Traveller choice behaviour at the passport control at airports

191 Pages·2015·6.02 MB·English

by  Vivian Bourguignon

Traveller choice behaviour at the passport
control at airports

A case study at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Master of Science Thesis
MSc Transport, Infrastructure & Logistics
Delft University of Technology
December 2015

Vivian Bourguignon

Traveller choice behaviour at the passport
control at airports

A study into the awareness, knowledge and perceptions regarding the self-service
passport control and into situational factors influencing the choice for the type of
passport control

Master Thesis Project (TIL5060)
For the degree of Master of Science in Transport, Infrastructure & Logistics at Delft University of
Technology

By: Vivian Annelien Bourguignon

Student number: 4013433
Date: December 2015

Graduation committee: Prof.dr.ir. S.P. Hoogendoorn
Dr.ir. W. Daamen
Dr. E.J.E. Molin
Dr. ir. S. Stroeve
Ir. drs. T. De Lange
Ir. R. Grosmann

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/
i
Preface
This document contains my thesis research into traveller choices for the type of passport control at airports.
With this thesis, I finish my Master programme Transport, Infrastructure and Logistics at the Delft University of
Technology. This research is an initiative of the Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR) and Schiphol Group
together, within the SIM context. SIM is an initiative of Schiphol Group, KLM, NLR, the Delft University of
Technology and TNO. The main aim of SIM is to position Schiphol as an innovative European mainport. The
combination of transport and logistics and human behaviour has always had my interest, so I am very glad that
I could finish my master programme by doing a research which combines these two aspects. Doing this
research gave me the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge learned over the last years in a real research
study.

I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have helped me create this thesis. First of all, I would
like to thank my TU Delft supervisors. Many thanks go to Winnie Daamen for her support throughout the entire
project, her clear explanations to questions I had, the detailed feedback she gave on the report and the way in
which we could discuss practical as well as scientific topics. I would really like to thank Eric Molin for thinking
along with me about methodological aspects of this study, being able to very clearly explain unclear topics,
keeping in mind the practical feasibility of certain ideas and responding to emails very fast. I would like to thank
Serge Hoogendoorn, the chair of the committee, for making me aware of this project, for his enthusiasm about
my topic, his creative ideas and useful feedback during the progress meetings.
Furthermore I want to thank Sybert Stroeve, Tiemen de Lange and Ronald Grosmann for the
opportunity to conduct this research at NLR and Schiphol Group. I really appreciate how dedicated Sybert was
during the whole project, the fact that we met every week to discuss how things were going and that he read
my report and gave very useful comments. I want to thank Ronald for initially arranging the contact with
Schiphol, for not going into detail but seeing things from a “helicopter perspective” and giving ideas about
similar projects which I could consult. Tiemen really gave enthusiastic and personal support. He is full of ideas
and provided me with a lot of context knowledge which made it possible to frame this subject into ongoing
projects at Schiphol. Besides he established contacts with his colleagues who I needed to arrange the practical
issues (e.g. conducting questionnaires). Moreover I liked brainstorming together about this research.

Special thanks go to my parents Wibo and Clara and to Justus for supporting and encouraging me,
brainstorming with me about my research and reading the report. Besides, I appreciated the fact that my
family (especially my sister) and friends provided new insights or nice distraction when I needed it.
Furthermore I want to thank the other graduating students at Schiphol and participants of the Pedestrian
Exchange Team meetings (TU Delft) for discussing together content-related topics and helping each other.

Please enjoy reading this report!

