for its next 100 years is used as a case to understand the complexity of sustainable airport development.
MULTIFILE
Client: Foundation Innovation Alliance (SIA - Stichting Innovatie Alliantie) with funding from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) Funder: RAAK (Regional Attention and Action for Knowledge circulation) The RAAK scheme is managed by the Foundation Innovation Alliance (SIA - Stichting Innovatie Alliantie) with funding from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). Early 2013 the Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport started work on the RAAK-MKB project ‘Carbon management for tour operators’ (CARMATOP). Besides NHTV, eleven Dutch SME tour operators, ANVR, HZ University of Applied Sciences, Climate Neutral Group and ECEAT initially joined this 2-year project. The consortium was later extended with IT-partner iBuildings and five more tour operators. The project goal of CARMATOP was to develop and test new knowledge about the measurement of tour package carbon footprints and translate this into a simple application which allows tour operators to integrate carbon management into their daily operations. By doing this Dutch tour operators are international frontrunners.Why address the carbon footprint of tour packages?Global tourism contribution to man-made CO2 emissions is around 5%, and all scenarios point towards rapid growth of tourism emissions, whereas a reverse development is required in order to prevent climate change exceeding ‘acceptable’ boundaries. Tour packages have a high long-haul and aviation content, and the increase of this type of travel is a major factor in tourism emission growth. Dutch tour operators recognise their responsibility, and feel the need to engage in carbon management.What is Carbon management?Carbon management is the strategic management of emissions in one’s business. This is becoming more important for businesses, also in tourism, because of several economical, societal and political developments. For tour operators some of the most important factors asking for action are increasing energy costs, international aviation policy, pressure from society to become greener, increasing demand for green trips, and the wish to obtain a green image and become a frontrunner among consumers and colleagues in doing so.NetworkProject management was in the hands of the Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (CSTT) of NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences. CSTT has 10 years’ experience in measuring tourism emissions and developing strategies to mitigate emissions, and enjoys an international reputation in this field. The ICT Associate Professorship of HZ University of Applied Sciences has longstanding expertise in linking varying databases of different organisations. Its key role in CARMATOP was to create the semantic wiki for the carbon calculator, which links touroperator input with all necessary databases on carbon emissions. Web developer ibuildings created the Graphical User Interface; the front end of the semantic wiki. ANVR, the Dutch Association of Travel Agents and Tour operators, represents 180 tour operators and 1500 retail agencies in the Netherlands, and requires all its members to meet a minimum of sustainable practices through a number of criteria. ANVR’s role was in dissemination, networking and ensuring CARMATOP products will last. Climate Neutral Group’s experience with sustainable entrepreneurship and knowledge about carbon footprint (mitigation), and ECEAT’s broad sustainable tourism network, provided further essential inputs for CARMATOP. Finally, most of the eleven tour operators are sustainable tourism frontrunners in the Netherlands, and are the driving forces behind this project.
The carbon dioxide emissions of aviation play an important role in many studies and databases. But unfortunately, a detailed and reliable overview of emission factors, and algorithms to calculate these based on factors like seating class, airline type, and aircraft type, did not exist for the Dutch aviation sector. This study calculated such emissions for a sample of over 5000 international flights in 2019 from the 5 Dutch main airports. The data about the flights were gathered from FlightRadar and enriched with seating capacities specific to the airline performing ten flights. in this way, emissions could be assigned to each of the four seating classes (economy, economy-plus, business and first). By aggregating the data to airline types and distance of the flight, algorithms were developed that help researchers and policy-makers to calculate the emissions. Societal IssueThe carbon footprint of Dutch aviation is about 10% of the total footprint. To prevent the world to exceed 1.5 degrees C and enter 'dangerous climate change', emissions need to decline to zero before 2050. This study helps assess and understand current aviation emissions from Dutch airports.Benefit to societyThe results were an update of emissions factors as used by the funding organisation, MilieuCentraal, and the official emission factors list (https://www.co2emissiefactoren.nl/lijst-emissiefactoren/).
In the Glasgow declaration (2021), the tourism sector promised to reduce its CO2 emissions by 50% and reduce them to zero by 2050. The urgency is felt in the sector, and small steps are made at company level, but there is a lack of insight and overview of effective measures at global level.This study focuses on the development of a necessary mix of actions and interventions that the tourism sector can undertake to achieve the goal of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 towards zero emissions by 2050. The study contributes to a better understanding of the paths that the tourism sector can take to achieve this and their implications for the sector. The aim of the report is to spark discussion, ideas and, above all, action.The study provides a tool that positively engages the sector in the near and more distant future, inspires discussion, generates ideas, and drives action. In addition, there will be a guide that shows the big picture and where the responsibilities lie for the reduction targets. Finally, the researchers come up with recommendations for policymakers, companies, and lobbyists at an international and European level.In part 1 of the study, desk research is used to lay the foundation for the study. Here, the contribution of tourism to global greenhouse gas emissions is mapped out, as well as the image and reputation of the sector on climate change. In addition, this section describes which initiatives in terms of, among other things, coalitions and declarations have already been taken on a global scale to form a united front against climate change.In part 2, 40 policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the sector are evaluated in a simulation. For this simulation, the GTTMdyn simulation model, developed by Paul Peeters from BUAS, is used which works on a global scale and shows the effect of measures on emissions, tourism, transport, economy, and behaviour. In this simulation, the researchers can 'test' measures and learn from mistakes. In the end one or more scenarios will; be developed that reach the goals of 50% reduction in 2030 and zero emissions in 2050. In part 3, the various actions that should lead to the reduction targets are tested against the impacts on the consequences for the global tourism economy, its role in providing leisure and business opportunities and the consequences for certain destinations and groups of industry stakeholders. This part will be concluded with two workshops with industry experts to reflect on the results of the simulation.Part 4 reports the results of the study including an outline of the consequences of possibly not achieving the goal. With this, the researchers want to send a warning signal to stakeholders who may be resistant to participating in the transition.
