Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The appropriateness of today’s airport security measures in safeguarding airline passengers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out whether the user anxiety created by today’s airport security measures changes depending on some individual user characteristics. To this end, 904 passengers were surveyed in the sterile area of İstanbul Atatürk Airport International Terminal, one of the crossway airports of the world. The data obtained were analyzed correlationally. It has been determined that, regarding airport security measures, anxiety levels of Muslim and African passengers are higher than those European passengers. Other independent variables that were thought to be relevant such as, age, status and education, have been found not to effect anxiety level. In the light of these findings, it is suggested that security measure procedures, especially biometrics, be supported by technology in order to lower passenger anxiety levels, considering their characteristics. Furthermore, ethically fostering the cognitive development of the security staff, who are the operators and ultimate decision makers of these measures, is considered to be an effective way to alleviate passenger anxiety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeyratne, R.I.R. (1998) Aviation Security. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, J., Haddow, G. and Coppola, D.P. (2013) Introduction to Homeland Security. 4th edn. Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002) Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. [Manual of Data Analysis for the Social Sciences]. 1st edn. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A.L. and Lee, H.B. (1992) A First Course in Factor Analysis. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldar, Z. (2010) The human factor in aviation security. Journal of Airport Management 5(1): 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, B. (2012) Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline Passenger Screening. Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, CRS Report for Congress.

  • Elliott, J. (2009) Biometrics and airport security. Biometric Technology Today 2009(10): 7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiala, I.J. (2003) Anything new? The racial profiling of terrorists. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society 16(1): 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, F.J. and Widaman, K.F. (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment 7(3): 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbidon, L.S., Higgins, E.S. and Nelson, M. (2012) Public support for racial profiling in airports: Results from a statewide poll. Criminal Justice Policy Review 23(2): 254–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. (2008) Managing Airports: An International Perspective. 3rd edn. New York: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasisi, B., Margalioth, Y. and Orgad, L. (2012) Ethnic profiling in airport screening: Lessons from Israel, 1968–2010. American Law and Economics Review 14(2): 517–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2011) Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation – Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference. 9th edn. Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

  • Karimbocus, M. (2009) Competency requirements for aviation security, Security Technology, 43rd Annual 2009 International Carnahan Conference, Zurich, Switzerland.

  • Kirschenbaum, A. (2013) The cost of airport security: The passenger dilemma. Journal of Air Transport Management. 30: 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschenbaum, A., Mariani, M., Gulijk, C.V., Lubasz, S., Rapaport, C. and Andriessen, H. (2012) Airport security: An ethnographic study. Journal of Air Transport Management. 18(1): 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, Y.S. (2010) Racial profiling in the name of national security: Protecting minority traveller’s civil liberties in the age of terrorism. Boston College Third World Law Journal 30(1): 103–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (1999) The Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, S., Carayon, P. and Sanquist, T.F. (2009) Human and organizational factor in security screening and inspection systems: Conceptual framework and key research needs. Cognition, Technology & Work 11(1): 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, R.D., Samoilovich, I. and Rhee, B.D.V. (2013) Virtual queuing at airport security lanes. European Journal of Operational Research 225(1): 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, N.L., Barrett, C.K. and Morgan, G.A. (2005) SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leone, K. and Liu, R. (2005) The key design parameters of checked baggage security screening systems in airports. Journal of Air Transport Management 11: 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLay, L.A., Jacobson, S.H. and Kobza, J.E. (2007) Integer programming models and analysis for a multilevel passenger screening problem. IIE Transactions 39(1): 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A. and Vining, G.G. (2001) Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. 3rd edn. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, X., Batta, R., Drury, C.G. and Lin, L. (2009) Passenger grouping with risk levels in an airport security system. European Journal of Operational Research 194(2): 574–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. and Forrest, J. (2013) Practical Aviation Security: Predicting and Preventing Future Threats. 2nd edn. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravich, T.M. (2005) Airline passenger profıling systems after 9/11: Personal privacy versus national security. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 44(2): 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, K.A. (2004) Aviation security: Challenges in using biometric technologies. United States General Accounting Office. GAO-04-785T. Washington DC.

  • Salter, B.M. (2007) SeMS and sensibility: Security management systems and the management of risk in the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Journal of Air Transport Management 13(6): 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şencan, H. (2005) Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. [Reliability and Validity of the Social and Behavioral Measurement]. 1st edn. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, N.E.L. and Bradley, A.L.W. (2004) Handbook of Checked Baggage Screening. Wiltshire, UK: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindhav, B., Holland, J., Rodie, R.A., Adidam, P.T. and Pol, L.G. (2006) The impact of perceived fairness on satisfaction: Are airport security measures fair? Does it matter? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 14(4): 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Government Office Report to Congressional Committees. (2005) Secure Flight Development and Testing Under Way but Risks Should be Managed as System is Further Developed. Washington DC: US GOA 05-356.

  • Yoo, K.E. and Choi, Y.C. (2006) Analytic hierarchy process approach for identifying relative importance of factors to improve passenger security checks at airports. Journal of Air Transport Management. 12(3): 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the European Commission project EU-SEC-CP-SECONOMICS (Grant agreement no: 285 223). We would like to express our gratitude to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Turkey-Aviation Security Department, the Governorship of Ataturk Airport, the Turkish National Police and the staff of TAV Private Security Services, as well as all the passengers who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aviation Management, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, TR26470, Turkey

    Nalan Ergün

  2. Department of Air Traffic Management, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, TR26470, Turkey

    Birsen Yörük Açıkel & Uğur Turhan

Authors
  1. Nalan Ergün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birsen Yörük Açıkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Uğur Turhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nalan Ergün.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ergün, N., Açıkel, B. & Turhan, U. The appropriateness of today’s airport security measures in safeguarding airline passengers. Secur J 30, 89–105 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.41

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.41

Keywords

Search

Navigation