PASSENGERS‘ AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS ON SAFETY AND
SECURITY MEASURES AND PROCEDURES IN AIRPORT TERMINAL
BUILDING
AMIR TURTUGULOV
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Science (Transport Planning)
Faculty of Built Environment
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
NOVEMBER 2009
iii
To my beloved family
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis is not just meant to get the Master degree. This paper meant more
than that to me. It is the matter of dignity, self-actualization, and a brand new start of
an entity called life. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to God the
Almighty that always open a window when all the doors seemed to be closed.
I would like to thank my parents, Malik and Saule, for continuing their
responsibility as parents while they should have been retired for quite a while. To my
dearest family, Dinara and Arman, whom I did this work for.
My special gratitude to the most important people behind the whole story:
My dearest supervisor Dr Muhammad Zaly Shah Bin Muhammad Hussein, for
giving more than a supervisor should. To my local classmates who helped me a lot:
Aslaam, Ija, Jabu, and others. I am also very grateful to Puan Wan Hasnezareena Bte
Wan Omar and Mr.Gunasegaran for all theirs help and cooperation. May God pay all
of their great deeds with multiplied price, here and hereafter.
Finally yet importantly, a sincere gratitude to all my dearest friends in UTM,
especially to Ditto, Meirbek, Viktor and others for keeping me as ‗human‘ as I can be
and share times, rides, (and money) whenever I was in need. Of course, to all
international friends who shared with me all of the wonderful ‗alien‘ moments in this
very country, and who have taught me about life and share their examples on how a
life should be lived.
v
ABSTRACT
This is a quantitative study looking at the passengers‘ awareness and
perception on airport safety and security measures and procedures (ASMP) related to
demographic factors. This current study is also looking at the difference between
passengers with Malaysian nationality and passengers with non-Malaysian
nationality in term of the awareness of ASMP in general, ASMP after 9/11, readiness
of airport security service in handling unlawful acts, and consistency of ASMP
among airports. A total of 100 passengers with international destination
(22 Malaysian nationality and 78 non-Malaysians) at sterile area of the satellite
building of Kuala Lumpur International Airport were selected via simple random
sampling method to participate in this study. The scale for passengers‘ perception
and awareness on ASMP was self-developed by the researcher, and statistical
methods like t-test, gamma test, Cramers‘ V and Phi were utilized to test the
hypotheses. Internal consistency reliability scores (Cronbach‘s alpha) were found to
be above .60. Results showed that passengers with Malaysian nationality are
significantly more aware of ASMP, both in general (p = .02) or after 9/11 (p = .00)
compared to passengers from other nationality. It was also found that compared to
passengers from other nationality, Malaysians passengers are significantly more
aware on the readiness of airport security service in KLIA to confront any unlawful
acts (.00) and they were also more aware on the consistency of ASMP among
airports (.00). Out of several demographic factors studied in this research in term of
their relationship with perception on ASMP, it was found that gender was the one
with no significant relationship with the perception of ASMP ( p = .883). Age group
is strongly and significantly related to the perception of ASMP (gamma = .849;
p = .00), while marital status is also significantly related to the perception of ASMP
(p = .00). Meanwhile, educational level and perception of ASMP have very weak and
insignificant relationship (gamma = .129; p= .414). Perception of ASMP and
ethnicity have significant relationship (Phi = .665; Cramer‘s V = .470; p =.00). While
being Malaysians and Non-Malaysians have no significant difference in term of the
perception of ASMP (p = .809), frequency of air-travels was strongly and
significantly related to the passenger perception of ASMP (gamma = .616; p = .00),
as well as income level (gamma = .784; p = .00).
vi
ABSTRAK
Kajian kuantitatif ini adalah mengenai kesedaran dan persepsi penumpang
keatas ‗Ukuran Jaminan Keselamatan dan Prosedur Lapangan Terbang‘ / Airport
Safety and Security Measures and Procedures (ASMP) yang berkaitan dengan faktor
demografi. Kajian ini juga melihat kepada perbezaan antara penumpang warganegara
Malaysia dan penumpang bukan warganegara Malaysia dalam konteks kesedaran
ASMP secara am, ASMP selepas peristiwa 9/11, kesediaan perkhidmatan
keselamatan lapangan terbang dalam menangani tindakan yang melanggar peraturan
dan ketetapan ASMP antara lapangan terbang. Seramai 100 orang penumpang
destinasi antarabangsa (22 warganegara Malaysia dan 78 bukan warganegara
Malaysia) di pilih melalui kaedah sampel rawak mudah di kawasan steril di
bangunan satelit Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA) untuk
menyertai kajian ini. Skala untuk persepsi dan kesedaran penumpang ke atas ASMP
telah dicipta sendiri oleh pengkaji dan kaedah statistikal seperti t-test, gamma test,
Cramers‘ V dan Phi diguna untuk menguji hipotesis. Markah kebolehpercayaan
konsisten dalaman (Cronbach‘s alpha) didapati berada atas .60. Keputusan
menunjukkan penumpang warganegara Malaysia lebih prihatin ke atas ASMP,
kedua-dua secara am nya (p = .02) atau selepas peristiwa 9/11 (p = .00) jika
dibandingkan dengan penumpang warganegara lain. Kajian juga mendapati
penumpang warganegara Malaysia lebih prihatin kepada kesediaan perkhidmatan
keselamatan lapangan terbang di KLIA untuk menangani tindakan yang menyalahi
undang-undang jika dibandingkan dengan penumpang warganegara lain dan mereke
juga lebih prihatin kepada ketetapan ASMP di antara lapangan terbang. Selain dari
faktor demografi yang dikaji dalam kajian ini, iaitu dalam konteks perhubungan
dengan ASMP, kajian mendapati bahawa jantina seseorang tidak mempunyai
hubungan dengan persepsi ASMP (p = .883). Faktor usia mempunyai kaitan yang
kuat dengan persepsi ASMP (gamma = .849; p = .00), manakala status perkahwinan
juga mempunyai kaitan dengan persepsi ASMP (p = .00). Sementara itu, tahap
pendidikan dan persepsi ASMP mempunyai kaitan yang lemah (gamma = .129;
p = .414). Persepsi ASMP dan kumpulan etnik mempunyai kaitan yang penting (Phi
= .665; Cramer‘s V = .470; p = .00). Manakala antara warganegara Malaysia dan
bukan warganegara Malaysia tidak mempunyai perbezaan yang penting dalam
konteks persepsi ASMP (p = .809), kekerapan penerbangan udara adalah amat
berkait dengan persepsi penumpang ke atas ASMP (gamma = .616; p = .00), dan
juga tahap pendapatan (gamma = .784; p = .00).
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvii
1
2
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Background of the research
2
1.2.1 The impact of the security measures on passengers
3
1.3
Purpose of study
5
1.4
Study Objectives
5
1.5
Research questions
6
1.6
Hypothesis
6
1.7
Scope of the Study
8
1.8
Limitation of Study
9
1.9
Expected Contributions
10
1.10
Chapter Outline
10
LITERATURE REVIEW
12
2.1
12
Introduction
viii
2.2
Legislation and Definition of Security measures
2.3
Airport safety and security measures and procedures in terminal
building
15
2.3.1 Airport security measures principles
15
2.3.2 Airport security responsibility and organization
16
2.3.3 Airport enforcement authority by country
17
2.3.3.1
Canada
17
2.3.3.2
France
18
2.3.3.3
Hong Kong SAR
19
2.3.3.4
India
19
2.3.3.5
Singapore
20
2.3.3.6
United Kingdom
21
2.3.3.7
United States
22
2.3.4 Process and equipment
23
Effects of September 11, 2001
26
2.4.1 Enhancements to Airport Security after 9/11
27
2.5
Passengers perception on airport safety and security measures
32
2.6
Awareness of safety and security
34
2.7
Conclusion
36
2.4
3
13
METHODOLOGY
37
3.1
Introduction
37
3.2
Study design
37
3.3
Sampling Design
38
3.3.1 Population
38
3.3.2 Sampling
39
3.3.2.1
Sampled population
39
3.3.2.2
Sampling unit
39
3.3.2.3
Sampling Frame
39
3.3.2.4
Sample size
40
3.3.2.5
Sampling method
41
ix
3.3.2.6
3.4
4
Biasness
41
The instrument
44
3.4.1 Variables
45
3.4.2 Reliability and Validity
47
3.5
Place and Time of Study
48
3.6
Data collection
48
3.6.1 Secondary data collection
48
3.6.2 Primary data collection
49
3.7
Data analysis
49
3.8
Conclusion
50
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
51
4.1
Introduction
51
4.2
Reliability of Scales
51
4.3
Demographic Data Analyses
52
4.4
General Analyses
54
4.5
Testing for the Null Hypothesis 1
58
4.5.1 Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in
term of the awareness of ASMP
58
4.5.2 Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in
term of the awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11
59
4.5.3 Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in
term of the awareness on the Airport Security Service‘s
Readiness to Confront any Unlawful Acts.
61
4.5.4 Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in
term of the awareness of ASMP‘s Consistency among
Airports
4.6
62
Testing the Null Hypothesis 2
63
4.6.1 Perception of Safety and Gender
64
4.6.2 Perception of Safety and Age group
65
x
5
4.6.3 Perception of Safety and Marital status
66
4.6.4 Perception of Safety and Education Level
67
4.6.5 Perception of Safety and Ethnicity
69
4.6.6 Perception of Safety and Nationality
70
4.6.7 Perception of Safety and Travel Frequency
71
4.6.8 Perception of Safety and Income Level
73
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
75
5.1
Introduction
75
5.2
Summary of the Findings
75
5.3
Discussion of the Findings
76
5.3.1 Awareness of ASMP and Nationality
76
5.3.2 Nationality and Awareness of higher security at airport
terminal building after 9/11
77
5.3.3 Nationality and awareness of the airport security system‘s
readiness to confront any act of unlawful interference
78
5.3.4 Awareness on consistent ASMP procedures and policies
from airport to airport
5.4
5.5
79
Influence of Demographic Factors on the Perception of ASMP
80
5.4.1 Gender
80
5.4.2 Age
80
5.4.3 Marital Status
81
5.4.4 Education Level
81
5.4.5 Ethnicity
82
5.4.6 Nationality
83
5.4.7 Travelling Frequency
84
5.4.8 Income
84
Recommendation for Future Researches
85
xi
REFERENCES
87
A
93
Survey Questionnare
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
Table 3.1:
Primary data analysis
50
Table 4.1:
General view
55
Table 4.2:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP
Table 4.3:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11
Table 4.4:
58
60
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness on the Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to confront
any Unlawful Acts
Table 4.5:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP‘s Consistency among Airports
Table 4.6:
61
63
Relationship between gender and Perception of Safety in the
Airports
64
Table 4.7:
Crosstabulation between Age Group and Perception of Safety
65
Table 4.8:
Symmetric Measures of Age Group and Perception of Safety
65
Table 4.9:
Relationship between perception of safety and marital status
67
Table 4.10:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Educational
Level
Table 4.11:
68
Symmetric Measures of Perception of Safety and Educational
Level
68
Table 4.12:
Crosstabulation between Perception of safety and ethnicity
69
Table 4.13:
Symmetric Measures of safety and ethnicity
69
Table 4.14:
Relationship between perception of safety and nationality
71
xiii
Table 4.15:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Travel
Frequency
72
Table 4.16:
Symmetric Measures of Safety and Travel Frequency
72
Table 4.17:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Income Level 73
Table 4.18:
Symmetric Measures Perception of Safety and Income Level
73
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
Figure 1.1: KLIA scheme
PAGE
9
Figure 2.1: Airport Security in process
24
Figure 2.2: Airport metal detectors rely on pulse induction
25
Figure 2.3: X-ray machine
25
Figure 2.4: Airport X-ray hand luggage machine
25
Figure 4.1: General view of age variation
52
Figure 4.2: General view of educational level
53
Figure 4.3: Totally incoming range
54
Figure 4.4: Felling while waiting in line to security control
56
Figure 4.5: Feeling while luggage is selected for searched personally
57
Figure 4.6: Feeling while facing heavy-armed security personnel
57
xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
𝑛0
-
Sample size for infinite population
p
-
Proportion of the sample
-
Critical value
𝑧𝛼2
2
𝑒2
Margin of error
n
Sample size
N
Population size
k
𝜎𝑖2
𝜎𝑥2
-
Number of items
-
The sum of total variances
-
The variance of the total score
xvi
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AAHK
-
Airport Authority Hong Kong
ACI
-
Airports Council International
AIDS
-
Acute immunity deficiency syndrome
ASMP
-
Airport security and safety measures and procedures
ASSR
-
Aviation Security Screening Records
ASU
-
Airport Security Unit
AVSECO
-
Hong Kong Police Force and Aviation Security Company
CAPPS
-
Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System
CATSA
-
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
CISF
-
Central Industrial Security Force
DFT
-
Department for Transport UK
DHS
-
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
EDT
-
Explosive trace detection
FAA
-
Federal Aviation Administration
FAMS
-
Federal Air Marshal Service
IATA
-
International Air Transport Association
ICAO
-
International Civil Aviation Organization
ITF
-
International Transport Forum
KLIA
-
Kuala Lumpur International Airport
MAHB
-
Malaysia Airports Holding Berhads SdnBhd
MATRA
-
Multi Agency Threat and Risk Assessment
RAIC
-
Restricted Area Identity Credential
SATS
-
Singapore Airport Terminal Services
SPSS
-
Statistical Program for Social Sciences
TSA
-
Transportation Security Administration
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A
Survey Questionnare
TITLE
PAGE
93
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
In our days, the terms safety and security are used frequently in aviation.
More importantly, organizations in the aviation industry are gaining strategic
advantage by creating a favorable image in the minds of the public that portrays them
as genuinely caring about the safety of their employees and customers. This is done
with the idea of safety at a reasonable cost and without a standardized definition of
safety and security in the aviation setting. In many aspects, the aviation industry
resembles other high technology, high-risk industries such as the nuclear, oil and gas,
and petrochemical industries, and therefore has similar concerns about safety. This
similarity has influenced perception of safety and security in the aviation context.
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions will be used:
Awareness: To eliminate confusion in this study, the definition of
―awareness‖ as it was provided by the Oxford Advanced Learner‘s
Dictionary
(2005), namely, the ― knowing that something exists and is important the
information, understanding and skills that you gain through education or
experience‖. Therefore, ―awareness‖ in this study will be measured by the overall
awareness measured by the survey.
Perception: The perception of a passenger is an important element of this
study; thus, the definition of perception found in Oxford Advanced Learner‘s
2
Dictionary (2005) will be used, namely, ―an idea, a belief or an image you have as a
result of how you see or understand something‖. Thus, the measure of perception in
this study will be based on self-understanding. The previous definitions will serve as
identifiers to differentiate perception from knowledge; they will allow the reader a
better understanding of the cross-sectional study.
Safety: The definition of ―safety‖ as it was provided by the Oxford Advanced
Learner‘s Dictionary (2005), namely, ―the state of being safe and protected from
danger and harm‖.
Security: The ―security‖ is a ―key‖ element of this study; the definition of
security found in Oxford Advanced Learner‘s
Dictionary (2005) will be used,
namely, ‖the activities involved in protecting a country, building or person against
attack, danger, etc‖ .
1.2
Background of the research
Airport security has gone through significant changes in recent years.
Notably, these changes have been driven largely by terrorist activities around the
globe. Airports, prime targets of terrorism and unfriendly attacks, are installing
improved systems for detection of weapons, explosives and explosive devices.
Thus, the airport security has been modified and enhanced tremendously to
―protect passengers, the public, and airline and airport employees from armed
attacks, hijackings and bombings‖ (Flynn and Kosatka, 2005).
According to Simonsen and Spindlove (2007), many reporters believe that the
attacks of September 11, 2001, could have been stopped by airport security guards.
However, they failed to prevent the hijackers from boarding the planes. The lack of
training and scarce benefits airline employees received before September 11,
attributed to their inability to perform and ―airport security suffered a major blow to
its performance and credibility‖ (Simonsen and Spindlove, 2007).
3
It was noted that aviation security policies mainly seem to respond to a need
―to do something‖. Some recent changes in security measures have been labeled
―security theatre‖, because the measures are quite visible but their effectiveness is
questionable. Such an approach seems more in line with policy-making, in the sense
of attempting to reduce public concerns about security, rather than effectively
reducing the probability of attacks (ITF, 2009).
1.2.1
The impact of the security measures on passengers
Before the tragedy on September 11, airport check-in in America and
worldwide was fairly casual. Passengers showed their ID s to get a boarding pass,
walked through a basic security search, and boarded the plane. As the airlines and
airports review safety measures over the next few years you can expect big changes
at airport check-in. Now, before boarding the plane, passengers and their baggage
are required to be checked and go through the security check. Airline security is
highlighted as the most important section at international airports. As a result, airport
security is now handled differently with an increased amount of procedures aimed
not only at protecting the airline industry and the lives of the public, but the national
economy as well (Bullock et al., 2006). Travelers who are not familiar with those
measures will probably encounter tough process of security check.
The immediate impacts of the new security measures on passengers are the
increased taxes on airline tickets. Given the state of the economy, the demand for
travel is weak. The problems are compounded further by increased taxes on tickets
that could increase the total airfare by 25 to 40 percent. Because leisure travel is
price-dependent, the demand for air travel has suffered considerably. Also, some
passengers have chosen other means of travel in fear of repeated attacks similar to
9/11. Business travel also has declined given the general state of the economy and
the need to find alternate means to flying large air carriers. Many business travelers
have chosen to fly discounted, no-frills carriers. Others changed their travel behavior
by purchasing advanced tickets.
4
Prior to increased security procedures, passengers could arrive at the airport
approximately 2 hours before a flight and still be able to check-in and be at the gate
in time for departure. Passengers now have to allow ample time for the long lines at
check-in counters and at security check points before boarding. This is sometimes
referred to as the hassle factor. Increases in security could continue to cause delays
and inconveniences for travelers and for airport operators. During holidays and
summer periods, airports will have to reduce sophisticated electronic screening and
resort to less sophisticated screening to avoid causing operational delays. The
problem is a prime example of the difficulties that are faced by the TSA and airports
when attempting to balance security and efficiency (Airport Security Report, 2003).
On the positive side, lines are now relatively shorter as airlines have implemented
kiosk machines for self-service check-in of passengers holding electronic tickets. It is
still inconvenient and worrisome for passengers as to how early they should be at the
airport to avoid missing their flights.
As passengers face the possibilities of increased ticket prices, they must also
prepare themselves to be searched before boarding the aircraft. Some passengers
have abandoned air travel all together or have cut back on flying due to the hassle
