Feasibility of CT Baggage Scanners to Improve Campus Safety

and Security in De La Salle University Manila

April Antonette F. Velasco

Mariah Denise S. Carumba
Danielle Koleen P. Lapuz
Marius Lee R. Rosopa
John Gerald B. Santiago*

INTRODUCTION

College education opens many doors and offers lots of opportunities and
advantages to an individual. Thus, students should be given the best promising chance to
do well in college. In order to offer such opportunity, Corral (2011) suggested that a safe
and secure learning environment must be provided. However, it was stated in Senator
Edgardo Angaras (2012) explanatory note for the House Bill No. 6479 of the Fifteenth
congress that there has been a steady increase in the crime rate in campuses all over the
country. Hence, it is essential to provide heightened safety and security in campuses.
Innocence is not an excuse for any accident or crime in a university. As a matter
of fact, knowledge regarding security in huge campuses like a university is vital because
security plays an important role in the society. In an article by Paperclip Communications
(2007), the responsibilities of police department in the security of the campus such as
being active and ready in such accidents or other emergencies that may happen,
preventing violations that may go along the way, guarding the safety of each and every
human, and avoiding crimes that may occur inside the campus are elaborated upon. To
define a safe campus, the security should be alert for any call of action and anywhere
around the place. It is also stated that campus security personnel undergoes training to be
sure that they efficiently maintain campus safety.
Due to increased risks of crime in campus, new security measures must be
implemented. Herold (2009) said that one of the key factors to consider in implementing
new security policies is the audience. It must be assured that before making the final
decision with the high organizations and offices, the side of the people who will be
affected must be taken into consideration. Policies should be fair, understandable, and
legal to everyone. Everyone, independent of their knowledge and intellect, need to be
able to read any and all of the organization's information security and privacy policies
and completely understand them. Moreover, a new soon-to-be implemented security

policy will be successful if people that are being affected will understand, will be aware
and be willing to participate in it. Boredom is one of the factors that may corrupt a new
policy. Im not saying that every policy should be enjoyable and not being taken
seriously, but prior to the issue, everyone should benefit and as well understand
everything that is going on. (Leek, 2014, para. --). In line with this, this study was
conducted to analyze the feasibility of computed tomography (CT) baggage scanners to
improve campus safety and security in De La Salle University Manila.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Current security system and policies in DLSU

De La Salle University makes sure that it provides a safe and secure campus to its
community. According to the Safety and Security Office, there are approximately 112
guards deployed in De La Salle University Manila, 146 in DLSU-College of St.
Benilde, and around 25 in the Canlubang campus. (Batalla & Santiago, 2013) According
to Sta. Romana and Tolentino (2014), to enhance in-campus security, the Safety and
Security Office (SSO) participates in Task Force Safe School, a multi-sectoral group
working hand in hand with the University Student Government, Student Disciple
Formation Office, Mayors office, and Manila Police Department. This is in addition to
following the standard security protocols which include ID scanning, issuance of visitors
pass, roving security and entrance security check. DLSU-M is also one of the universities
that use battery-operated, hand-held metal detection devices that a guard swipes and
wands off around the bags of the students. The guards also swipe it around the persons
body, specifically at the hips because that is where people can hide things. When the
detector detects something skeptical, it sounds off an alarm. It is now the guards duty to
manually inspect the baggage and its contents. (National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, 1999)
It was concluded in a survey conducted for this study that the students of De La
Salle University is contented on the security system of the said campus but it will be nice
if a chance will be given to make the security be better. In fact, a device called Archers
Eye of De La Salle was implemented along Taft Manila campus. As stated in the official
website of the university (2011), Archers Eye is a series of CCTV cameras that views
and monitors the students and places every second. Such cameras can be found at the
entrances of each building. These cameras serve as the eye of the security for monitoring
purposes.

