Airports should consider their audience(s) when developing information and analyses on the extent to which air service enables regional economic development. Not all audiences have the same level of interest in airports and air service. The general public—even those who travel often—may have less than a passing interest in how air service affects a local economy, even if they are benefitting personally from a flight. However, other regional stakeholders may be keenly interested and may want or need to better understand. Understanding the audience will help ensure that the information needed is delivered.

Recognizing Audience Segments and Varying Degrees of Interest

Just as there are variations in markets for different goods or services, there are different “markets” or audiences for information about airports and air services. Market segmentation is the process of dividing a broad group of consumers or an audience into smaller categories based on some common element or shared characteristic, such as age group or background. Segmenting a market or audience into different categories can help focus the message about an airport’s contributions to a region to meet each segment’s needs and interests. Descriptions of audience segments for airport economic contributions follow.

General Public or Media

The broader public likely will have a passing interest in the airport’s contributions to the regional economy. Many people do not appreciate how many employees in different jobs are required to make commercial (or general) aviation function effectively, let alone the contributions that air service makes to the economy. High-level summaries of the airport’s overall contributions to the regional economy may be sufficient for the broader public. Some will appreciate how air service enables or facilitates other regional economic activity. In some cases, members of the public may express support for the airport and air service as a result. For others, understanding the contributions of air service to regional economic development may help offset reservations about noise or environmental impacts.

Business Audience/Major Employers

This group may focus more on how the airport and air service enable business operations. Those in industry sectors that are more dependent on air service will have the greatest interest because changes in air service are most likely to directly affect their operations (and bottom line). Conversely, the level of interest from those in sectors that are less reliant on air service will likely be more in line with the level of interest from the general public.

Regional Economic Development Organizations

Regional economic development organizations’ level of interest in the airport’s contributions to the regional economy may depend on the extent to which they already understand—or can be led to understand—the extent to which air service facilitates economic activity in key target industries along with other sectors that may generate quality jobs.

Elected Officials

Elected officials will likely have more interest than the general public in the airport’s contributions to the regional economy because many airports are local government entities. Understanding how air service contributes to economic activity off of the airport’s property may encourage elected officials to be more supportive of airport development initiatives. For those who have ambivalent or negative perceptions of the airport, better understanding the linkage with regional economic activity may help neutralize those perceptions.

Other Professional Audiences

Other professional audiences (e.g., airport boards and researchers) may have more in-depth professional interests in how airports and air service enable regional economic activity. They may also have a better understanding of economic concepts and be receptive to information.

Challenges Conveying Information to Different Audiences

There are two basic challenges that airports and researchers inevitably encounter with presenting the results of any analysis of airport economic impacts and airport relationships with regional economic activity: challenges with understanding economic concepts and the challenge of understanding large numbers.

Challenges with Economic Concepts

The general level of knowledge about economics among the U.S. public is not high. Research shows that fewer than 4 in 10 high school seniors or adults could answer basic questions about economic terms and concepts that are essential for understanding economic events and issues reported in the news media. The results of “Why It’s Important to Understand Economics,” a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, show that no matter what the economic content of questions is or what form a test takes, youth and adults show a great deal of ignorance when it comes to basic economics.

Airports need to recognize that many people may not understand or appreciate the significance of information about an airport’s economic impact or its contributions to a regional economy. Audiences with more understanding of business, finance, and economics are more likely to comprehend economic concepts and the contributions that air service makes to the regional economy. For a general audience, however, it helps if information is conveyed with only basic or higher-level metrics. This may be limited to presenting the total number of jobs (and total wages) associated with the direct and indirect impacts of the airport. Many people are familiar with the term “multiplier impacts,” but they may not fully understand how they are estimated. Because indirect and induced impacts are the result of a modeling exercise, many may be skeptical of the results as well.

Similarly, although many in the general public may have heard of the concepts of gross domestic product (GDP) or economic output because the concepts are occasionally discussed or reported in the news, most cannot distinguish the two, understand how they are calculated, or recognize the significance of what they reveal.

The Challenge of Understanding Large Numbers

Research shows that most people have difficulty comprehending large numbers. In particular, people have difficulty reasoning about magnitudes outside of human perception, whether the scale is microscopic or geologic. Even individuals who might be expected to appreciate such matters, such as students in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics fields, have difficulty understanding them

The New York Times published an article in June 2021 about the difficulty that people have with understanding large numbers (Green and Strogatz 2021):

“Billions” and “trillions” seem to be an inescapable part of our conversations these days, whether the subject is Jeff Bezos’s net worth or President Biden’s proposed budget. Yet nearly everyone has trouble making sense of such big numbers. Is there any way to get a feel for them? As it turns out, there is. If we can relate big numbers to something familiar, they start to feel much more tangible, almost palpable.

…[V]ast sums of money become more comprehensible if they are reframed in terms of more familiar amounts. In a 2009 blog post, the mathematician Terry Tao rescaled the entire United States federal budget to the annual household spending for a hypothetical family of four. In Dr. Tao’s rescaling, a $100 million line item in the budget became equivalent to a $3 expenditure for the family.

The task for airports and others working with concepts like these is to make the information relatable to different audiences. There are a number of options.

As the New York Times article suggests, if large numbers can be rescaled into something relatable, more people will be able to grasp the magnitude of the impacts and the changes being described.

Putting all references to comparable values into a common scale can improve clarity. For instance, a larger portion of the population will understand the impact of cutting $100 billion if it is compared to a $1,200 billion deficit rather than a $1.2 trillion deficit. Some will do better with “short-form” expressions. For example, if other figures being discussed are expressed in millions, people will better understand a comparison against 1,200 million instead of 1,200,000,000 or 1.2 billion.