factor. Many travelers who would have normally chosen a one-hour flight over a
four- or five-hour drive would now rather drive. This new pattern is affecting the
demand for air travel, especially in short-haul markets.
In addition to the physical searches, air travelers must become more
accustomed to extensive and sometimes intrusive searches. The new security
measures have implied some privacy risk for passengers.
It should be noted that The European Union has agreed to share information
about its airline passengers with the U. S., in a deal announced on December 16,
2003. The deal ends yearlong negotiations over a new U.S. law intended to fight
terrorism. International airlines will turn over data about their U.S.-bound
passengers, such as a traveler's name, e-mail address, telephone number and credit
card number to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and
Border Protection unit. The U.S. agency will then screen the traveler data and use it
5
for terrorist investigations and other international probes into crimes such as drug
trafficking and money laundering (Goo, 2003, December). In January 2004, major
U.S. airlines agreed to work with the Homeland Security Department on ways to
protect travel privacy, as the government seeks to use passenger information to keep
terrorists off planes (Airlines ordered, 2004).
1.3
Purpose of study
The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the perception and awareness
of passengers about the security and safety measures in airport terminal building.
Specifically, to determine the awareness that the measures are adequate, and what are
the factors that influence perceptions towards airport safety and security measures
and procedures (ASMP).
1.4
Study Objectives
The following main objectives are addressed for this study,
1. To determine the awareness of the passengers on security measures in
airport terminal building.
2. To determine the awareness of the passengers on higher security
measures in airport terminal building after 9/11
3. To determine the awareness of the passengers on readiness of the
airport security service to confront any acts of unlawful interference.
4. To determine the awareness of the passengers on the consistency of
airport safety and security policies and procedures from airport to
airport.
5. To determine the demographic factors that influence perception on
ASMP.
6
1.5
Research questions
The primary research questions of this study are:
1.
Is there any difference between passengers with Malaysian
nationality and other nationality in term of the awareness of the
security measures in airport terminal building?
2.
Is there any difference between passengers with Malaysian
nationality and other nationality in term of the awareness of higher
security measures in airport terminal building after 9/11?
3.
Is there any difference between passengers with Malaysian
nationality and other nationality in term of the awareness of the
readiness of the airport security service to confront any acts of
unlawful interference?
4.
Is there any difference between passengers with Malaysian
nationality and other nationality in term of the awareness aware of
the consistency of airport safety and security policies and
procedures from airport to airport?
5.
What is the relationship between demographic factors and the
perception on ASMP?
1.6
Hypothesis
1. Passengers‘ awareness of the safety and security measures in airport
terminal building.
a. Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of
ASMP.
b. Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of
higher ASMP after 9/11.
7
c. Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness on the
Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to confront any Unlawful
Acts.
d. Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of
ASMP‘s Consistency among Airports
2. Passengers‘ demographical characteristics:
a.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male
and female in term of perception of safety in the airports.
b.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between age
group and perception of safety in the airports.
c.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between being
single and married in term of perception of safety in the airports.
d.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
education level and perception of safety in the airports.
e.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
ethnicity and perception of safety in the airports.
f.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between
Malaysian and Non-Malaysian in term of perception of safety in
the airports.
g.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
travel frequency and perception of safety in the airports.
h.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between
income level and perception of safety in the airports.
8
1.7
Scope of the Study
The study is focusing on the airport safety and security measures and
procedures and passengers‘ awareness and perception on the matters. This study
would as well investigate relationship of some demographic factors on the perception
and awareness of the passengers on ASMP. The demographic factors involved are as
follows:
i.
Gender
ii.
Age
iii.
Marital Status
iv.
Education Level
v.
Ethnicity
vi.
Nationality
vii.
Travelling Frequency
viii.
Income
Additionally, the study is also investigating about the passengers‘ feeling on
ASMP.
This study does not control the extraneous variables that might involve, such
as passenger‘ physical conditions or any other dispositional differences that might
influence their levels in term of the variables mentioned in this study.
9
1.8
Limitation of Study
The limitation of the survey is that it will be conducted at sterile area, a part
of the security-restricted area, where the access is highly controlled to ensure security
of civil aviation; it is the place between the screening checkpoint and the aircraft
(ANNEX 17). The study area is located in the satellite building of the Kuala-Lumpur
International airport, and covered security procedures and measures in airport
terminal building. Other limitation is that the research will be focused on determine
passengers perception to security measures that is implemented in terminal and found
out a factors that influence on passengers‘ opinion.
The KLIA was chosen because it is one of Asia's major aviation hubs, and it
Malaysia's main international airport. Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA)
has been congratulated by the International Airlines Transport System (IATA) for
having one of the best security screening processes for passengers and baggage
(Jong, 2002).
Figure 1.1: KLIA scheme
Source: www.cuti.com.my (2009)
10
According to ACI Asia Pacific July, 2007, Kuala Lumpur International
Airport is capable of handling 35 million passengers and 1.2 million tonnes of cargo
a year in its current phase. As of 2007, it was ranked as the 13th busiest airport in the
world by international passenger traffic, and is the seventh busiest international
airport in Asia.
1.9
Expected Contributions
Generally, it can be said that this study should be able to identify the
knowledge and passengers‘ attitude on security measures. Performing the study with
international passengers rather than the public will enhance the body of knowledge
since passengers could be politicians, policy makers or governmental associates;
therefore, their point of view can be of great value to this study.
The outcome of this study will contribute and augment the knowledge about
passengers‘ perception on security measures. Information that will be sought from
the passengers could be utilized by government and airport administrators in their
implementation of security measures and procedures in airport.
1.10 Chapter Outline
First, the existing literature will be analyzed in order to gather information in
regards to airport security measures after 9/11. After analyzing the literature, the next
step will be to identify passengers‘ perception and awareness of the Kuala-Lumpur
international airport security and safety measures and procedures.
The author, in Chapter 2, will begin with overview of the legislation focusing
on the issue of Annex 17 to the Convention of Civil Aviation. Then the Airport
security measures principles, responsibility and organization will be described. After
a historical overview on attacks of September 11, 2001, the description and
11
assessment of new and modified security measures and procedures will be done.
Finally, Chapter 2 will end with a description of passengers‘ perception and
awareness on safety and security measures and procedures.
In Chapter 3 the author will describe the methodology used in the study. The
quantitative study will rely on the implementation of a survey distributed to
passengers of international flights. The survey questions focused on the knowledge
and perception of the passengers.
In Chapter 4 the author aims to explain in detail the results of the analysis
using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS). In this chapter, an
explanation of the survey findings will be provided, along with some conclusions.
The answers of the respondents will be compared, to find out whether their
knowledge and perception is statistically significant. Furthermore, Chapter 5 contains
discussion and recommendations for further study.
CHAPTER 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
The need for airport security and safety is now a major concern for all
governments around the world. Terrorist activities are increasingly common and an
unfortunate reality in today's world; the shocking images of the 7 July 2005 London
bomb attack, the 11 March 2004 train attack in Madrid, and the 11 September 2001
attack on world trade centre in New York remain fresh in our minds.
This chapter contains a review of literature relevant to this study. It will begin
with overview of the legislation focusing on the issue of Annex 17 to the Convention
of Civil Aviation. Then the Airport security measures principles, responsibility and
organization will be described. After a historical overview on attacks of September
11, 2001, that have affected the airport industry, the description and assessment of
new and modified security measures and procedures will be done. Finally, chapter
two will be ended with a description of passengers‘ perception and awareness on
safety and security measures and procedures.
There are many relevant studies concerning airport security. However, few
studies have been performed with the intention of obtaining feedback from airline
passengers in regards to safety and security measures and procedures in airport
terminal building. Neither have they focused on whether or not passengers aware of
that issue.
13
2.2
Legislation and Definition of Security measures
According to Ashford (1984), the gravity of the illegal acts against airlines
and airports covered by the ICAO designation of unlawful acts against civil aviation
is as such as the one that it is now accepted that countermeasures must be of
international concern.
Several conventions were held to establish the minimum conditions for
combating crimes of hijacking and terrorism:
Tokyo 1963. Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed On
Board Aircraft—concerned with the whole subject of crime on aircraft and
particularly with the safety of the aircraft and its passengers
The Hague 1970. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft—dealing with hijacking, specifically, recommending that it be made an
extraditable offense
Montreal 1971. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
Civil Aviation—enlarging the Hague convention and adding the offense of sabotage
These conventions were followed by the adoption in 1974 by the ICAO of
Annex 17 to the original Chicago convention. This internationally accepted annex
was entitled "Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful
Interference" had been amendment 6 times. Here is the main definition and
description of the security measures that related to the passengers and their cabin
baggage.
The security manual for safeguarding Civil Aviation against acts of Unlawful
interference (Annex 17,
Doc 8973-restricted) provides detail procedures and
guidance on aspects of aviation security is intended to assist States in the
implementation of their respective national civil aviation security programmers
required by the specifications in the Annexes to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation.
14
Therefore, the authors provide some key definitions that consist of the
Chapter 1 of the Annex 17:
Security – a combination of measures and human and material resources
intended to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference.
Security Control- means by which the introduction of weapons, explosives
or other dangerous devices that may be utilized to commit an act of unlawful
interference can be prevented.
Screening – the application of technical or other means which are intended to
identify and/ or detect weapons, explosives or any other dangerous devices that may
be used to commit an act of unlawful interference.
Security restricted area: Airside areas of an airport into which access is
controlled to ensure security of civil aviation. Such areas will normally include, inter
alia, all passenger departure areas between the screening checkpoint and the aircraft,
the ramp, baggage make-up areas, cargo sheds, mail centres, airside catering and
aircraft cleaning premises.
According to Annex 17, objective of preventive security measures is that
each contracting state shall establish measures to prevent weapons, explosives, or
any other dangerous devices, which may be used to commit an act of unlawful
interference. The carriage or bearing of unauthorized objects, from being introduced,
by any means whatsoever, on board an aircraft engaged in international civil
aviation.
Chapter 4 of the Annex 17 describes the measures relating to passengers and
their cabin baggage:
Each contracting state shall establish measures to ensure that originating
passengers and their cabin baggage a screened prior to boarding an aircraft engaged
in international civil aviation operations
15
Each contracting state shall ensure that transfer and transit passengers and
their cabin baggage are subjected to adequate security controls to prevent
unauthorized articles from being taken on board aircraft engaged in international
civil aviation operations
Each contracting state shall ensure that there is no possibility of mixing or
contact between passengers subjected to security control and others after the security
screening points at airports serving international civil aviation have been passed; if
mixing or contact does take place, the passengers concerned and their cabin baggage
shall be rescreened before boarding an aircraft.
2.3
2.3.1
Airport safety and security measures and procedures in terminal building
Airport security measures principles
According to Ashford, Stanton, and Moore (1984), it is generally agreed that
the nature of unlawful acts against civil aviation required an appropriate immediate
reaction. The safety of many innocent parties is frequently involved. Suitable and
rapid responses to unlawful acts can be achieved only if there is a pre-established
organizational structure with clearly assigned responsibilities. The general
responsibility for maintaining law and order in a community is already established;
threats to the security of civil aviation add another dimension to these responsibilities
necessitating suitable additions and amendments to the laws. Governmental
departments formulate and issue necessary orders and directives and provide
guidance material to enable each airport and airline to develop a security system
appropriate to its own particular needs. While recognizing that all those concerned
with the transport of passengers, cargo, and mail have a responsibility to take
necessary safeguarding measures, the established practices of different countries will
act as a modifying factor on the national procedures for aviation security.
Nevertheless, there are broad principles of universal application:
16
Feasibility. The security program must be related to the resources available
to the state, the airport, and the airlines and must recognize real system constraints
(Ashford et al, 1984).
Responsibility. There must be an appropriate and unambiguous assignment
of responsibilities to the central and local government authorities (Ashford et al,
1984).
Efficiency. The efficiency of civil air transport must be retained as far as is
feasible. Although central supervision of security matters is a function of the national
government, there must be an appropriate delegation of powers to achieve the overall
objective of transporting passengers efficiently, comfortably, and economically
(Ashford et al, 1984).
Coordination. Appropriate security standards and practices can be
established, maintained and updated only if there is a sustained level of coordination
between the involved organizations. Good coordination implies the creation of stable
good relationships between the relevant parties (Ashford et al, 1984).
Resources. Adequate resources must be supplied to attain specified security
performance standards, and operators must ensure that the use of equipment and
manpower is optimized (Ashford et al, 1984).
2.3.2
Airport security responsibility and organization
Aviation security concerns all unlawful acts connected with civil air
transport. And airport security provides a first line of defence by attempting to stop
would-be attackers from bringing weapons or bombs into the airport. If they can
succeed in this, then the chances of these devices getting on to aircraft are greatly
reduced. As such, airport security serves two purposes: To protect the airport from
attacks and crime and to protect the aircraft from attack. The primary personnel will
vary and can include:
17
o A police force hired and dedicated to the airport
o A branch (substation) of the local police department stationed at the airport
o Members of the local police department assigned to the airport as their
normal patrol area
o Members of a country's military
o Members of a country's airport protection service
o Police dog services for explosive detection, drug detection and other purposes
o When additional personnel are required, then several of the groups listed
above can be used and as required supplemented by other resources that
include:
o Officers from the normal agency, but in larger numbers using personnel not
normally assigned to the airport
o Security guards
o Paramilitary forces
o Military forces
2.3.3
Airport enforcement authority by country
2.3.3.1 Canada
All restrictions involving airport security are determined by Transport Canada
and are enforced by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA). Since
the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the Air India bombing in 1985 and other
incidents, airport security has tightened in Canada in order to prevent any attacks in
Canadian Airspace.
CATSA uses x-ray machines to verify the contents of all carried goods as
well as metal detectors, explosive trace detection (EDT) equipment and random
physical searches of passengers at the pre-board screening points. X-ray machines,
CTX machines, high-resolution x-rays and EDTs are also used to scan checked bags.
All checked bags at most airports are required to be x-rayed for domestic flights, but
all international baggage is always x-rayed.
18
CATSA also completed the first phase of its Restricted Area Identity
Credential (RAIC) program in January of 2007. This program replaces the old
Airport Restricted Area Passes issued to airport employees after security checks by
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and
Transport Canada with new cards (issued after the same checks are conducted) that
contain biometric information (fingerprints and iris scans) belonging to the person
issued the RAIC.
The RAIC has yet to be extended to the security perimeter of Canadian
airports for vehicles and persons entering from checkpoints not within airport
terminals. While CATSA is responsible for pre-board passenger and random nonpassenger screening, they contract out to third-party "service providers" such as
Aeroguard Ltd and Garda to train, manage and employ the screening officers. In
addition, individual airport authorities which were privatized in the 1990s by the
Canadian Government are responsible for general airport security rather than
CATSA and normally contract out to private companies and in the case of large
airports, pay for a small contingent of local police officers to remain onsite as well.
2.3.3.2 France
French security has been stepped up since terrorist attacks in France in 1986.
In response France established the Vigipirate program. After a brief drop of the