CT baggage scanners as mode of security

Computed Tomography scanner or simply called CT scanner is known to be very
expensive. Contrary to this fact is the high efficiency of the said security scanner. Density
and atomic number of objects are scanned by this machine for it to detect the presence of
a bomb. Also, the scanner gives a 3D view of the things that will pass through its tunnel.
Furthermore, CT scanner has the ability to give a centralized view of the image it is
focusing on. Given the fact that the CT scanner is really fast, it is said that it has the
capability to scan 1000 bags per hour. Huge bags have never been a problem because the
machine has wide tunnel for any size of baggage. In addition, CT scanner is easy to
install and simple to use (Reveal CT-120 Baggage Inspection System, 2015).
According to Castillo (2011), CT scanner was invented in 1972 and is now
becoming in demand especially in the United States. He also stated that research,
inspections, attenuation analysis, reverse engineering, measurements, and 3D digitization
are some of the major applications of CT scanner. When entering a place with security
CT scanner, one should place his belongings in a tunnel for it to be check automatically.
This process is smooth, fast, and efficient. The X-ray will scan through the luggage and
will record the results. The CT scanner uses all of this data to create a very detailed
tomogram or slice of the bag (Tyson & Grabianowski, 2001). The density, as well as the
mass, of the objects will be determined by the use of tomogram. When the luggage is
determined to be too heavy, the scanner will make an annoying and loud noise as an
alarm or warning to check whether the bag has something dangerous inside.
With the recent advances in imaging technology, the possibility of real time
scanning of bags in handling security operations with the use of dual energy CT scanners
became possible. This scanner outputs a series of image slices inside the bag which are
then combined to for a single 3D volume image. Based on Flittons (2013) study, a key
aspect of the practicalities of using CT baggage scanners is in relation to the rate of
detection. It poses high true-positive rate to ensure that real threats are detected and low

false-positive rate to minimize the occurrence of delays and inconvenience to individuals.

In the same study, the detection performance vis--vis speed of operation was tested in
addition to object class recognition.
However, the efficiency and the convenience brought by CT scanners come with
a huge cost. As stated in the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1999), singleenergy unit is the most common and appropriate type of CT scanner to be used in
educational institutions which costs around $30,000. The cost of a better model of the
said type of scanner is ranging from $250,000 up to $1 million. But obviously, CT
scanner cannot stand on its own due to the fact that manpower is needed for the checking
to be completely done. Men will act as the eye to guard whenever there will be left
belongings in the tunnel. Mostly, bags are being checked and when the scanner detects
something suspicious inside the baggage, the alarm goes off. This means that the bag has
been detected to contain a possible threat to security. This type of scanner is comparable
to those CT scanners used in airport security that outputs 3D images of the contents
(Alexander, 2014).

METHODOLOGY

The method used to test the feasibility of CT baggage scanners in improving

campus safety and security was an online and written survey. The questionnaire
contained six items, three of which focused on the current security system of De La Salle
University while the other three focused on the students opinion on the probable use of
CT baggage scanners. The questions were based from previous surveys on Creating a
safe campus by culture published by the University of Arizona (2010) and a study by
Rajaonah, et. al. (2014) on French public acceptability of security scanners at airports.
Some items were also based on Nissens (2012) study entitled, Public attitudes to airport
security: The case of whole body scanners.
A concise explanation of the CT scanner was included to give the respondents a
brief background of the proposed system of using CT baggage scanners for in-campus
safety and security. A total of 150 respondents were asked to answer the survey. An equal
number of 75 male and 75 female respondents were taken to assess if there is a
significant difference on each genders perception about the safety and security within the
campus.
The collected data were analyzed using PHStat2. Various tests such as Chi-square
test for independence, One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and T-test for
differences in proportion were performed to generate values which will be the basis of
interpretations. The relationship between the perceived safety rating and the need for
enhanced security measures were tested using the Chi-square test for independence. One
way Analysis of Variance was used to test the difference between the perceived safety
rating of males and females. T-test for difference in proportion was used to test whether
people agree to the idea of using CT baggage scanners and whether people prefer CT
baggage scanner over the manual baggage checking.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1: Perceived in-campus security rating of DLSU-Manila students

