Analysis and modelling of airport resilience, robustness, and vulnerability: impact of COVID-19 pandemic disease

Abstract

AbstractAirports have been frequently affected by different internal and external disruptive events, which generally deteriorated their planned/regular performances. Their resilience is defined as the ability to withstand and maintain a certain level of functionality of performances compared to their reference regular/planned level during the impact of disruptive events and to recover reasonably rapidly afterwards. Robustness is defined as the level of saved functionality of performances compared to their planned/regular level, enabling continuous operations during the impact of disruptive events. The level of deteriorated functionality compared to that of the planned/regular functionality of performances represents their vulnerability. This paper develops a methodology for assessing resilience, robustness and vulnerability of airports affected by a given disruptive event(s). The methodology consists of analytical models of indicators of operational, economic, social and environmental performances of airports and other main actors/stakeholders involved. These indicators are used as figures-of-merit in analytical models for assessing their cumulative and time-dependent resilience, robustness, and vulnerability. The methodology is applied to assess resilience, robustness and vulnerability of two large airports – LHR (London Heathrow, UK) and NYC JFK (John F. Kennedy, US) – affected by a global and lasting external disruptive event – the COVID-19 pandemic disease. Based on the indicators of operational and economic performances, the results indicate very low resilience and robustness and very high vulnerability of both airports and their other main actors/stakeholders involved. Their resilience and robustness based on the indicators of social and environmental performances were not substantively different from the corresponding vulnerability. In absolute terms, LHR airport has been affected stronger than its NYC JFK counterpart. Savings in costs/externalities during the observed period under the given conditions have modestly compensated for total losses of both airports and their main actors/stakeholders involved.