program it was reinstated in 1991. The program involves using troops to reinforce
local security. The program increases requirements in screenings and ID checks.
Since
1996
security
check-points
have
transferred
from
the
Police
Nationale/Gendarmerie de l'Air to private companies hired by the airport authorities.
19
2.3.3.3 Hong Kong SAR
The Hong Kong International Airport is secured by the Hong Kong Police
Force and Aviation Security Company (AVSECO). Within the police force, the
Airport District is responsible for the safety and security of the airport island. Airport
Security Unit (ASU) members are deployed around the airport and are visibly armed
with HandK MP5 A3 Submachine Gun. The security of the restricted area is the
responsibility of the police and AVSECO.
While the airport is under the control of the Airport Authority Hong Kong
(AAHK), the security power has been delegated to the AVSECO staffs. All persons
and baggage carried by them must be X-Rayed and checked at the security screening
points of the AVSECO (with a few exceptions at the Tenant Restricted Area).
The Customs and Excise Department will check passengers and crews'
luggage to prevent smuggling of drugs and contraband from entering Hong Kong.
New regulations have been made similar to Europe as of April 2007; no liquids can
be brought onto a plane, which exceed 100ml.
2.3.3.4 India
India stepped up its airport security after the 1999 Kandahar hijacking. The
Central Industrial Security Force , a paramilitary organization is in charge of airport
security. CISF formed an Airport Security Group this security force is dedicated to
protect Indian airports. Every airport has now been giving an ASU (Airport Security
Unit), a highly trained unit to counter unlawful interference with civil aviation; apart
from the CISF, every airline has a highly trained aviation security force that is a
separate department.
Terrorist threats and narcotics are the main threats in Indian airports. Another
problem that some airports face is the proliferation of slums around the airport
20
boundaries in places like Mumbai. Before you board the airplane, there is liable to be
a search of your hand luggage.
2.3.3.5 Singapore
Security for the country's two international passenger airports comes under
the purview of the Airport Police Division of the Singapore Police Force, although
resources are concentrated at Singapore Changi Airport where scheduled passenger
traffic dominates. Seletar Airport, which specializes in handling non-scheduled and
training flights, is seen as posing less of a security issue. Since the September 11,
2001 attacks, and the naming of Changi Airport as a terrorism target by the Jemaah
Islamiyah, the airport's security has been stepped up. Roving patrol teams comprising
of two soldiers and a police officer armed with machine guns patrol the terminals at
random.
Assisting the state organizations, are the security services provided by the
ground handlers, namely that of the Singapore Airport Terminal Services's SATS
Security Services, and the Aetos Security Management Private Limited, formed from
a merger of the Changi International Airport Services's airport security unit and that
of other companies to become a single island-wide auxiliary police company. These
officers man check-in counters to screen luggage, control movements into restricted
areas, and so forth.
Since 2005, an upgrade in screening technology and rising security concerns
led to all luggage-screening processes to be conducted behind closed-doors. Plans are
also in place to install over 400 cameras around the airport to monitor passenger
activity around the clock and to check on suspicious parcels and activity to prevent
bomb attacks similar to the 2005 Songkhla bombings in Southern Thailand where
Hat Yai International Airport was targeted. Tenders to incorporate such a system
were called in late September 2005.
21
2.3.3.6 United Kingdom
The Department for Transport (DFT) is the heart of airport security in the
United Kingdom. Along with the Home Office in September 2004, it started an
initiative called the Multi Agency Threat and Risk Assessment (MATRA), which
was initially piloted at five of the United Kingdom's major airports - Heathrow,
Birmingham, East Midlands, Newcastle and Glasgow. Following successful trials,
the scheme has now been rolled out across 44 airports. .
Since the September 11th attacks in New York, the United Kingdom has been
assessed as a high risk country due to its support of the United States both in its
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.;
Currently there are limits as to the size of hand luggage (regardless of what it
contains), and the amount of hand luggage that can be taken on board, as well as
passengers not being allowed to take liquids bought before the sterile area on flights.
All bags are screened via X-ray before being put on the plane. All passengers must
walk through metal detectors. Human airport security has also been increased. There
are also the usual checks of passports and boarding cards. On-line check-in is also
now in use.
Currently new methods of screening passengers are being considered to
further improve airport security:
Advanced X-Ray machines - Further developments in X-ray technology have
meant that an entire 360 degree X-ray can be done of a person and can see under
clothes, right down to the skin and bones.
Various criticisms have been brought up about this method. The latest X-Ray
machines (Backscatters) are planned to be tested in several U.S. airports through
2005 and at London's Heathrow Airport. Due to their accuracy in looking under
someone's clothes — genitalia have been displayed during tests, meaning it would be
equal to that of a strip search — they will have to be carried out by someone of the
22
same sex in accordance with strict rules. It is unlikely that everyone going through an
airport would be liable to such a search.
2.3.3.7 United States
Prior to the 1970s American airports had minimal security arrangements to
prevent aircraft hijackings. Measures were introduced starting in the late 1960s after
several high-profile hijackings.
Sky marshals were introduced in 1970 but there were insufficient numbers to
protect every flight and hijackings continued to take place. Consequently, in late
1972, the FAA required that all airlines begin screening passengers and their carryon baggage by January 5, 1973. This screening was generally contracted to private
security companies. Private companies would bid on these contracts, with the lowest
bid usually being the winning one. The airline that had operational control of the
departure concourse controlled by a given checkpoint would hold that contract.
Although an airline would control the operation of a checkpoint, oversight authority
was held by the FAA. C.F.R. Title 14 restrictions did not permit a relevant airport
authority to exercise any oversight over checkpoint operations.
The September 11, 2001 attacks prompted even tougher regulations, such as
limiting the number of and types of items passengers could carry on board aircraft
and requiring increased screening for passengers who fail to present a government
issued photo ID.
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act generally required that by
November 19, 2002 all passengers screening must be conducted by Federal
employees. As a result, passenger and baggage screening is now provided by the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), part of the Department of Homeland
Security. Provisions to improve the technology for detecting explosives were
included in the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
23
With the increase in security screening, some airports were led to have
extensive security lines. To alleviate some of the lines, airports created Premium
lines for passengers travelling in First or Business Class, or those who were elite
members of a particular airlines Frequent Flyer program.
2.3.4
Process and equipment
Perhaps more than in any other part of the airport, security measures in the
passenger terminal are most effective in preventing subsequent unlawful acts in the
air. If the public is made aware in general terms that a security program is in
operation, the incidence of attacks is lowered, indicating a deterrent effect. The less
well understood the security measures are, the greater the likelihood that the program
will succeed in heading off all but the most determined attackers. Ideally a security
system operates throughout the whole passenger facilitation process of ticketing,
passenger and baggage check-in, and boarding. Abnormal behavior at the ticketing
and check-in stage should alert staff to potential problems. In the boarding process,
security procedures must ensure that no would-be assailant is able to convey any
weapon to the aircraft. The mere presence of visible efficient security systems is
likely to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of incidents.
According to Ashford et al (1984), successful security necessitates that the
airside-landside boundary be well defined and continuous through the passenger
terminal, with a clear definition of security cleared "sterile" areas. The number of
access points to the airside must be very strictly limited; those that are available to
passengers should be manned by security staff. Access to the airside through staff
areas must not be direct and must be clearly signed as closed to the public. Doors
from the passenger terminal to the apron must be locked. Where emergency exits
give access to the apron, they should be fitted with alarms. Equal care must be taken
to secure access to the apron via unattended loading bridges and other apron
connectors. The security screening of passengers can be carried out in a decentralized
way at the individual aircraft gates. Some operators believe gate screening achieves
maximum security. However, it requires more screening equipment and staff, tends
24
to cause longer boarding delays, and suffers the disadvantage that the challenge to
any armed person or group is performed in the vicinity of the aircraft. Centralized
security before entry to a central sterile departure lounge requires less staff and can
utilize less but more sophisticated screening equipment. The main disadvantage is
that unscreened individuals may be able to infiltrate the sterile areas from the apron
or through staff routes. Other obvious security measures include the design of ticket
and processing counters that prevent the public from obtaining unlawful access to the
validators, tickets, and boarding passes.
Passenger screening is carried out by physical search and the use of
electromechanical, electronic, and X-ray equipment. The screening process is
significantly improved by limiting carry-on baggage to one piece. Either baggage is
automatically machine checked or hand searched while the personal screening is
carried out by walk through machines, supplemented where necessary by a body
search. In general, the security staff will take possession of all firearms; offensive
weapons and imitations; explosives; inflammable, toxic, and corrosive substances.
Where possession of these items is not against the law in the country of embarkation,
they are taken into the custody of the airline for carriage in the hold and returned at
the end of the flight.
Figure 2.1: Airport Security in process
Source: www.worldtravel.com (2009)
25
Figure 2.2: Airport metal detectors rely on pulse induction
Source: www.howstuffworks.com (2009)
Figure 2.3: X-ray machine
Source: www.asiatraveltips.com (2009)
Figure 2.4: Airport X-ray hand luggage machine
Source: www.howstuffworks.com (2009)
26
Protection of the aircraft means that all avenues to any aircraft on the apron
must be secure. Staff working on the airport must realize that terrorist organizations
may be as well aware of airport operating procedures as the staff themselves. In the
case of a planned attack, it is very likely that the particular configuration and
operating procedures of an airport will have been examined. The systematic checking
of the efficiency of security systems is therefore essential. Furthermore, the use of
covert surveillance can be just as useful as overt screening devices. This introduces
an element of insecurity in the minds of potential violators. Consequently, the full
extent of the security system should be known to as few persons as possible from an
operational viewpoint.
2.4
Effects of September 11, 2001
In September 11, 2001, while visiting an elementary school, President Bush
was notified about the terrorist attacks; soon after, and within a period of ten
minutes, ―the United States airspace was ordered cleared,‖ and fortunately, ―it was
the first time that an unscheduled closing of airspace had occurred in the United
States‖ (Bolz et al, 2005).
Simonsen and Spindlove (2007), point out that the attacks of 9/11,
tremendously affected the airport industry, specifically, the attacks provided major
challenges to airport security, such as the need to strengthen security and to offer
better protection to the public. Kronenwetter (2004) believes that nowadays
―everyone who travels by plane is subjected to delays and potential indignities
because of the security prompted by terrorism‖.
Black (2003) suggests that the terrorist actions against the United States were
performed as suicide attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
September 11, 2001, which killed 20 percent more people than the bombing of Pearl
Harbor.
27
Kronenwetter (2004) makes an interesting point as he describes how
terrorism has been present even before 9/11, and not only in other parts of the world,
but it has affected the United States. However, the undeniable reality is that terrorism
was perceived by people of the United States to be a phenomenon occurring in other
countries. They believed that it did not happen in their place, even when it
undeniably did happen here (Kronenwetter, 2004).
After the attacks of 9/11, and because of the hijacking of the 4 commercial
airplanes, the U.S. government responded to counter those attacks by tightening
security at airports nationwide (Combs and Slann, 2002).
Despite the efforts of the government to increase security, they were faced
with many challenges. Passengers experienced fear and dissatisfaction because of the
many changes that affected the airport industry. At the same time the government
was faced with a different problem because the terrorists did not smuggle bombs into
the airplanes, neither did they try to collect a ransom, they used those airplanes as
weapons against the United States (Combs and Slann, 2002).
Therefore, to reassure safety to the people of the United States, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security was born out of public outrage and the after
effects of the attacks. Apparently, something had to be done quickly, and it was
obvious that the government was going to respond strongly and would not allow
something similar to happen again (Simonsen and Spindlove, 2007). It was obvious
that every sector of American Society was changed by the 9/11 attacks on the United
States, and therefore, many strategies were implemented to meet future threats
(Sauter and Carafano, 2005).
2.4.1
Enhancements to Airport Security after 9/11
Historically the airline industry has been an attractive target for terrorist
attacks, including airplane hijackings and the bombing of airliners in flight
(Anderson and Sloan, 2002). As previously mentioned, airport security experienced
28
many weaknesses before 9/11, but after the attacks, the need to protect the public and
the airline industry by enhancing airport security became an important task aimed to
reassure the people of the United States (Combs, 2006).
Combs (2006) reinforced what other authors have said about the many
programs implemented to increase airport security. He mentions that although
security was enforced before 9/11, nowadays, security has improved and changed in
many ways. For instance, people without a purchased airplane ticket are not allowed
in the interior of the airport beyond the screening checkpoints to wait for friends or
family members at either the arrival or departing gates.
A study by the Reason Foundation (Poole and Passantino, 2003) calls for
immediate creation and testing of a Registered Traveller Program and urges the TSA
to adopt a risk-based approach to passenger and baggage screening that does not
include the invasive privacy violations and data-mining used in CAPPS II. In order
to improve security while also reducing the hassle factor, the Foundation's risk-based
model separates passengers and their luggage into three categories: low-risk
registered travellers, medium-risk travellers and high-risk travellers. Low-risk
travelers would be part of a voluntary Registered Traveller program wherein
passengers could choose to undergo in-depth background investigations in exchange
for shorter security checkpoint lines. Registered travelers who voluntarily and
successfully complete the investigation process would be issued biometric security
cards to confirm their identities before proceeding to the security checkpoint. To
alleviate personal privacy concerns, TSA would make the ultimate security clearance
decisions but a private company interfacing with TSA and the airlines would operate
the program. EDS, a U.S. company, operates a similar program at Israel's Ben
Gurion Airport.
In January 2003, the TSA (2003) published a Federal Register notice
announcing the Aviation Security Screening Records (ASSR) database. The Federal
Register notice described a system that would allow government access to financial
and transactional data as well as virtually unlimited amounts and types of data from
other proprietary and public sources. TSA also indicated that many private and
public entities might gain access to the personal information used in the ASSR
29
database. Yet the notice did not provide information about how passengers can
challenge their score or otherwise seek redress for their treatment at airports if they
think it is based on inaccurate information. Over 100 individuals and organizations
filed comments on the ASSR database that were almost universally critical of the
program (Air travel policy, 2003).
Following the announcement of ASSR, the TSA announced the deployment
of the second-generation airline passenger profiling system known as CAPPS II
(Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). CAPPS II would attempt to
assess the security risk of every single airline passenger based on commercial and
government data. The program would gather four pieces of information about each
passenger from the airlines: full name, home address, home phone number and date
of birth. That information would then be checked against credit header information
and other data held by various data aggregators-private corporations that maintain
files on the commercial activities of most American citizens-in an effort to verify the
traveller‘s identity. However, credit header information can be inaccurate, and
thieves can easily sidestep the identity check by presenting a false driver's license or
passport, undercutting the system's entire mission.
After attempting to verify identity, CAPPS II would conduct a check against
government databases (including intelligence and law enforcement databases) to
assign a risk assessment score to each passenger: green for minimal, yellow to spark
heightened security procedures, and red for those accused to pose an acute danger
and would be referred to law enforcement. Although TSA does not plan to retain data
on individuals, CAPPS II puts the riskiest element of the program-the determination
of risk and the construction of rules for conducting background checks-into the realm
of the more secretive intelligence and law enforcement programs and databases. TSA
plans to develop some mechanism for individuals to request a reevaluation of their
colour code. However, it appears that CAPPS II is rooted in the secretive box of law
enforcement and intelligence data which itself could include data mined from
innocent people's commercial information (Alexander, 2003). The TSA claims that
the purpose of the new security measures is to identify suspicious and high-risk
travellers, while ensuring that most passengers are not inconvenienced by heightened
security. The CAPPS II test project was initiated by Delta Air Lines at some selected
30
airports, and the TSA expects that all of the nation's airlines will be using the system
by 2004 (Alexander, 2003).
Some enhancements of airport security were noted by Facemire and Laustra
(2005), as they described how new technology has been introduced at checkpoints in
order to deter terrorists. X-ray systems have been updated and are used when
checking luggage. The checkpoint security procedure has two main objectives: the
