Stanley, Hannah J (2017) Airport planning and stakeholder engagement: An international comparison. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Abstract
This thesis seeks to understand how the influences of privatisation and an increased expectation of transparency and engagement impact and drive airport planning and stakeholder engagement processes, particularly regarding the management of aircraft noise. Despite the economic and social significance of airports, little is known about this context. The research draws on interview, policy, and survey data from three international case study airports. A central conclusion of this thesis is that potential negative influences of private interests at airports are often minimised through deliberative engagement practices employed within airport planning processes.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Baker, Douglas and Kamruzzaman, M D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | airport planning; communicative planning; deliberative democracy; historical institutionalism; neoliberalism; privatisation; stakeholder engagement; urban planning |
| Index terms: | planning process, case study, neoliberalism, stakeholder engagement, privatization, transparency, interview, international comparison, survey, urban planning |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, community and social dimensions, project controls, economic theory, professional development, urban planning, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Time Control, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here