V.A. (Vivian) Bourguignon
Delft, December 2015

i
Summary
Transfer passengers form an important part of the travellers at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (40.5% in 2014). In
order to offer short connection times and a high service level, the mandatory checkpoints that travellers have
to pass, must be of high quality. The European Union is promoting the introduction of automated passport
control systems at airports, because these can make the border control more secure and result in a higher
capacity (Accenture, 2013). In 2011, Schiphol introduced such a system, named the self-service passport
control (SSPC), which now functions as an alternative for the traditional passport control (TPC) at four different
locations within the airport. Travellers thus have to make an obligatory choice between the two types of
services. The SSPC is open to EU citizens and citizens from Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, who
have an electronic passport (i.e. passport with a biometric chip in it), are older than 18 years and not travelling
with children.
At the Schengen/non-Schengen border of the case study (the border between Lounge 1 and lounge 2)
the SSPC is not used as much as expected: although floor managers of Schiphol Group are actively trying to
send people to the SSPC, still approximately 40% of the SSPC-entitled transfer passengers do not use it. The
objective of this research is therefore to give recommendations on how to increase the percentage of SSPC-
entitled travellers using the self-service passport control, by gaining insight into the pre-conditioned
awareness, knowledge and perceptions of travellers regarding the self-service passport control and into the
situational factors influencing the choice for the type of passport control. The research question is defined as
follows: What are the awareness, knowledge and perceptions of different types of travellers regarding the self-
service passport control and which situational factors influence to what extent the travellers’ actual choice for
the type of passport control?

The literature review made clear that regarding personal attitudes and perceptions, a lot of research is already
done for different types of self-service technologies (SSTs), however not for the self-service passport control.
Besides, it was concluded that only a few research studies tried to explain how attitudes, perceptions
preferences and ambient factors influence pedestrian choice behaviour. This research adds to the existing
literature by investigating the awareness, knowledge and perceptions regarding the SSPC and by investigating if
and to what extent the factors that passengers prefer in airport terminal buildings and the factors influencing
route choice, wayfinding or choices for other types of SSTs, influence the choice for the type of passport
control. For this research a selection of factors from literature is made using a score card with three criteria
(expected influence, generalizability, manageability). The selected factors are presented in four categories:
 Socio-demographic characteristics: Gender, nationality, age, familiarity, trip purpose
 Awareness, knowledge and perceptions on self-service technologies: Awareness of the SSPC, prior
knowledge and perceptions about the SSPC, role clarity, presence of employees, speed, arrows
indicating open/closed gates
 Situational factors: Lighting, presence of greenery, presence of a window, banklining indicating queue
location, following the flow (herding behaviour)
 Signage (information provision): Text on information boards

The research is split in two parts which require a different methodological set-up. In part 1 research is done
into the conscious awareness, knowledge and perceptions that can influence the choice beforehand. In part 2
research is done into the situational factors that could both consciously and unconsciously influence the choice
in the passport control area itself.
ii
In the first part 224 questionnaires are collected. Based on the data from these questionnaires, bivariate
statistical tests are performed to investigate the relations between awareness, knowledge, perceptions and
socio-demographic variables.
From the analysis of the results it is concluded that approximately 50% of the travellers does not
recognize the SSPC. Furthermore the majority of travellers think they are allowed to use the SSPC, but in fact a
minority knows all requirements to use the SSPC. However, it can be concluded that after having gained the
information about the SSPC in the questionnaire, the majority of travellers is positive about the SSPC: 68.3%
plans to use the SSPC the next time. Speed is on average of more importance to travellers than personal
contact, approximately 90% of all respondents perceive the SSPC as the fastest type of passport control and
50% think the SSPC is the most pleasant service form (whereas 33% of the respondents perceives the TPC as
most pleasant service form and 17% do not have an opinion). Speed is furthermore by 80% of the respondents
given as the most important reason for choosing the SSPC. In general people with a different travel purpose,
age, nationality and number of journeys per year do not differ significantly in their awareness, knowledge and
perceptions. However, a result that was not expected based on existing literature, is that the idea that elderly
people do not like self-service facilities does not hold for older people who travel by plane.