screening of passengers and of their carry-on bags. For both of these areas, new
technologies promise to address the extra requirements that recent events have
imposed. Checked bags would be processed through high-speed x-ray machines first,
with those that cleared the system being forwarded for loading. If a bag triggered an
alarm, it would be forwarded, along with all bags from high-risk passengers, to an
explosive detection scanner for detailed inspection. If the explosive detection
machine flagged the bag, it would be inspected manually, preferably with the owner
present (Poole and Passantino, 2003).
Screening activity is standardized by regulation and generally results in a
uniform configuration of x-ray and metal detector equipment with their associated
procedures. However, the throughput performance of this configuration can vary
dramatically depending on the approach taken to simple aspects, such as equipment
balance, alarm resolution and tray return. Here also technical enhancements that
assist the procedures can greatly boost the efficiency of the overall checkpoint
operation.
There is a quiet revolution occurring in the area of carry-on baggage
screening. Technologies that have previously been the preserve of sophisticated hold
baggage screening methods are now finding their way into the passenger checkpoint.
Multiview imaging, backed up with advanced software analysis, provides a means of
rapid and effective detection of threats in hand-carried items.
By providing the system operator with alarm prompts in the displayed image,
the detection performance and speed of clearing a bag are greatly enhanced. This
additional functionality directly addresses the changing nature of today's threat
profile and the advent of this new technology holds out the promise of a return to the
31
days before the days of liquids bottles in clear plastic bags became an everyday
reality. It may also lead to the possibility of leaving laptops in the bag and easier
resolution of suspect objects that at present result in spurious searches of passenger
carry-on.
Further improvements in the level of security are also imminent as sensor
integration raises the functionality of the x-ray scanners. Already the inclusion of
radiation detectors has elevated the utility of these systems beyond simply viewing
the interior of a passenger's bag. Future developments, such as the integration of
trace detection into the x-ray tunnel, also add to the effectiveness of the screening
process.
Millimeter-wave imaging is an example of this approach where the
transparency property of clothing materials in this spectral region is harnessed to
provide imagery that reveals objects that are hidden under garments. The technology
currently requires operator assessment of the images as they are produced. However,
this is now being supplemented with assist and automation functions where
background software pinpoints and highlights anomaly items on the body. As this
automation capability evolves, the need to display raw-data imagery-with the
consequent privacy implications-disappears. Instead, silhouette representations or
even standard video images of the passenger can be presented to the operator with
the position of any concealed objects highlighted by the automation software. An
added benefit of this approach is the ability of the software to distinguish between
organic and inorganic objects and to indicate the material characteristic of a hidden
item on the user display.
The technology of metal detectors has been improved and is used to scan and
to identify many dangerous objects beginning with microscopic particles to other
dangerous metallic objects. A different type of equipment used for detection of
explosives is the explosive trace detection (EDT), (Facemire and Laustra, 2005). In
addition to technological enhancements, other steps were taken into consideration to
enhance airport security including the use of the National Guard troops to
temporarily train airport personal (Combs and Slann, 2002). One program that has
32
received a lot of attention because of the tremendous increase in agents was the
Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).
No one measure in and by itself will prevent crime or deter determined
terrorists, but a combination of appropriate measures and equipments can do much to
reduce the likelihood and intensity of criminality or attacks (prevention), to be
prepared to respond effectively in the event of an incident (preparedness and
response) and to re-establish service as quickly as possible (recover). It can be
concluded that Airport security refers to the techniques and methods used in
protecting airports and by extension aircraft from crime and terrorism.
2.5
Passengers perception on airport safety and security measures
The airport industry is changing rapidly. Today's air travellers have
meaningful choices among airports and there is an increasing urgency among airport
marketers to differentiate themselves by meeting the needs of customers better than
the competition. While passengers' perception of airport service quality is only one
of several variables (e.g. routes, scheduling, location and prices) that contribute to
overall airport attractiveness, it is nevertheless an important variable because of the
increasing importance of a customer orientation to competitive advantage in this
industry.
The aviation system is composed of various levels, each differing in their
perception of safety (Curtis, 2000). This would mean that the definition of safety
perceived at one level, might not be the same at another level. Lowrance (1976)
tackled the confusion about the nature of safety by defining it "as a judgment of the
acceptability of risk, and risk, in turn, as a measure of the probability and severity of
harm to human health". In other words, anything is safe if its risks are judged
acceptable. With this in mind and the premise that no man-made system can be
absolutely safe, we can only talk about relative safety, and the understanding that
simply because a flight is completed without an accident it does not mean that the
flight was risk free and, therefore, safe (Thomas, 2003). Despite the unclear nature of
33
the term, some concrete definitions are offered such as "freedom from risk or danger"
and "the act of keeping safe" (McAllister, 2001). Helmreich and Merritt (2001) think
about safety as an abstract concept rather than a binary condition defined by safe and
unsafe conditions. They suggested that it is a continuum that covers an array of
conditions, practices and resources that are likely to vary from one place to another.
Every organization attempts to operate as safely as resources and conditions permit.
Further, it is speculated that the very definition of safety is culturally determined
(Merritt, 1998).
Gill (2004) consider that in the aviation environment safety could not be
guaranteed, it can only be forecasted. Its assurance comes only when the operation is
completed safely. Forecasted safety depends on the perceived capability of the safety
delivery system in which operations are conducted safely. A safety delivery system
incorporates all stakeholders who are responsible, directly and/or indirectly, for the
safe completion of an operation. With this in mind, participants defined forecasted
safety as a situation dependent upon the safety delivery system for a safe outcome
The focus of the Leo and Lowler (2007) study is to explore passenger
sensitivity to privacy, passenger perception of security threat, passenger perception
of effectiveness of screening technologies, passenger knowledge of functionality of
screening technologies, and passenger knowledge of imaging and information
storage and of usage, as factors of consideration in public acceptability of airport
screening technologies. The extent of the importance of personal privacy, security
threat and perceived risk of backscatter x-ray screening technologies in tandem, that
is not clear in the scholarly literature, is the goal.
Hernandez (2007) studied about perception and knowledge of the selection of
passengers for personal searches. With 103 undergraduate students as subjects, she
found out that there are significant difference between male and female in term of
criteria used for the selection of airline passengers for personal searches. She
reported that males, Afro-Americans, and Hispanics are more likely to be searched at
airports than Whites are. Furthermore, people from Middle-Eastern are less likely to
be selected at airports than those from other countries. Surprisingly, the result did not
support any literature during her time.
34
According to Leo and Lowler (2007) the data from the New York City (n=25)
subjects is indicating that they were intermediately sensitive to privacy, but not
highly sensitive, and intermediately perceptive of the severity of terrorism and threat,
but not highly perceptive. They were less perceptive of the effectiveness of the
success of screening technologies. Significantly, they were less knowledgeable of the
storage, techniques and usage of the technologies. Their willingness to accept
personal intrusion of screening technologies given their lack of knowledge was less
than their willingness to accept intrusion given their perception of the effectiveness
of the technologies, perception of the threat, and privacy sensitivity. The data on
these subjects is implying that subject knowledge of backscatter x-ray screening
technologies may be more important than privacy sensitivity in subject receptivity to
the technologies.
Leo and Lowler (2007) analysis of the data from the first of the Tel Aviv
(n = 10) passenger subjects disclosed very high perception of security threat and of
the effectiveness of screening technologies, though no knowledge of the storage,
techniques, and usage of the technologies and no privacy sensitivity. Willingness to
accept personal intrusion was therefore very high. These findings are not consistent
with any of the New York subjects, due to the continued culture of security alert, if
not fear, and the discernable tangibility of threat in Israel. Such conditions effectively
eliminated knowledge of screening technologies in the receptivity of the Tel Aviv
subject to the technologies. The literature on Ben Gurion International Airport and on
Israel (Black, 2003; Croft, 2005; and Schwartz, 2002) indicates the deterrence focus
and risk management of Israel, in contrast to countermeasures of the United States.
The data on the Tel Aviv subject has to be confirmed with further Israeli subjects,
and the findings may not be extendable to the United States.
2.6
Awareness of safety and security
According to Siponnen (2000) educational or awareness, issues (from simply
information security guidelines to well-developed information security education
programmes) are security matters in nearly all organizations in the era of the
35
information society; their nature is not well understood resulting, for example, in
ineffectiveness of security guidelines or programs in practice. In this regard it will be
shown that even passing around security guidelines in a factual manner per se, for
instance (i.e. their presentation as normal facts, at the phrastic level), as is likely to be
the case in most organizations, may be an inapt approach as such.
The more stringent security measures have increased queuing times and stress
levels of the passengers. Airports dwell times significantly raise much of the
additional dwell time is spent in check-in queues and central search. Passengers are
being more stressed so they took longer to relax (Evered, 2006). The new security
measures which include restricting the amount of hand luggage allowed and the
carrying of liquids and gels and the increased levels of security have created
confusion in terms of what people are permitted to carry through security (Evered,
2006).
The public, largely, conceded that the new procedures were necessary
precautions, adapting to what was identified by some as the iodine syndrome: If it
stings, it is doing something good (Caskey, 1992).
Americans have proven they will put up with a lot to get more airline
security. They have been very patient with the delays caused by our current security
procedures (Shillinglaw, 2002)
According to Kaye (2002), new airport security measures are mostly for show
and won't prevent another terrorist attack
It is virtually impossible, given the security devices at checkpoints today, to
stop someone from bringing the components of a bomb into (a secure) area, and
everybody involved in security knows this. (Kaye, 2002).
Elson, the former FAA security inspector, said only layers of security, such as
improved technologies, better-trained screeners and more carefully guarded terminalto-ramp access points, would make planes safer (Kaye, 2002).
36
Nalley (2007) considered that airport security is nothing that it is supposed to
be. Although she had negative attitude about the intentions of congress to have
immediate bag scanning. Finally, she concludes that the majority of security is very
cosmetic: only for show.
2.7
Conclusion
The review of the literature in this study reflects a changing paradigm in the
airport security environment that has tightened and increased after the events of 9/11.
The security at airports has become one of the most important topics of interest in the
literature due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
CHAPTER 3
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
Methodology is defined as the activity of choosing, reflecting upon,
evaluating, and justifying the methods being used (Wellington, 2000). Research
methodology refers to process in applying the most effective methods to obtain
valuable data and achieve research aims with minimum cost. Failure in using
effective method to collect data will give inaccurate and bias information, thus
increase data load (Neuman, 2003).
This chapter described the methodological approach used to carry out the
research and it explained how the study was performed. The chapter is divided into
the following sections: study design, sampling design, instrumentation, pilot study,
data collecting procedures and data analysis. Since this study is about passengers‘
perceptions to airport‘s safety and security measures and their knowledge of that
issue, the author justified the factors that influence on users of KLIA attitude.
3.2
Study design
This is a descriptive study employing the survey method. The method was
selected because the study is going to see the differences between variables in an
38
existing phenomenon without manipulating any variable. Survey research employs
group administered pencil and paper questionnaires, face-to-face and telephone
interviews, mailed self-administered questionnaires, and/or some other techniques of
data collection that would produce quantitative. In a survey research, data is usually
collected only once involving the administration of a questionnaire or interview
schedule to a group of respondents who have been randomly selected. An important
point to note in the survey design is that the data is collected after the fact or ex post
facto. The task of the researcher who administrated a survey is to assess which
variables are more highly associated with the dependent variable, and to explain why
these variables are correlated (Descombe, 2002).
The case study was conducted in order to evaluate the significance between
demographic factors of the respondents in relation of passengers‘ awareness and
perception differences to Airport Safety and Security, administering a survey
questionnaire at ―sterile area‖ of the airport was utilized to gather the cross-sectional
data for this study.
3.3
Sampling Design
A perfect sample would be like Grandview: a scaled-down version of the
population, mirroring every characteristic of the whole population. Of course, no
such perfect sample can exist for complicated population, but a good sample will
reproduce the characteristic of interest in the population, as closely as possible. It
will representative in the sense that each sampled unit will represent the
characteristic of a known number of units in the population (Lohr, 1999).
3.3.1
Population
The target population of this study is international destination passengers who
departed from the ―satellite building‖ of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. A
39
―passenger‖ is any individual who is travelling in a vehicle, plane, boat etc, but is not
driving it or working on it (Oxford dictionary).
According to the Malaysia Airports Holding Berhads SdnBhd 2008 annual
report there are 8909625 international passengers were departure from KLIA and for
2009 they are expected increasing number of passengers.
3.3.2
Sampling
3.3.2.1 Sampled population
In an ideal survey, the sampled population will be identical to the target
population, but this ideal is rarely met exactly. In surveys of people, the sampled
population is usually smaller than target population (Lohr, 1999).
In this study, the target sample surveyed included those international
destinations passengers who departed from the KLIA at 18-19 August 2009.
3.3.2.2 Sampling unit
Sample unit is the unit we actually sample (Lohr, 1999). The current study
sample unit is international destination passenger who is passed through security
check and waited his/he flight.
3.3.2.3 Sampling Frame
Sampling frame is the list of sampling units (Lohr, 1999). In this current
research, samples were taken from the population of passengers for international
40
flight located in a sterile area in satellite building of KLIA, therefore, it is framed that
only people with ‗passengers for international flight‘ status (not domestic flight
passengers, not airport staffs, not bystanders, and not flight crews) would be taken as
sample in this current research. In fact, sampling frame should include the list of
passengers who has their flight in the mean time. Obviously, such list was not
available; therefore, the researcher manually chose the sample based on their status.
3.3.2.4 Sample size
According to Cohen (1988), a power sample is an estimate of the number of
participants needed in order to obtain a correlation of a sample size. According to
Cohen, a sample size of at least forty-five participants is necessary if the intent is to
achieve an eighty percent chance of obtaining a statistically significant correlation at
the .05 level.
From the MAHB 2008 annual report was found that KLIA handle 8909625
departure passengers last year. Since the study involving (dichotomous) nominal
variables, the estimation of sample size must include the proportion statistic p into its
computation. Assume that p is equal 0.5 and to determine the actual sample size at 95
percent confidence level with a 0.1 margin of error the infinite sample size n0 can be
obtained using the following procedures:
𝑛0 =
𝑛0 =
𝑧𝛼2 ×𝑝× 1−𝑝
2
(3.1)
𝑒2
1.962 ×0.5× 1−0.5
0.12
= 96.04 ≈ 96
(3.2)
Next, applying the n0, into the following formula, we are able to determine
the number of samples n to be included in the study:
𝑛=
𝑛0
𝑛
1+ 0
𝑁
(3.3)
41
𝑛=
96
96
8909625
1+
= 95.99897 ≈ 100
(3.4)
Therefore, approximately 100 respondents should be included in the actual
survey to obtain the required level of confidence in the results.
3.3.2.5 Sampling method
Simple random sampling was utilized in this current research. The reason of
utilizing the simple random sampling method is based on the assumption that the
sample taken represents the population of this current study (A group of passengers,
taken as sample, would represent other passengers in term of giving response to the
questionnaires). Other random sampling methods such as stratified random sampling
or cluster sampling were not chosen because the population (passengers) did not
divided into subgroups, and the sampling location was determined as one location
(KLIA), hence the passengers were not scattered in many places (Lohr, 1999).
The respondents were selected using random number table applied to
passengers who had seated near the passengers boarding lounge. As such, all the
passengers will have equal chances of being selected. Since the study conducted in
airport, the number of passengers who came earlier to the gate is changing from gate
to gate the process continued until all the samples required have been successfully
collected.
3.3.2.6 Biasness
A good sample will be as free from selection bias as possible. Selection bias
occurs when some part of the target population is not in the sampled population,
sample of convenience is often biased, since the units that are easiest to select or that
42
are most likely to respond are usually not representative of the harder-to-select or
non-responding units (Lohr, 1999).
Lohr (1999) considered that following example indicate some ways in which
selection bias can occur:

