This article focuses on the use of banal nationalism outside of the realm of formal politics. I examine several cases of major airports renaming in the Balkans, aiming to uncover distinctive logic behind the state introduction of nationalism in the ostensibly non-political domain. Based on the intended audience (domestic/international) and the chosen commemorative name (accepted/contested), I uncover two paths to banal nationalism: (1) internationally-oriented nation branding and (2) domestically-oriented memorialization. The analysis shows that the same action of renaming the airport can be normalized and taken for granted as assumed by the banal nationalism literature, or it can remain highly visible and disputed, leading to high-profile “hot” nationalism, indicating the failure of banalization. This article calls for more investigation of nationalism in everyday spaces that are not part of formal state domain and politics.

This article helps understand why locations close to strategic infrastructure to transport illegal drugs (seaports, airports, highways, and US ports of entry along the Mexico-US border) or to increase income (pipelines) experience different levels of violence due to DTOs operations. Our theory breaks down the impact of the geographical distance to these facilities on violence into two effects. The first effect is produced by the level of (violent) competition among DTOs, measured by the number of DTOs employing violence. We report that greater proximity to the U.S. ports of entry along the Mexico-US border, ports, and airports furthers the number of competitors, and such increase boosts violence. The second effect shapes the intensity of competition among DTOs. Reductions in the costs of excluding competing DTOs from using the facility could trigger greater confrontation among DTOs. We confirm the importance of this second effect in relation to ports and the U.S. ports of entry along the Mexico-US border.

Following Afghanistan’s fall in August 2021, many refugees were settled in the United States as part of Operation Allies Welcome. They were flown from Kabul to the Middle East and Europe before continuing to the U.S. By late September Philadelphia was the sole destination. From there refugees were transported to Safe Haven military bases around the country. Philadelphia International Airport became the site of a months-long operation involving city, state, federal, and private agencies engaged in processing, medical screening, and COVID-testing of arriving refugees. The Philadelphia Fire Department played an integral role. Minor medical conditions were treated onsite. Higher acuity patients were transported to nearby hospitals. The goal was to maintain flow of refugees to their next destination while addressing acute medical issues. Between August 28, 2021, and March 1, 2022, the airport processed 29,713 refugees. Philadelphia’s experience may serve as a guide for planning future such refugee operations.

This article investigates the role of foreign technical experts in developing China's aviation infrastructure from the 1980s to the present. Focusing on a series of training and technical aid programmes, it traces the influx of critical know-how from Europe, Japan and North America during the period of reform and opening up. Through fieldwork conducted at airports in Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai – and expert interviews with architects, planners and engineers – the article sheds light on the instrumental role played by foreign technical experts. By establishing a leading-edge set of airport planning practices, these aviation professionals accelerated the modernization of China's transport infrastructure and its reintegration into the world economy. Moreover, by positioning China as a global leader in infrastructure development, they laid the technical foundations for Chinese foreign policy endeavours that seek to export an infrastructure-led model of economic development to Africa, Asia and the former Soviet sphere.

Across the globe, airports are regarded as essential infrastructure needing protection. One of the major goals of an airport, as encouraged by the regulatory bodies and evoked through public expectation, is safety. However, a public environment, such as an airport, is vulnerable to crime. The Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport (ORTIA) is Africa’s biggest and busiest airport, servicing approximately 19 million passengers annually. Moreover, tourism is a key component of a healthy economy. Therefore, safety and security are significant for sustainable tourism in South Africa. Thus, this paper used a quantitative inquiry to determine security professionals’ perceptions of crime at ORTIA. A non-experimental and randomized cross-sectional research design was used. Through random sampling, a total of 100 participants contributed to the study and yielded a representative percentage of 36%. Data were collected through online self-administered questionnaires from security personnel employed at ORTIA and analysed through descriptive analysis. The findings revealed that the most problematic crimes taking place at ORTIA were reported to be theft, mishandled baggage, automated teller machine (ATM) crimes, burglary, robbery, illegal immigrants and smuggling of drugs. Furthermore, most participants had witnessed a crime taking place at the airport. As informed by the participants, sustainable solutions are proposed in terms of crime prevention and intervention.

Airports 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.

The idea of assessing the costs and benefits of public and private projects is not new to Europe, dating back to studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees (Paris) in the XIX century. Later on, in the last century, Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) in its current form has been more extensively used in the United States than in Europe. In the last two decades, however, there has been a rapid increase in its use in a number of European countries and at the European Union (EU) level. European governments often undertake tasks that would be done by private companies in the United States, such as the provision of transport, energy, water and waste management, health services, etc. In the United States the focus of BCA has often been regulatory impact analysis, rather than public project evaluation. One might, therefore, expect that Europeans might approach some things differently from their American counterparts and that new insights might result from these efforts. The articles in this symposium, taken from the recent European Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) conference in Toulouse, illustrate some of these differences and some converging themes.