In the second part of this research a Stated Preference (SP) photo choice survey is conducted in order to
investigate, using discrete choice modelling, the effect of a change in layout or information provision on the
travellers’ choice for the type of passport control. Before conducting the final survey, pilot studies were
conducted to test the questionnaire and to be able to more efficiently allocate attributes to the different
photos. The pilot studies led to the decision to limit the research to studying the effects of greenery, windows,
signage and speed. Finally, eight photo choice sets were shown to 177 respondents at a rest area in Lounge 1
(secured area) of the Schiphol terminal building.
A first conclusion that followed from an analysis of the data is that from the total sample 40.7% has a
fixed preference for the SSPC and 9.0% has a fixed preference for the TPC. Besides, two types of choice models
are estimated. The first is an Multinomial Logit (MNL) model, which assumes homogeneity in preferences.
whereas the second is a Latent Class Model (LCM), which assumes heterogeneous preferences and defines
heterogeneous groups of travellers with internally homogeneous preferences. For all groups separate MNL
models are estimated and for each individual the chance of belonging to each group (class) is estimated.
From the MNL model it is concluded that the only situational factor that influences the choice for the
type of passport control is the presence of a window. Furthermore the alternative specific constant for the
SSPC is significant and positive, which indicates that overall there is a base preference for the SSPC compared
to the TPC. The LCM yields a better model fit than the MNL model and thus it can be concluded that
heterogeneity in preferences exists. Three classes can be distinguished, namely (1) the ‘self-service supporters’,
(2) the ‘traditional passport control supporters’ and (3) ‘the ‘window sensitives’. Of all travellers, 47% belong to
class 1, 19% to class 2 and 34% to class 3.
 People in the first class have a clear base preference for the SSPC, but are also influenced by the
presence of a window at either the SSPC or the TPC. Nevertheless, in the first class the majority
will always choose for the SSPC. A descriptive analysis showed that the first class mainly consists of
men. Besides, most people in class 1 characterize themselves as ‘efficient, relaxed and
independent’. Speed is more important to them than personal contact.
 The second class mainly consists of people with a preference for the TPC who are influenced by
signage at the TPC. In this class the utility for the TPC will always be higher than for the SSPC. The
iii
descriptive analysis showed that a small majority is women and personal contact is valued
relatively high.
 People in the third class have a base preference for the SSPC although this preference is less
strong than the preference of people in class 1. Travellers in class 3 are sensitive to the presence
of a window and likely to switch between alternatives. A descriptive analysis showed that in the
third class a small majority is men and speed is important to this class (albeit less important than
for class 1).

The estimated LCM is used to predict travellers’ choices in different scenarios (i.e. different alternatives of the
passport control area) to see in which scenario the number of SSPC-entitled travellers using the SSPC can be
maximally enlarged. The scenario calculation indicates that an improvement from the current 60% (with an
active floor manager) to a maximum of approximately 70-80% (without active floor manager) of the SSPC-
entitled travellers choosing for the SSPC could be reached. This concerns an important contribution to the
target of Schiphol Group that 80% of the SSPC-entitled travellers use the SSPC. An improvement to
approximately 70% could be reached by blinding the window next to the TPC, making clear that the SSPC is a
passport control and by removing the overload of signage at the TPC. When instead of blinding the window
next to the TPC, the SSPC would be located next to the window (and the window would not be blinded), an
increase to approximately 80% could be reached. As from a financial and organizational perspective it is more
difficult to change the positioning of the SSPC and the TPC, for now Schiphol is advised to blind the window
next to the TPC. Furthermore, as the recognition aspect is very important, an advice to Schiphol Group is to
“advertise” more about the SSPC by showing a movie about the SSPC already during the flights and in the rest
areas at Schiphol. Besides, it is advised to clearly depict the requirements for using the SSPC. Finally, it is
important to ensure sufficient staff at the SSPC, such that travellers can pass the SSPC as fast as possible.

Besides recommendations for practice, also several recommendations for future research are made, which
follow from limitations of and uncertainties in the outcomes of this research. Firstly, in the SP survey on both
photos only four travellers are depicted and besides only the choices of individuals are studied. In reality it can
be much more crowded and it could be that travellers follow other travellers (herding), for example if they
arrive in a group, or do not follow others but choose the shortest row. It was not possible to take into account
crowdedness and herding behaviour, as these require more dynamic methods. It is however recommended to
investigate the effect of crowdedness and herding behaviour in future research, for example with virtual
reality. Secondly, an interesting additional study would be to research the choices people actually make by
collecting RP data. For example GPS, WiFi or mobile phone data (depending on which are available)) can track
the walking trajectories at busy and quiet moments. This way peoples’ stated preferences (from this research)
can be compared to choices people actually make and by this even more reliable results can be obtained.
Thirdly, an interesting topic for future research would be to design a generic guideline for the process of
estimating Latent Class Models, as this is not yet available. Last, the results of this study are considered to be
generic for other passport control areas at Schiphol and the other Dutch airports. As nationality did not have
significant influence on the results, it is expected that the results are also applicable to passport control areas
in other European countries. Though, to be sure this needs to be researched.