Using a sample-selection procedure that, unknown to investigator,
depends on some characteristic associated with the properties of
interest. In order to avoid this situation, the researcher utilized a simple
random sampling technique, where the samples were taken based on the
random number table.

Deliberately or purposefully selecting a ―representative‖ sample. In
order to avoid this situation, the researcher utilized a simple random
sampling technique, where the samples were taken based on the random
number table.

Miss specifying the target population. In order to avoid this situation,
the researcher only took samples from the sterile area, satellite building
of KLIA, which is designated only for the passengers for international
flights.

Failing to include all the target population in the sampling frame. In
order to avoid this situation, the researcher selected the location where
most of the sample were included in the sampling frame.

Substituting a convenient member of a population for a designated
member who is not readily available. In order to avoid this situation, the
researcher did not substitute any sample.

Failing to obtain responses from all chosen sample. In order to avoid
this situation, the researcher made sure to get the total number of the
sample (n = 100).

Allowing the sample to consist entirely of volunteers. In order to avoid
this situation, the researcher made sure to get only international flights
passengers get the questionnaire sheet.
A good sample has accurate responses to the item of interest. Measurement
bias occurs when the measuring instrument has a tendency to differ from the true
43
value in one direction (Lohr, 1999). Measurement bias is concern in all surveys and
can be insidious. Sometimes measurement bias is unavoidable. Lohr (1999) supposed
that obtaining accurate responses is challenging in all types of surveys, but
particularly so in surveys of people:

People sometimes do not tell the truth. In order to minimize this
condition, the researcher asked the subjects to fill the questionnaire with
sincere true responses.

People do not always understand the question. In order to minimize this
condition, the researcher tried to use the simplest English structure and
straightforward questions.

People forget. In order to minimize this condition, the researcher gave
ample time for the subjects to fill up the questionnaire, in order to help
them remember some forgettable matters.

People may say what an interviewer wants to hear or what they think
will impress the interviewer. In order to minimize this condition, the
researcher tried to keep neutral and natural attitude to every subject.
Some unnatural attitude (e.g., being overdressed) might drive subject to
try to impress the researcher by delivering false responses.

A particular interviewer may affect the accuracy of the response by
misreading questions, recording responses inaccurately, or antagonizing
the respondent. In order to minimize this condition, the researcher tried
to use the simplest English structure and straightforward questions.

Certain words mean different things to different people. In order to
minimize this condition, the researcher tried to use the simplest English
structure and straightforward questions.

Question wording and order have a large effect on the responses
obtained. In order to minimize this condition, the researcher tried to use
the simplest English structure and straightforward questions.
44
3.4
The instrument
A self-administered questionnaire was developed based on literature
reviewed. The questionnaire comprised two sections. The first was designed to
measure passengers' awareness, perceptions and feelings about airport safety and
security measures, while the second captured the demographic characteristics of
respondents. To examine their overall awareness and perception level, respondents
were asked to rate chosen airport safety and security measures and procedures on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 where ―1‖ represented the strongest level
of disagreement, and ―2‖ a lower level of disagreement. The selection of a ―3‖
referred to uncertain and ―4‖ revealed a lower level of agreement, ―5‖ indicated the
strongest level of agreement.
The purposes of designing this instrument were: to decide if passengers aware
of security and safety in airport terminal building; to determine factors that influence
passengers‘ perceptions on airport safety and security measures. Additionally, the
questionnaire was designed to display the respondents‘ feelings on airport security
procedures.
The strategy was to capture the respondent‘s awareness, perception and
feelings, and to find out their demographics such as gender, age, marital status, race,
nationality, education level, income and travel frequency. The twenty-two question
survey was divided in categories such as awareness, perception, feelings and
demographics. The first fourteen questions of the survey were designed to measure
perception, awareness and feelings. The last eight questions were constructed with
the intention to determine the demographics of the respondents who participated in
the research.
45
3.4.1
Variables
In general, this current study consisted of two kinds of variables, namely
independent and dependent variables. Each of those kinds contains many variables
with various types. Those variables can be listed as follows:
1. Awareness of the security measures in airport terminal building.

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to five different
score levels.
2. Awareness of higher security measures in airport terminal building
after 9/11.

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to five different
score levels.
3. Awareness of the airport security service‘s readiness to confront any
unlawful interference act.

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to five different
score levels.
4. Awareness of the consistency of airport safety and security policies
and procedures from airport to airport.

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to five different
score levels.
5. Perception on safety in airport terminal building

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to five different
score levels.
6. Gender

Nominal Variable, due to its nature to have only two groups
namely male and female.
46
7. Age group

Ordinal Variable, due to its being divided to four different
groups.
8. Marital status

Nominal Variable, because it has no such an order and score
values.
9. Education level

Ordinal Variable, due to its being in order, but each step did
not represent any numerical value.
10. Ethnicity

Nominal Variable, because it has no such an order and score
values.
11. Nationality

Nominal Variable, because it has no such an order and score
values.
12. Travelling Frequency

Interval variable, because it was divided in ordinal
categorization based on interval values.
13. Income level

In fact it was a ratio variable due to the existence of true-zero
point and numerical value. Nevertheless, in this current
research, it was taken as interval variable because it was
divided in ordinal categorization based on interval values.
47
3.4.2
Reliability and Validity
Pilot study is a preliminary and usually small-scale research study designed to
try out procedures, calibrate measures, and generally serve as dress rehearsal before a
major duty (Discombe, 2002). Pilot study is important for the researcher to know
either any section of the questionnaire has any mistake, or not suitable items that
need to be changed before continuing to the real research (Baker, 1994).
In this research, in order to check the internal reliability of the instrument, a
pilot study was carried out on 15 passengers. The Cronbach‘s alpha was .76 for the
scales of airport safety and security measures and procedures.
Using Cronbach‘s alpha to define reliability means to make sure that all the
constituent indicators are measuring the same thing. Items of questions in this
instrument were tested to be reliable by Cronbach‘s alpha; it means that all of the
questions about perception were measured perception, and all of the questions about
awareness were measured awareness. According to Hardy and Bryman (2004)
Cronbach‘s alpha was calculated using the formula as follows:
𝛼=
𝑘
𝑘−1
× (1 −
1
𝜎𝑥2
𝜎𝑖2 )
In the formula, k is the number of items;
(3.5)
𝜎𝑖2 is the sum of the total
variances of the items; and 𝜎𝑥2 is the variance of the total score. (Hardy and Bryman,
2004).
Before carrying out pilot studies, the scale of passengers‘ perception and
awareness on airport safety and security measures and procedures which developed
by the researcher was validated by an expert in the field of airport security.
48
3.5
Place and Time of Study
The study took place at ―satellite building‖ of the Kuala Lumpur International
Airport, Malaysia in August 2009. August was chosen to be the time of study due to
its nature to be one of the highest peaks of passengers‘ number for international
flight in KLIA (MAHB, 2008).
3.6
Data collection
This sub-section describes the source and procedure of data collection from
different sources.
3.6.1
Secondary data collection
Every research project should begin with a search of secondary data. It is
involves all existing and available data on current research survey. For this research
author gathered and compiled information from various written and published
sources such as:
o Books.
o Journals.
o Periodicals.
o Government documents and regulations.
o Electronic resources (e-journals, websites, online materials).
The analysis of secondary data based only in descriptive manner.
49
3.6.2
Primary data collection
After the validity and reliability of the instruments is proved and the study got
the approval from Malaysia Airports (Sepang) SDN BHD, the data collection had
conducted at the ―satellite building‖ of KLIA.
The data collection was administered by the researcher, starting with
introducing self as an overseas student from UTM, whereas this questionnaire is
merely for the sake of a research in finishing the study to obtain the master degree.
The highlighting of being overseas student is mentioned to help in gaining the
passengers‘ confidence about the confidentiality of the survey result. Moreover the
researcher announced to the respondents that the survey was voluntary and they
could stop anytime they choose to stop.The subjects then be asked to response to the
questionnaires sincerely. At average respondents spent 5 minutes to complete the
questionnaire sheet.
3.7
Data analysis
Data collected from respondents would be analyzed to fulfil the objectives
and hypotheses of the study. As shown in table, several statistical methods were used
to analyze the data in this study.
Once the respondents completed the surveys, the researcher immediately
collected them to evaluate the data by coding the surveys into the Statistical Program
for Social Sciences as well as Microsoft Excel.
50
Table 3.1:
Primary data analysis
Research Questions
Analysis
Is there any difference between passengers with
Malaysian nationality and other nationality in term of
the awareness of the security measures in airport
Independent-sample T-test
terminal building?
Is there any difference between passengers with
Malaysian nationality and other nationality in term of
the awareness of higher security measures in airport
Independent-sample T-test
terminal building after 9/11?
Is there any difference between passengers with
Malaysian nationality and other nationality in term of
the awareness of the readiness of the airport security
Independent-sample T-test
service to confront any acts of unlawful interference?
Is there any difference between passengers with
Malaysian nationality and other nationality in term of
the awareness aware of the consistency of airport
Independent-sample T-test
safety and security policies and procedures from
airport to airport?
What is the relationship between demographic factors
and the perception on ASMP?
Independent-sample T-test;
Gamma, Cramer‘s V and Phi
Source: Questionnaire survey
3.8
Conclusion
Chapter 4 will focus on the findings of the study. It will describe the results
of the quantitative research by explaining the coded responses of the sample in SPSS.
The results will be analyzed and described in detail in order to find out whether or
not demographics influence perception on airport safety and security measures and
procedures.
CHAPTER 4
4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1
Introduction
The research aims to discover the perception and knowledge of passengers
about the security and safety measures in airport terminal building and identify
factors which influence to perceive. This chapter will describe the findings of the
research and will also provide the discussion based on the results presented. Data
analyses were done according to the research objectives and research questions of the
study.
In this chapter the value of Cronbach‘s Alpha will consider to show the
reliability of scales. Then a demographic data analysis includes mean or percent will
give a general view of the study. Finally data analysis according to the several
independent variables based on knowledge and perception will described in details.
4.2
Reliability of Scales
Instruments used in this study include sets of questionnaire developed to
measure the awareness and perception of passengers about the security and safety
measures in airport terminal building. As Gay (2009) explain reliability is the degree
52
to which a test truly measures whatever it is measuring. As mentioned in Chapter 3,
Cronbach‘s alpha is one method to check the internal reliability of an instrument.
In this research, reliability of the instruments were tested after the data
collection process, the Cronbach‘s alpha was .76 for the scales of airport safety and
security measures and procedures. According to Zaidatun and Mohammad Salleh
(2003), the minimum requirements of an alpha should be .60. Thus, the instrument
used in this research is considered reliable to collect the necessary data. The next
sub-sections are devoted to discuss briefly about each hypothesis testing analyses.
4.3
Demographic Data Analyses
Demographic data are one of the descriptive outcomes that are defined as
rates, means, and percentages of single variables. In this study, a demographic data
analysis includes mean or percent. Data were collected from 100 passengers in Kuala
Lumpur International Airport (KLIA).
There were 63% male and 37% female passengers. Figure 4.1 demonstrates
the age variation among the passengers who are participated in this study. However,
the majority of the participants were between 26 to 35 years old.
Age Variation
13%
20%
below 25
26-35
18%
36-45
49%
Figure 4.1: General view of age variation
Source: Questionnaire survey
over 46
53
In terms of marital status, however, there were considered four choices
including Married, Single, Divorced, and Widow, but the answers are consisted of
only two options: Married and Single whereas 41% were married and 59% were
single.
Furthermore, Figure 4.2 represents the educational levels of participants. As
can be seen the majority of participants belongs the people who got university
degree. However, it is followed by 36% of people that they have university college
of educational level.
Educational Levels
0%
4% 7%
Primary school
15%
High school
36%
38%
University Colleges
University degree
Master degree
PhD
Figure 4.2: General view of educational level
Source: Questionnaire survey
The races were divided to four categories including Asian, European,
African, and others. In this study all one hundred people were from one of the first
three races. They were respectively 60%, 30% and 10% from Asian, European and
African. Meanwhile, 22% of the participants were local and the rest (78%) were
international passengers.
Based on this sample, it looks more than half of the participants they travel
less than three times per year. While, 38% of passengers have four to six travels per
year.
54
Figure 4.3 shows the incoming range among the participants of the study. As
it can be seen, less than 10,000$ incoming has a same share with over 50,000$
around 30%.
Incoming Range
0-10,000$
30%
31%
10,001$-20,000$
20,001$-30,000$
30,001$-40,000$
6%
7%
4%
22%
40,001$-50,000$
over 50,000$
Figure 4.3: Totally incoming range
Source: Questionnaire survey
4.4
General Analyses
In evaluating the perceived value of the data collection, 84% knew that
airport authority implement some security measures to passengers before they enter
boarding area. In examining the belief of using explosive detection technology for
security passengers and aircrafts, the responses were largely positive (98%).
Participants (54%) believed that airports are safer now than what they were before
terrorist attacks of 9/11. They also considered that after the 9/11 attacks, airport
security increased resulting in more passenger searches (75%). Table 4.1
demonstrates the descriptive analysis based on mean and standard deviation.
55
Table 4.1:
General view
Criteria
SD%
D%
U%
A%
1
I know that airport authority
implement
some
security
measures to passengers before
they enter boarding area.
-
-
16
50
34
4.18
0.68
2
I believe that airports are safer
now than what they were before
terrorist attacks of 9/11.
I think that the Check-in
Interview (such questions as
"Have you packed your own
bags?" "Have your bags been in
your possession at all times?" "
Has anyone unknown to you
asked you to carry something
on board?") is one of the
security measures that improve
airline safety and security.
I know that after the 9/11
attacks the list of items that
passengers are no longer
allowed to bring onto an
airplane
have
changed
significantly
After the 9/11 attacks, airport
security increased resulting in
more passenger searches.
I believe that using explosive
detection technology important
for security passengers and
aircrafts.
-
-
46
28
26
3.8
0.82
-
46
21
27
6
2.9
0.98
10
4
5
42
39
3.69
1.23
-
-
25
68
7
3.8
0.53
-
-
2
45
53
4.51
0.54
-
-
42
41
17
3.7
0.72
10
-
18
54
18
3.7
1.08
-
4
46
38
12
3.58
0.75
-
10
27
62
1
3.54
0.68
10
16
33
37
4
3.09
1.04
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I consider that screening
decrease the probability of
unlawful interfaces acts.
I suppose that more intrusive
searches such as X-ray and
body cavity should only be
given based on reasonable
suspicion.
I feel safe and secure in the
airport terminal building.
10 I believe that the airport
security service is ready to
confront any acts of unlawful
interference.
11 I believe that airport safety and
security policies and procedures
consistent from airport to
airport.
Source: Questionnaire survey
SA% Mean
Std.
Dev.
56
Regarding to the feeling when the passengers are waiting in line to security
control, 35% do not care this situation, however, the majority tries to cooperate in
term of security control. Only a small minority (10%) were be disappointed, whereas
11% were felt proud in such situation. Figure 4.4 indicates the different feelings of
passengers due to this condition.
Feeling in the security control line
10%
11%
0%
Proud
Embarrassed
Do not care
Nervous
35%
44%
Angry
Discriminated
Cooperative
Disappointed
0% 0% 0%
Figure 4.4: Felling while waiting in line to security control
Source: Questionnaire survey
Figure 4.5 shows the feeling of passengers when their luggage is selected to
be separately searched by securities. As can be seen 35% do not care this situation,
but 22% are nervous. 17% of the participants cooperated with securities. Meanwhile
15% disappointed and 11% felt proud in facing such matter.
Due to confront heavy-armed security personnel (Figure 4.6), only 16%
became nervous while 19% will feel proud, however, most of the participants (39%)
do not care such situation. Meanwhile, 11% cooperated with the security, whereas
10% disappointed in such situation. Only 5% embarrassed to confront heavy-armed
security personnel.
57
Feeling for personal search
15%
11%
0%
Proud
Embarrassed
Do not care
Nervous
17%
35%
Angry
Discriminated
0%
0%
Cooperative
22%
Disappointed
Figure 4.5: Feeling while luggage is selected for searched personally
Source: Questionnaire survey
Feeling to see heavy-armed security
10%
0%
Proud
19%
Embarrassed
11%
Do not care
5%
0%
Nervous
Angry
16%
Discriminated
39%
Cooperative
Disappointed
Figure 4.6: Feeling while facing heavy-armed security personnel
Source: Questionnaire survey
58
4.5
Testing for the Null Hypothesis 1
Awareness of the safety and security measures in airport terminal building is
considered in this part.
4.5.1
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of the awareness of
ASMP.
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Malaysians and
Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between Malaysians
and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP.
The difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians were tested by
utilizing independent sample t-test. The Table 4.2 shows the analysis result.
Table 4.2:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP
Nationality
Malaysians
Level of
Awareness Non-Malaysians
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
22
3.76
0.08
78
3.45
0.46
t=3.105, df=98, p=.002,
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the Table 4.2, Malaysians are more aware of ASMP (Mean =
3.76) compared to the Non-Malaysians (Mean = 3.45). The difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP was found to be
significant, where the p-value is close to .00 (p = .002). Because the confidence level
is 95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the
59
p-value is less than the alpha. It shows that out of those passengers departing from
KLIA to international destinations, Malaysians passengers are significantly more
aware of ASMP compared to passengers from other nationality.
The mean of the Malaysians‘ response are 3.76, which mean that they are
slightly more into ‗agree‘ than ‗uncertain‘, while the Non-Malaysian response were
more to ‗uncertain‘. Due to assumption that the Malaysian passengers were able to
tell difference between security officers and normal passengers, it is normal to have
their awareness level to be higher. Another possible explanation is that Malaysians
aware the airport security is tighter and more obvious than any other public places in
the country, due to their being living in Malaysia. Passengers from other nationality
might not familiar to the security system getting tighter in the airports, due to their
ignorance of the security system of the country.
4.5.2
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of the awareness of
higher ASMP after 9/11.
o Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Malaysians and
Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11.
o Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between Malaysians
and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11.
The difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians were tested by
utilizing independent sample t-test, and showed in the Table 4.3.
60
Table 4.3:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of higher ASMP after 9/11
Nationality
Level of Malaysians
Awareness Non-Malaysians
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
22
4.45
0.51
78
3.62
0.81
t=4.602, df=98, p=.000,
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the Table 4.3, Malaysians are more aware of ASMP (Mean =
4.45) compared to the Non-Malaysians (Mean = 3.62). The difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP after 9/11 was
found to be significant, where the p-value is .00. Because the confidence level is
95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the pvalue is less than the alpha.
It shows that out of those passengers departing from KLIA to international
destinations, Malaysians passengers are significantly more aware of higher ASMP
after 9/11 compared to passengers from other nationality. Mean of the Malaysian
passengers awareness was 4.45, which means that they were somewhere between
‗aware‘ and ‗strongly aware‘, while passengers with other nationality scored their
mean at 3.62, between ‗uncertain‘ and ‗aware‘.
Passengers with high flight-frequency might be aware that 9/11 affected
many aspects of the airline industry, especially airport security. The same kind of
awareness might be more intensive for those who often visit the same airport many
times; they might found the difference between ASMP before and after 9/11.
Malaysian passengers, who were assumed to have frequent visits to KLIA, might be
aware that the ASMP changed, while passengers from other nationalities, who might
not have any chance to see the ASMP in KLIA before 9/11.
61
4.5.3
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness on the Airport Security Service’s Readiness to Confront any
Unlawful Acts.
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of the awareness on
the Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to Confront any Unlawful Acts.
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Malaysians and
Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness on the Airport Security Service‘s
Readiness to confront any Unlawful Acts.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between Malaysians
and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness on the Airport Security
Service‘s Readiness to confront any Unlawful Acts.
The difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians were tested by
utilizing independent sample t-test.
Table 4.4:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness on the Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to confront any Unlawful
Acts
Level of
Awareness
Nationality
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
Malaysians
22
4.00
.00
Non-Malaysians
78
3.41
.73
t=3.8, df=98, p=.000,
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the Table 4.4, Malaysians are more aware of ASMP (Mean =
4.00) compared to the Non-Malaysians (Mean = 3.41). The difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP‘s readiness was
found to be significant, where the p-value is .00. Because the confidence level is
95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the pvalue is less than the alpha.
62
It shows that out of those passengers departing from KLIA to international
destinations, Malaysians passengers are significantly have more awareness on the
Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to confront any unlawful acts, compared to
passengers from other nationality. One of the possible reasons was because
Malaysian passengers are more likely to have emotional-attachment to the defence
system of the country, from which the ASMP in KLIA was rooted.
Similar survey should be done in other location with other population in order
to see whether the data was biased by emotional-attachment or not. For instance,
passengers with Indonesian nationality might likely to be more ‗aware‘ that ASMP in
Sukarno-Hatta International Airport is ready to confront any unlawful, act and
passengers with Singaporean nationality might likely to be more ‗aware‘ that ASMP
in Changi International Airport is ready to confront any unlawful act.
There might be some possibilities that after some test with different
population, Malaysians are found to be consistent in being aware of ASMP in any
airport is ready to confront any unlawful act. When that happened, it can be
concluded that in general, passengers with Malaysian nationality are significantly
more aware about the readiness of security systems in any airport to confront any
unlawful act.
4.5.4
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP’s Consistency among Airports
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of the awareness of
ASMP‘s Consistency among Airports.
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Malaysians and
Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP‘s Consistency among
Airports
63
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between Malaysians
and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP‘s Consistency among
Airports
The difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians were tested by
utilizing independent sample t-test.
Table 4.5:
Difference between Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the
awareness of ASMP‘s Consistency among Airports
Nationality
Malaysians
Level of
Awareness Non-Malaysians
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
22
4.00
0.00
78
2.83
1.05
t=5.19, df=98, p=.000,
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the Table 4.5, Malaysians are more aware of ASMP (Mean =
4.00) compared to the Non-Malaysians (Mean = 2.83). The difference between
Malaysians and Non-Malaysians in term of the awareness of ASMP was found to be
significant, where the p-value is .00. Because the confidence level is 95%, it leaves
the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the p-value is less
than the alpha.
It shows that out of those passengers departing from KLIA to international
destinations, Malaysians passengers are significantly more aware of ASMP‘s
Consistency among airports compared to passengers from other nationality. Possible
reason behind this
4.6
Testing the Null Hypothesis 2
This part presents the detail analysis of perception of safety based on
different variables which are including: Gender, Age, Marital status, Educational
64
level, Race, Nationality, Number of travels, and Incoming. These variables are
discussed in terms of signification as follows:
4.6.1
Perception of Safety and Gender
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Gender and Perception of Safety.
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male and female
in term of perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference between male and female in
term of perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using independent
sample t-test.
Table 4.6:
Perception
of Safety
Relationship between gender and Perception of Safety in the Airports
Gender
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
Male
63
3.57
0.76
Female
37
3.59
0.76
t=-1.48, df=98, p=.883,
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the table above, gender have no significant difference between
each other. The conclusion was based on the p-value obtained (.883). Because the
confidence level is 95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis
cannot be rejected due to the p-value is greater than the alpha.
In other words, it can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has
no significant relationship with gender. One of the reasons could be because there is