iv
Content
Preface .............................................................................................................................................................i
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... ii
List of figures and tables ................................................................................................................................ ix
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ xii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background Amsterdam Airport Schiphol ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Traveller flows at Schiphol ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Transfer passengers ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.3 The passport control process ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Problem statement .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1 Problem exploration ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Knowledge gaps ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2.3 Research objective ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2.4 Main research question and sub-questions .................................................................................. 5
1.3 Scope of the research .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Research contribution .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.1 Scientific contribution ................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 Practical contribution .................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Research methodology ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.5.1 Use of literature, expert consulting, investigation prior research and site visits .......................... 7
1.5.2 Data collection in two parts .......................................................................................................... 8
1.5.3 Estimation Multinomial Logit Model and Latent Class Model ...................................................... 8
1.5.4 Conclusion, reflection and recommendations .............................................................................. 9
1.6 Structure of the report ........................................................................................................................ 9
2. Positioning choice for the type of passport control ................................................................................. 11
2.1 Traveller choice behavior at the strategic, tactical and operational level .......................................... 11
2.2 Micro- and macroscopic studies ........................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Service type choice ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Wayfinding ......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Route choice ...................................................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Conclusion positioning choice for type of PPC ................................................................................... 14
3. Literature review: State of the art ........................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Factors influencing pedestrian choice behaviour .............................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Socio-demographic characteristics ............................................................................................. 17
v
3.1.2 Awareness, knowledge and perceptions on SSTs ....................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Situational factors ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.4 Signage (information provision) .................................................................................................. 24
3.1.5 Conclusion factors possibly of influence ..................................................................................... 24
3.2 Discrete choice models ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1 Choice behaviour theory: rational choices.................................................................................. 26
3.2.2 Behavioural rules underlying rational choice theory .................................................................. 26
3.2.3 The concept of discrete choice modelling .................................................................................. 27
4. The case study at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol ....................................................................................... 31
4.1 Results of related prior research of Schiphol Group .......................................................................... 31
4.1.1 Research on the use of SSPC at the Schengen/Non-Schengen border ....................................... 31
4.1.2 Psychological profiles airport travellers regarding wayfinding ................................................... 32
4.2 Observation of the physical surroundings (case study area) ............................................................. 32
4.3 Conclusion case study at Schiphol ..................................................................................................... 33
5. Conceptualization travellers’ choice for the type of passport control ..................................................... 34
5.1 The conceptual model ....................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Selection of factors from conceptual model ...................................................................................... 36
6. Data collection research on awareness, knowledge &perceptions (research part 1) .............................. 40
6.1 Questions to answer and data needed for research on awareness, knowledge and perceptions ..... 40
6.2 Possible data collection methods research on awareness, knowledge and perceptions................... 41
6.3 Design of the questionnaire on awareness, knowledge and perceptions .......................................... 42
6.3.1 Set-up of the questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 42
6.3.2 Evaluation of pilot survey ............................................................................................................ 43
7. Results research on awareness, knowledge and perceptions .................................................................. 44
7.1 Data coding, representativeness sample and quality control of data ................................................ 44
7.2 Statistical tests used to analyse the collected data ............................................................................ 45
7.3 Results of data analysis research on awareness, knowledge and perceptions .................................. 45
7.3.1 Basic statistics on awareness, knowledge and perceptions ........................................................ 45
7.3.2 Awareness, knowledge and perceptions for different types of travellers .................................. 47
7.4 Conclusions research on awareness, knowledge and perceptions .................................................... 57
7.4.1 50% of SSPC-entitled travellers does not recognize SSPC ........................................................... 57
7.4.2 Minority of SSPC-entitled travellers knows all requirements to use SSPC .................................. 57
7.4.3 Overall preference for the SSPC .................................................................................................. 58
7.4.4 Speed of more importance than personal contact ..................................................................... 58
7.4.5 Reasons for choosing the SSPC or TPC ........................................................................................ 59
vi