no difference between male and female in term of information processing and
perception (Bandura, 1989).
65
4.6.2
Perception of Safety and Age group
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Age and Perception of Safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between age group and
perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between age group
and perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using cross-tabulate
technique. As age group is categorized as ordinal variable, Gamma test was used to
test the significance of the relationship.
Table 4.7:
Crosstabulation between Age Group and Perception of Safety
Age
Perception of
Safety
below
25
26-35
36-45
Disagree
0
4
0
0
4
Uncertain
20
26
0
0
46
Agree
0
17
12
9
38
Strongly Disagree
0
2
6
4
12
20
49
18
13
100
Total
Source: Questionnaire survey
Table 4.8:
Symmetric Measures of Age Group and Perception of Safety
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal
over
Total
46
Gamma
N of Valid Cases
Source: Questionnaire survey
.849
Asymp.
Std.
Approx.
Errora
Tb
.041
13.604
Approx.
Sig.
.000
100
As shown in the tables above, the two variables (age group and perception of
safety) have significant relationship. The conclusion was based on the gamma value
66
obtained (.849), which means that the relationship was existed in a positive direction,
and it was very strong (between +0.8 – +1.0). Because the confidence level is 95%, it
leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the p-value is
less than the alpha.
It can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has significant
relationship with age group. In other words, different age groups have different
perception about airport security. From the data obtained, it can be seen the younger
the passenger, the more uncertain they are that the airport was safe. Nevertheless, the
sample did not distributed equally among groups, hence even though the result
showed a significant relationship, larger number of sample in each age group might
show different result.
4.6.3
Perception of Safety and Marital status
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Marital status and Perception of Safety.
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between being single and
married in term of perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference between being single and
married in term of perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using independent
sample t-test.
67
Table 4.9:
Perception
of Safety
Relationship between perception of safety and marital status
Marital
status
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
Married
41
4.24
0.68
Single
59
3.12
0.73
t=-10.801, df=98, p=.000
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the tables above, being married and single has significant
difference between each other. The conclusion was based on the p-value obtained
(.000). In other words, it can be stated that being single or married has a significant
relationship with the perception of safety in the airport. Because the confidence level
is 95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis is rejected due to the
p-value is less than the alpha.
The result stated that marital status might significantly determine how a
person perceives the safety in the airport. For many reasons, married people have
different points of view from singles (Aron et al, 1992). Some in-depth qualitative
research should be conducted to determine the real reason behind the differences.
Married couple might be averagely older than singles; thereby, age factor might have
interfered with the result.
4.6.4
Perception of Safety and Education Level
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Education level and Perception of Safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between education
level and perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between
education level and perception of safety in the airports.
68
The relationship between those two variables was tested using cross-tabulate
technique. As education level is categorized as ordinal variable, Gamma test was
used to test the significance of the relationship.
Table 4.10:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Educational Level
Education Level
highuniversity
school college degree master doctorate Total
Disagree
0
4
0
0
0
4
Uncertain
0
20
21
5
0
46
Agree
0
12
16
10
0
38
Strongly Agree
7
0
1
0
4
12
Total
Source: Questionnaire survey
7
36
38
15
4
100
Perception
of Safety
Table 4.11:
Symmetric Measures of Perception of Safety and Educational Level
Value
Ordinal by
Ordinal
Gamma
N of Valid
Cases
Source: Questionnaire survey
.129
Asymp. Std.
Approx. Tb
Errora
.159
.816
Approx.
Sig.
.414
100
As shown in the tables above, the two variables (education level and
perception of safety) have a very weak relationship. The conclusion was based on the
gamma value obtained (.129), which means that the relationship was existed in a
positive direction, and it was very weak (between +0.0 – +0.2). Because the
confidence level is 95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis
cannot be rejected due to the p-value is greater than the alpha.
In other words, it can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has
a very weak relationship with the education level. Educational level might not predict
the passengers‘ perception of safety, probably because there is no relationship
between level of education and the way perception developed in human minds. There
69
might have been some interference from other variables like age or income level in
the result of this analysis.
4.6.5
Perception of Safety and Ethnicity
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Ethnicity and Perception of Safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between ethnicity and
perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between ethnicity
and perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using cross-tabulate
technique. As ethnicity is categorized as nominal variable, Cramer V and Phi test
was used to test the significance of the relationship.
Table 4.12:
Perception of
Safety
Crosstabulation between Perception of safety and Ethnicity
Asian
European
African
Total
Disagree
0
4
0
4
Uncertain
35
1
10
46
Agree
21
17
0
38
Strongly Agree
4
8
0
12
60
30
10
100
Total
Source: Questionnaire survey
Table 4.13:
Nominal by Nominal
Symmetric Measures of safety and ethnicity
Value
Approx. Sig.
Phi
.665
.000
Cramer's V
.470
.000
N of Valid Cases
Source: Questionnaire survey
100
70
As shown in the tables above, the two variables (ethnicity and perception of
safety) have a significant relationship. The conclusion was based on the phi and
Cramer‘s value obtained (.665 and .470), which means that the relationship was
existed, and it was significant (0.000).
In other words, it can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has
a significant relationship with ethnicity. Among races, European were likely to
perceive that airports are safe, they scored highest mean (Mean = 3.97), while
African were likely to be uncertain (Mean = 3.00). The study was done in KLIA
where the majority of the passengers were from Asia (60%) who scored 3.48, which
put them between uncertain and agree that they airports are safe. African was
represented by only 10% of the sample, therefore, another study with more equally
distributed subjects is really recommended.
4.6.6
Perception of Safety and Nationality
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Nationality and Perception of safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Malaysian and
Non-Malaysian in term of perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference between Malaysian and NonMalaysian in term of perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using independent
sample t-test (see Table 4.14).
71
Table 4.14:
Relationship between perception of safety and nationality
Nationality
Perception Malaysian
of Safety Non-Malaysian
N
Mean
sd
Independent sample t-test
22
3.54
0.51
78
3.59
0.81
t=-2.42, df=98, p=.809
confidence level = 95%
Source: Questionnaire survey
As shown in the table above, Malaysian and Non-Malaysian has no
significant difference between each other in term of perception of airport safety. The
conclusion was based on the p-value obtained (.000). Because the confidence level is
95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis cannot be rejected due to
the p-value is greater than the alpha.
In other words, it can be stated that nationality (Malaysian or Non-Malaysian)
has a significant relationship with the perception of safety in the airport. Some bias
might took place
4.6.7
Perception of Safety and Travel Frequency
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Travel frequency and Perception of Safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between travel
frequency and perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between travel
frequency and perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using cross-tabulate
technique. As travel frequency is categorized as interval variable, Gamma test was
used to test the significance of the relationship (see Table 4.15).
72
Table 4.15:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Travel Frequency
1-3
4-6
more
than 8
Total
Disagree
4
0
0
4
Uncertain
35
11
0
46
Agree
7
21
10
38
Strongly Agree
6
6
0
12
Total
52
38
10
100
Perception of
Safety
Source: Questionnaire survey
Table 4.16:
Symmetric Measures of Safety and Travel Frequency
Gamma
Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid
Cases
Source: Questionnaire survey
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora
Approx.
Tb
Approx.
Sig.
.616
.100
5.563
.000
100
As shown in the tables above, the two variables (travel frequency and
perception of safety) have a strong relationship. The conclusion was based on the
gamma value obtained (.616), which means that the relationship was existed in a
positive direction, and it was strong (between +0.6 – +0.8). Because the confidence
level is 95%, it leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis cannot be
rejected due to the p-value is greater than the alpha.
In other words, it can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has
a strong positive relationship with the travel frequency, or the more frequent a
passenger travels, the more secure he/she perceives about the airports. The more
often a passenger flies internationally, the more he/she perceive that the airports are
safe. The response given to the questionnaire might be because the frequent fliers
were still alive, or at least they had never experience any unwanted event during the
flight when they were participating in the survey. The grateful feeling of being ‗still
alive‘ or ‗never experience any unwanted event‘ after some high-frequency air
travels might drove them to perceive that the airports are safe
73
4.6.8
Perception of Safety and Income Level
This sub-section describes the test of hypothesis in term of relationship
between Income level and Perception of Safety
o
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between income level
and perception of safety in the airports.
o
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between income
level and perception of safety in the airports.
The relationship between those two variables was tested using cross-tabulate
technique. As income level is categorized as interval variable, Gamma test was used
to test the significance of the relationship.
Table 4.17:
Crosstabulation between Perception of Safety and Income Level
$0- $10,001- $20,001- $30,001- $40,001- over
Total
$10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000
Disagree
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Uncertain
30
5
10
0
0
1
46
Perception Agree
of Safety Strongly
Agree
0
0
12
0
7
19
38
0
1
0
0
0
11
12
6
22
4
7
31
100
Total
30
Source: Questionnaire survey
Table 4.18:
Symmetric Measures Perception of Safety and Income Level
Value
Ordinal by Ordinal
Gamma
.784
Asymp. Std.
Approx.
Approx. Tb
Errora
Sig.
.081
N of Valid
100
Cases
Source: Questionnaire survey
11.763
.000
74
As shown in the tables above, the two variables (income level and perception
of safety) have a strong relationship. The conclusion was based on the gamma value
obtained (.784), which means that the relationship was existed in a positive direction,
and it was strong (between +0.6 – +0.8). Because the confidence level is 95%, it
leaves the alpha to be .05; therefore, null hypothesis cannot be rejected due to the pvalue is greater than the alpha.
In other words, it can be stated that the perception of safety in the airport has
a strong positive relationship with the income level, or the higher the income of a
passenger, the more secure he/she perceives about the airports. Some variables, such
as air travel frequency and age might played their roles as intervening variables in
this study. The higher the income, the higher the possibility of having high air travel
frequency; based on the previous finding, the higher travel frequency, the more the
passenger perceived that the airports are safe.
CHAPTER 5
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
5.1
Introduction
This chapter concludes and discusses the findings from the previous chapters,
and offers the recommendation for future research.
5.2
Summary of the Findings
It was concluded that passengers with Malaysian nationality are significantly
more aware of ASMP (Mean = 3.76) compared to passengers from other nationality
(Mean = 3.45). Malaysian passengers are also significantly more aware that ASMP
in the airports is getting tighter after 9/11 (Mean = 4.45) compared to the NonMalaysians (Mean = 3.62). There is a significant difference between Malaysians
(Mean = 4.00) and Non-Malaysians (Mean = 3.41) in term of the awareness on the
Airport Security Service‘s Readiness to confront any Unlawful Acts. Passengers
from other nationality are less aware that ASMP are consistent among airports (Mean
= 2.83) compared to passengers with Malaysian nationality (Mean = 4.00)
Out of several demographic factors studied in this research in term of their
relationship with perception on ASMP, it was found that gender was the one with no
significant relationship with the perception of ASMP (p = .883). Age group is
76
strongly and significantly related to the perception of ASMP (gamma = .849;
p = .00), while marital status is also significantly related to the perception of ASMP
(p = .00). Meanwhile, educational level and perception of ASMP have very weak and
insignificant relationship (gamma = .129; p = .414). Perception of ASMP and
ethnicity have significant relationship (Phi = .665; Cramer‘s V = .470; p = .00).
While being Malaysians and Non-Malaysians have no significant difference in term
of the perception of ASMP (p = .809), frequency of air-travels was strongly and
significantly related to the passenger perception of ASMP (gamma = .616; p = .00),
as well as income level (gamma = .784; p = .00).
5.3
5.3.1
Discussion of the Findings
Awareness of ASMP and Nationality
Malaysians passengers are significantly more aware of ASMP compared to
passengers from other nationality. Based on the study of Evered (2006), where he
was stated that the more obvious the ASMP means the more stress the passengers
are, situation in KLIA is not really recommended. Evered‘s statement was not in line
with Caskey (1992), which advocated that passengers are adaptive to the higher
effort of ASMP. However, the fact that the passengers are aware about the ASMP
means that the passengers might also aware of the potential to be delayed. According
to Key (2002) and Shilinglaw (2002), after 9/11, aside of the awareness of ASMP,
most of the passenger are started to tolerate the ASMP due to the fear of being a
victim of terrorism is higher. Those previous studies led to a conclusion that
Malaysians could be more ASMP-tolerance passengers compare to the others.
In the future, it is recommended that similar study should minimize some
potential intervening variables. Collecting data from different population and
different location is recommended to minimize intervening variables that might
produce biases to the result. Another potential intervening variables to minimize in
the future is the passengers‘ frequency of visit to the survey location, because some
77
local passengers might have quite a frequent visit to the airport where the data were
collected and might be more aware of changes in ASMP in the airport.
5.3.2
Nationality and Awareness of higher security at airport terminal
building after 9/11
It has to be admitted that the terror of 9/11 indeed changed many things in the
airport industry, especially when the stakeholders had to deal with the reducing
demand of air travels and the security issues that forced them to strengthen the
ASMP in the airports. According to Leo and Lowler (2007), and Hernandez (2007)
after the 9/11, the passengers‘ awareness of the higher ASMP at the airports after
9/11 is significantly higher. Findings of this current study are supporting her
statement. Despite Leo and Lowler‘s studies took place in NYC and Tel-Aviv (Two
places that commonly has close relationship to the 9/11), their statement was
supported by this current study, which was held in KLIA, which is geographically
distant. It showed that issues of the terror, especially those in large scales like 9/11,
drove passengers to be ready to experience higher ASMP in the airports. Their prior
information about terrorism, how the bomb could be developed from liquid materials
in the airplanes, and the possibility of being hijacked in the air, increased their
readiness for higher ASMP. The readiness led to an awareness of such events.
Results of this current study found that compared to passengers with other
nationality, Malaysian passengers are significantly more aware that the ASMP is
higher after 9/11. For the future research, it is recommended to minimize some bias
by taking more samples from different locations Malaysian passengers, who were
assumed to have frequent visits to KLIA, might be aware that the ASMP changed,
while passengers from other nationalities, who might not have any chance to see the
ASMP in KLIA before 9/11.
78
5.3.3
Nationality and awareness of the airport security system’s readiness to
confront any act of unlawful interference
The feeling of being more secured when the airports applied higher ASMP
might came from the awareness that the security system is adequate to confront any
act of unlawful interference (Hernandez, 2007). Findings of this research showed that
most of the passengers are not unaware of the readiness of the airports‘ security
system. This is a good sign for the airports‘ stakeholders, because it showed that the
passengers have positive attitude towards airports‘ readiness to confront any
situation.
Findings of this current study reported that passengers with Malaysian
nationality are more likely to be aware that the airport security system is ready to
confront any unlawful acts. Simonsen and Spindlove (2007) stated that passengers
were expecting a good reinforcement to avoid similar things to 9/11 takes place
again. The data obtained from the sample revealed information that most of the
passengers are aware that the airports‘ security service is ready to confront any act of
unlawful interference; however, almost half of them are uncertain about the issue.
Related to the previous findings of this research, it can be concluded that
even though many passengers are aware of the ASMP or higher ASMP after 9/11,
non-Malaysians are still not really convinced that the airport stakeholders‘ effort is
adequate to confront any unwanted interference. One possible explanation about the
situation is that because the data were taken from a part of the world where the
passengers might feel that the ASMP in the US had more advantage. When they
knew that the US ASMP system did not able to avoid unfortunate event such 9/11,
they might feel that the ASMP in other countries might be worse than the one they
have in the US.
79
5.3.4
Awareness on consistent ASMP procedures and policies from airport to
airport
The data obtained from the surveyed sample showed that passengers with
Malaysian nationality were averagely aware that ASMP is consistent among airports,
and non-Malaysian were averagely ignorant about it.
Study by Leo and Lowler (2007) in New York City, reported that the subjects
(passengers) were intermediately sensitive to privacy, but not highly sensitive, and
intermediately perceptive of the severity of terrorism and threat, but not highly
perceptive. They were less perceptive of the effectiveness of the success of screening
technologies. Significantly, they were less knowledgeable of the storage, techniques
and usage of the technologies.
Related to the findings of this current research, the response of the subject
could be explain as an awareness of the existence of ASMP in the airports, but lack
of knowledge about the standard of the ASMP among the airports. Another finding
of this current study stated that travel frequency does not influence perceptions on
safety and security in airport terminal building; this finding explained that even
though a passenger might be frequently visiting many airports and are aware of the
existence of ASMP, he/she might not be aware that the ASMP are consistent from
airport to airport.
Even though sample was taken randomly, there were only 22 Malaysian
passengers among 100 samples. Variance of the responses from Malaysian could
possibly much lower than their counterparts from other countries. There are some
potential intervening variables in this matter, such as frequency of air travels,
variance of destinations, and nationality. It is recommended for the future research to
design instrument which is minimizing this kind of intervention among variables.
80
5.4
5.4.1
Influence of Demographic Factors on the Perception of ASMP
Gender
This study found that gender has no significant influence on the perception of
ASMP. This finding does not support the finding of Hernandez (2007), which found
significant difference between male and female regarding the perception of the
ASMP. One explanation of this difference is that because in her research, Hernandez
(2007) were taking personal search as one component of the ASMP, while this
current took the perception on general ASMP as the variable. While both male and
female passengers might perceive perception on general ASMP from the same
perspective, personal search might be perceived as too physical for most female
passengers.
In order to avoid the unwanted perception by the passengers, an alternative
was revealed by the study of Leo and Lowler (2007) which explored the passenger
sensitivity to privacy. Backscatter x-ray screening technologies might play its role as
a substitution of extensive personal search to normal passengers. Passengers found to
be suspicious might be taken to a personal search without bothering other nonsuspicious passengers.
5.4.2
Age
Findings of this current study reported that age has significant influence on
the perception of ASMP. Nevertheless, the samples were not equally distributed to
all age groups; almost half of them (49%) fell into the category of 26-35 years of age.
This age group is considered as those who are exposed to the information more than
the other groups; therefore, the difference regarding the perception of ASMP was
significant. Nevertheless, based in the author‘s observation during the data
collection, majority of the passengers in KLIA fell into this group.
81
It is recommended for the future researchers to conduct similar study in
different periods in a year. This generation (26-35) flocked the airport during August,
nevertheless there is some possibility to find wider range of sample during December
or February. Equal distribution of samples each group is important factor in
minimizing bias
5.4.3
Marital Status
In terms of marital status, however, there were four choices offered including
Married, Single, Divorced, and Widow, but the answers are consisted of only two
options: Married and Single whereas 41% were married and 59% were single. The
analysis of this current research found significant difference between married and
single passengers regarding the ASMP.
Previous studies did not look into this particular aspect, and it takes a further
study of how a marital status might significantly influence passenger perceptions on
ASMP. For many reasons, married people have different points of view from singles
(Aron et al,1992). Some in-depth qualitative research should be conducted to
determine the real reason behind the differences. Married couple might be averagely
older than singles; thereby, age factor might have interfered with the result.
5.4.4
Education Level
The author of this current study did not find any research based on the
difference of educational level related to the perception of ASMP. However, finding
of this study showed that education level has a significant relationship with the
perception of ASMP.
While the subjects of this study were dominated by university or college
degree in undergraduate levels, the differences among each group are considered
82
significant. Even though there were no elementary school-graduated subject among
the sample, and only small percentage of high school graduate (7%) and PhD (4%),
There are some intervening variables needed to be controlled or minimized in
order to study the relationship between educational level and airport security
perception. Educational level, however can be connected to other demographic
factors like income, travelling frequency, age, and in sometimes in some places,
ethnicity. The author did some unofficial evaluation of the relationship between
marital status and other several factors and found that the possibility of intervening
variable is quite high. It is recommended for the future research to design and
develop an instrument with higher reliability in order to minimize such
misinterpretation of data.
5.4.5
Ethnicity
Despite being considerably sensitive in some parts of the world, discussions
about ethnicity or origin have high relevancy in ASMP issues, especially when it was
related to 9/11. In spite of the fact there are so many version of the 9/11, general
public still get the impression of friction between certain races or certain religious
groups. Leo and Lowler (2007) and Hernandez (2007) found an interesting fact that
passengers with Afro and Hispanic origin were more often to be treated extra
carefully by the security officer of the airports, while those passengers originated
from Middle East were treated more freely. Their findings did not support the
previous literature where people from Middle East were more vulnerable to ASMP.
Findings of this study showed that there is significant influence of ethnicity
on the perception of ASMP. Judging by the nature of modern terrorism, which is
rooted to religious and ethnic friction in some parts of the world, it is normal that
certain races might perceive ASMP differently. Some of the passengers from certain
race might feel they are being watched too closely, while the other races might think
that if people from particular ethnic groups should be watched more closely. In this
current study, it was found that European were likely to perceive that airports are
83
safe, they scored highest mean (Mean = 3.97), while African were likely to be
uncertain (Mean = 3.00). Judging by the relationship between those ethnic group to
9/11, some Africans (especially from the Arab countries) might perceived that
ASMP gave them unsecure feelings, because ASMP were develop to invade their
privacy.
5.4.6
Nationality
This current study has done in KLIA, Malaysia; Therefore, only two variant
of nationality were used, namely Malaysian and Non-Malaysian. Due to the nature of
being in Malaysia, KLIA should be more familiar to Malaysian compared to NonMalaysian.
The location, KLIA, might be one intervening factors that drove Malaysian to
response in such a way. The other condition was that the numbers of the Malaysians
were relatively smaller (22%) than participants from other countries; hence, the
variance of the response might not be big for Malaysian passengers. In addition,
based on the numbers of ethnicity among the non-Malaysian passengers, it could be
seen that they came from various country, which might vary their response into more
various compared to the Malaysians. However, finding of this study stated that there
were no difference between Malaysians and non-Malaysians in term of perceiving
the airport security.
Potential of intervening variables could be seen in the calculation because
each demography factors has connection with one another. It is recommended for the
future research to justify the finding with an in-depth qualitative research about
similar issues, and conduct some triangulation in order to determine the real
difference between Malaysian and non-Malaysian in perceiving the airport security.
84
5.4.7
Travelling Frequency
Findings of this study showed that travelling frequency has significant
relationship to the perception of passengers on ASMP. Despite there were no
previous researches have studied exactly about the same factors, it is obvious that a
passenger who travelled more frequently would be exposed to ASMP more often.
From one airport to another, the passenger would have expected ASMP activities.
Nevertheless, the perception of ASMP could have been different when the travels
was performed long before the 9/11 or Gulf wars.
The more often a passenger flies internationally, the more he/she perceive
that the airports are safe. The response given to the questionnaire might be because
the frequent fliers were still alive, or at least they had never experience any unwanted
event during the flight when they were participating in the survey. The grateful
feeling of being ‗still alive‘ or ‗never experience any unwanted event‘ after some
high-frequency air travels might drove them to perceive that the airports are safe.
Hernandez (2007) and Leo and Lowler (2007) indicated that the demands of
the air travels reduced after some political issues (such as Gulf war or Palestine vs
Israel quarrel) and major terrorist activities (9/11 in NYC or several bombing
activities). The decline of the air-travel curve represented the discomfort situation
among the passengers‘ mind during such era. Something interesting to be studied is
whether the passengers‘ demand for air travel was decreased by the fear of the
unfortunate events or the ASMP in the airports; knowledge in such matter might give
better understanding in presenting ASMP.
5.4.8
Income
This particular demographic factor found to be significantly predicted the
passengers‘ perception on ASMP. However, based on some studies, financial status
alone could not influence the perception on ASMP, it should be supported by other
factors. The higher the income, the higher the possibility of having high air travel
85
frequency; based on the previous finding, the higher travel frequency, the more the
passenger perceived that the airports are safe. Factors that might be connected to the
income levels are air-travel frequency, educational level, and technical knowledge on
ASMP (Curtis, 2000; Swedavia and McGregor, 1988).
5.5
Recommendation for Future Researches
The findings of this study suggest further research. More various location,
bigger sample size, and more professionally designed data-collecting instrument
(questionnaire) should be employed in order to get higher accuracy. Passengers‘
awareness and perception on ASMP, and the effectiveness of the ASMP itself, play
significant role to maintain smooth continuity of air-travels business links.
Some findings of this study needed to be restudied and reanalyzed in a larger
scale and different setting. Findings about the awareness on consistent ASMP among
airports, educational levels, travelling frequency, and income levels might have some
distinct interrelationship to one another when the number of sample is bigger and
more advanced statistical technique is being used.
Issues about 9/11 might also influence the findings of this study. When a
passenger is experiencing ASMP, the situation might relate him to the 9/11 situation,
especially for certain ethnicity backgrounds; thus his/her response to the question
related to 9/11 might be distracted by his mind during such times. Taking example of
the cases occurred in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore recently; passengers would
likely relate any ASMP to medical issues like H1N1 or Bird Flu. Another example is
about the perception of a person when he saw an immigration card to enter Singapore
contains questions asking whether the passenger has visited any African country in
the last 6 months. Included in ASMP, that particular question might be perceived
differently by different people from different times. In the late 1980‘s people might
relate the question towards AIDS, during the gulf war in early 1990‘s people might
related it to middle-eastern quarrel, and during early 2000‘s people might related it to
86
terrorism. Deeper qualitative study or comprehensive qualitative study around this
interest is recommended.
Eight demographic factors were studied in this research, while there are some
other factors that might be more relevant to be studied. Such factors like knowledge
on ASMP, skills on military knowledge, or level of media exposure are some
examples of many relevant factors queuing to be studied in the future researches.
Another recommendation for the future research is the issue of the effect of
the perception of ASMP. This current research produced some findings about
passenger‘s awareness of ASMP, and certain demographic factors influencing
passengers‘ perceptions on ASMP. However, other researches should be conducted
in order to indicate the impact of ‗highly ASMP-aware passengers‘ to the airport
industries. Such research would open the way to another research of finding the right
level of ASMP-awareness among the passengers, because knowledge of such matters
should lead to another study about controlling the ASMP-awareness among
passengers. Along with this current research as a platform, those recommended
researches might pay significant contributions to the related industries.
REFERENCES
ACI Asia Pacific. (2007). 30 Busiest Airport in the world. Retrieved from ACI
website: www.aci-asiapac.aero.
Air
travel
privacy.
(2003).
Retrieved
from
EPIC
Web
site:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel.
Airport security report. (2003). U.S. Security Briefs, 10(7), 1.
Alexander, (2003). U.S. security fees weigh on airlines. Retrieved from The
Washington Post Web site: http://www.washingtonpost.com.
Anderson, S. K., and Sloan, S. (2002). Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (2nd ed.).
Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press,Inc.
Aron, Aron, Smollan, (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of
interpersonal closeness., 1.
Ashford, Stanton, and Moore. (1984). Airport Operations. John Wiley and Sons.
Baker, M.(1994). Media coverage of education. British journal of Educational
studies, 42 (3), 286-297.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.
Black, J. (2003). El Al's Security vs. the U.S. Approach, Business Week Online.
Blakey, M.C. (2005) Aviation safety issues. In: Committee, SC, Ed., New York: US
Congress, Administrator of the federal aviation.
Bolz, Jr., F., Dudonis, K. J., and Schulz, D. P. (2005). Counterterrorism Handbook:
Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., Coppola, D., Ergin, E., Westerman, L., Yeletaysi, S.,
et al. (2006). Introduction to Homeland Security (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bunney, C. (2001). Reconsidering biometrics for air travel. Biometric Technology
Today, 9 (10), 7-8.
88
Caskey D.L. (2004) The problem with security public perception versus reality.
Sandia National Laboratories Transportation Systems Center Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cole, D. (2003). Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the
War on Terrorism. New York, NY: The New Press.
Combs, C. C., and Slann, M. (2002). Encyclopedia of Terrorism. New York, NY:
Facts On File, Inc.
Cooper (2004). Terrorism: the Problem of Definition Revisited. In G. Martin (Ed.),
The New Era of Terrorism (pp. 54-63). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Croft, J (2005) Screening Hybrid (Israel), Aviation Week and Space Technology,
August 22, 163 (8), 64-65.
Curtis, T., 2000. Understanding aviation safety data. Warrendale, PA: SAE
Publications Group.
Davis, D. W., and Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion
in the Context of the Terrorist attacks on America. Journal of Political
Science, 48, 28-46.
Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research : a 10 point guide for social
researchers. Open University Press.
Einspruch, Eric L.( 2004). Next steps with SPSS. Sage Publications, Inc
Elias, Bart. (2009), Airport Passenger Screening: Background and Issues for
Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Enoma, A. Allen, S. Enoma,A. (2009). Airport redesign for safety and security: Case
studies of three Scottish airports. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, 4(6), pp 34-58
Enoma, A. and Allen, S. (2007) Developing key performance indicators for airport
safety and security. Facilities, 25(7/8), pp. 296-315.
Ervin, C. K. (2006). Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to attack. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Evered,A. (2006) The Impact of New Security Measures on Airport Retailing in the
UK. Retrieved from http://www.airport-int.com
89
Facemire, F., and Laustra, M. (2005). Improving Checkpoint Security. United States:
The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Ferguson, G. A. 1981 Statistical analysis in psychology and education United States:
McGraw-Hill
Fischhoff, B. (2005). The Psychological Perception of Risk. In (Ed.), The McGrawHill Homeland Security Handbook (p. 463). New York, NY: The McGrawHill Companies.
Flynn, C., and Kosatka, A. (2005). Civil Aviation in the United States: Security
Before and After 9/11. United States: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Forman, E. (2005) Backscatter Awaits as Backup for Billions in Security
Shortcomings, Journal of New England Technology, May 16, available at
http://www.masshightech.com/.
Gay, L. R.. (2009). Educational Research New Jersey, Pearson.
Geller, E. S. (2005). The Psychology of Airport Security: A need for involvement
from safety professionals, Journal of Air Transportation 6 (7) pp 23-29
Ghobrial, A. and Irvin, W. (2004) Combating Air Terrorism: Some Implications to
the Aviation Industry, Journal of Air Transportation, 9 (3), 67-86.
Gill, G. K. (2004). Perception of safety, Safety violation and improuvement of safety
in aviation: Findings of a pilot study. Journal of Air Transportation.
Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/
Goo, S. K. (2003). TSA under pressure to stop baggage theft: For agency, a new
airport security problem. The Washington Post, p. AO 1.
Griset, P., and Mahan, S. (2003). Terrorism in Perspective. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc..
Hardy, M.A., Bryman, A. (2004). Handbook of data analysis. Sage Publications, Inc
Helmreich, R. L., and Merritt, A. C. (2001). Local solutions for global problems: The
need for specificity in addressing human factor issues. Retrieved from
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/localsol.htm
Hernandez. (2007). Airport Security: Study of students‘ perceptions and knowledge
of the selection of airline passengers for personal searches, Msc Thesis
International Civil Aviation Organization. (n.d.). ICAO Assembly 33rd Session.
Retrieved from http://www.icao.org
90
International Transport Forum. (2009). Discussion Paper #2009-6, Security Risk
Perception
and
Cost-Benefit
Analysis.
Retrieved
from
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org
Johnson, M. (2004) Biometrics and the Threat to Civil Liberties. The Profession,
92,90-91.
Jong, R. (2002). "Security at KLIA gets thumbs-up." The Malay Mail. Cornell
University Dept of Newspapers, Microtexts and Maps. 2002. Retrieved
September
16,
2009
from
HighBeam
Research:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10347183.html
Karber, P.A. (2002). Re-constructing global aviation in an era of the civil aircraft as
a weapon of destruction. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 25 (2),
781 814.
Kaufman, L. (2005) Backscatter Screening Bad, Aviation Week and Space
Technology, November, 163 (18), 6.
Kaye,K. (2002). "Experts say new airport security measures unable to prevent
terrorism." South Florida Sun. Retrieved from HighBeam Research.
http://www.highbeam.com
Kirkpatrick, L. A., (2007). A simple guide to SPSS for windows : for versions
14.0.Thompson
Kronenwetter, K. (2004). Terrorism: A Guide to Events and Documents. United
States: Greenwood Press.
Kumar, R (1996). Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners
Melbourne Longman .
Leo and Lowler (2007) A Study Of Passenger Perception And Sensitivity To Airport
Backscatter X-Ray Technologies, International Business and Economics
Research Journal, 6(7) pp. 24-43.
Lohr, Sharon L. (1999). Sampling : design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury
Press
Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of
safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufinann.
MAHB, (2008). Annual Report
McAllister, B. (2001). Crew resource management. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife.
Merritt, A. (1998). Replicating Hofstede: A study of pilots in eighteen countries. In
91
Moore, K. C. (1976). Airport, Aircraft and Airline Security. Los Angeles, CA:
Security World Publishing Co., Inc..
Neuman,L.W. (1994). Social Research Methods (2nd edition). Boston, Mass:Allyn
and Bacon
Nalley, 2007, ―Is the extra security added to airports after 9/11 really making a
difference or is it just there to make people feel safer?‖ Retrieved from
http://www.elizabethnalley.com
Oxford Advanced Learner‘s Dictionary 7th Edition. (2007). Oxford University Press.
Parsons, R. (1978). Statistical analysis: a decision-making approach. Happer and
Row Publishers.
Peissl, W. (2003). Surveillance and Security: A Dodgy Relationship. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 11 (1), 19-24.
Poole, Jr., Robert and Passantino, G. (2003). A risk-based airport security policy. Los
Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.
Sauter, M. A., and Carafano, J. J. (2005). Homeland Security. United States:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Schwartz, N. (2002). Learning from Israel, Fortune, January 21, 145 (2), 94-102.
Shillinglaw, J. (2002). "Do we feel secure? Americans have proven they will put up
with a lot to get more airline security. (Editor's Notebook).(Brief Article)."
Travel
Agent.
2002.
Retrieved
from
HighBeam
Research.
http://www.highbeam.com
Simonsen, C. E., and Spindlove, J. R. (2007). Terrorism Today: the Past, the Players,
the Future (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Siponnen, M. (2000). A conceptual foundation for organizational information
security awareness, Information Management and Computer Security 3(5),
56-69
Sugiyama, M. (2004). Security and Privacy in a Ubiquitous Society. I-Ways, Digest
of Electronic Commerce Policy and Regulation, 27 (1), 11-14.
Thomas, A. R. (2003). Aviation insecurity: The new challenges of air travel.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books
Transportation Security Administration. (2004). Building a Security Nation:
safeguarding America's Transportation System Strategic Plan - Executive
Summary. United States: UHS/Transportation Security Administration.
92
Turney, M.A, Bishop, J.C, and Fitzgerald P (2004). Measuring the importance of
recent airport security interventions. Journal of Air Transportation, 4(5), 4362
Wellington, J. (2000). Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. Biddles LTD,
King‘s Lynn Norfolk
Zaidatun Tasir, and Mohd Salleh Abu. (2003). Analisis Data Berkomputer SPSS11.5
for Windows (1st edition). Kuala Lumpur: Venton Publishing (M) Sdn.
Bhd.
APPENDIX A
A
SURVEY QUESTIONNARE
PART A. Please answer each of the following questions by circling one
response.
Questions
Strongly
Uncertain
Strongly
Disagree
1.
I know that airport authority implement
some security measures to passengers before they
enter the boarding area.
2.
I believe that airports are safer now than
they were before the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
3.
I think that the Check-in Interview (such
questions as ―Have you packed your own bags?‖
―Have your bags been in your possession at all
times?‖ ―Has anyone unknown to you asked you to
carry something on board?‖) is one of the security
measures that improve airline safety and security.
4.
I know that after the 9/11 attacks the list of
items that passengers are no longer allowed to
bring onto an airplane have changed significantly.
5.
After the 9/11 attacks, airport security
increased resulting in more passenger searches.
6.
I believe that using explosive detection
technology is important for securing passengers
and aircrafts
7.
I consider that screening decrease the
probability of unlawful interference acts
8.
I suppose that more intrusive searches such
as X-rays and body cavity should only be given
based on reasonable suspicion
9.
I feel safe and secure in the airport terminal
building.
10.
I believe that the airport security service is
ready to confront any acts of unlawful interference.
11.
I believe that airport safety and security
policies and procedures are consistent from airport
to airport
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
94
12. While waiting in line to security control at the airport, before entering the
boarding area, what is your feeling?
a)
Proud
b)
Embarrassed
c)
Do not care
d)
Nervous
e)
Angry
f)
Discriminated
g)
Cooperative
h)
Disappointed
13. How would you feel if you and your carry-on luggage were selected to be
searched personally?
a)
Proud
b)
Embarrassed
c)
Do not care
d)
Nervous
e)
Angry
f)
Discriminated
g)
Cooperative
h)
Disappointed
14. What is your feeling when you see heavy- armed security personnel at the
airport building?
a)
Proud
b)
Embarrassed
c)
Do not care
d)
Nervous
e)
Angry
f)
Discriminated
g)
Cooperative
h)
Disappointed
PART B. Respondent‘s Demography.
Please answer each of the following questions by ticking the appropriate
response.
15. Please select your sex:
o Male
o Female
95
16. What is your age?
o
o
o
o
below 25
26 – 35
36 – 45
over 46
17. Please select your marital status
o
o
o
o
Married
Single
Divorced
Widow
18. Please choose your education level:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Primary school
High school
University colleges
University degree
Master degree
Doctorate
19. What is your race/ethnicity?
o
o
o
o
Asian
European
African
Other
20. What is your nationality?
o Malaysian
o Others ______________________
21. How often do you travel to international destinations by airplane per year?
o
o
o
o
1-3
4-6
7-8
more than 8 times
96
22. Income range per year (US Dollars):
o
o
o
o
o
o
0-$10,000
$10,001-$20,000
$20,001-$30,000
$30,001- $40,000
$40,001-$50,000
over $50,000