The sample mean perceived in-campus security rating is 3.1933 with a variance of
0.5597 (n=150). This data was used to construct a 99% confidence interval estimate of
(true mean perceived in-campus security rating of the students) using PHStat2. The
constructed interval was (3.03, 3.35). Based on this interval, one is 99% confident that
the true mean perceived in-campus security rating of DLSU students is between 3.03 and
3.35. This is equivalent to 75.8% to 83.8% safety rating.
In addition to this, the data was subjected to chi-square test for independence to
test if there is a significant relationship between gender and perceived in-campus security
rating. Since the computed critical value (7.81) is greater than chi-square test statistic
(2.20), we say that there is no significant relationship between the two factors. Hence,
there is no significant difference between the perceived in-campus security rating of male
and female students.

Are you satisfied with the current security measures in

the campus?

Figure 2: Responses for question number 2

Based on the results of the survey, the sample proportion of students who are
satisfied with current security measures is 57.33%. Using PHStat2, 99% confidence
interval estimate for the true proportion of students who are satisfied with current security
measures is between 46.9% and 67.7%. On the basis of this interval, we cannot say that
there is a greater proportion of students who are satisfied with the current security system
compared to those who are not since 50% is included in the constructed interval. There is
no significant difference between the proportion of students who are satisfied or not
satisfied with the current security measures in the campus.

Do you think there is a need for enhanced security

measures?

Figure 3: Responses for question number 3

The results of the survey revealed that the sample proportion of students who says
that there is a need for enhanced security measures is 70.7%. A 99% confidence interval
estimate for the true proportion using PHStat2 yielded a result of (0.611, 0.802). On the
basis of this interval, one is 99% confident that the true proportion of students who says
that there is a need for enhanced security measures is between 61.1% and 80.2%. Hence,
we say that there is a significant difference between the proportion of those who say there
is a need for enhanced security measures and those who says otherwise.

Are you for or against the use of CT baggage scanners in

DLSU-Manila?

Figure 4: Responses for question number 4

The sample proportion of students who are for the use of CT baggage scanners is
88.0%. Using PHStat2, a 99% confidence interval was constructed. Based on the
constructed interval, one is 99% confident that the true proportion of students who are for
the use of CT baggage scanners is between 81.2% and 94.8%. In addition to this, one can
also say that the proportion of students who are for the use of CT baggage scanners is
significantly different to the proportion of students who are againts the use of the
scanners.
Based on the survey, some reasons why they are against the use of CT baggage
scanners are: cost, privacy concerns, and imposed health risks. On the other hand, the
reason why they are for the use of CT scanners are: reliability in detecting possible
threats to safety and security, enhanced safety, and time-efficiency.

If you were given the choice between CT scanners and

manual inspection, which will you choose?

Figure 5: Responses for question number 5

Based on the results of the survey, the sample proportion of students who favor
CT baggage scanners over the current manual inspection is 90.0%. Using PHStat2, the
computed 99% confidence interval for the true proportion is between 0.837 and 0.963.
On the basis of this interval, one is 99% confident that the true proportion of students
who favor CT baggage scanners over the current manual inspection is between 83.7%
and 96.3%.

Figure 6

Based on the gathered data, the 74.7% of the respondents pose high belief in the
idea that CT baggage scanners will enhance control security times. On the other hand,
only 44.0% of the respondents believe that the staff carrying out the scan will respect
their dignity and privacy.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the study, students of De La Salle University Manila
gave positive attitudes on the use of computed tomography (CT) baggage scanners.
Previous studies on the reliability of CT baggage scanners also revealed positive reviews
on various aspects of the machine such as its rate of detection and number of bags
scanner per minute. Hence, the use of CT baggage scanners as a new mode of security
baggage check is feasible.

REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2014). Juneau airport gets second scanner for checked baggage.
Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.ktoo.org/2014/06/19/juneau-airportgets-second-scanner-checked-baggage/
Angara, E. (2012). House Bill No. 6479. Fifteenth Congress House of Representatives.
Republic of the Philippines.
Archer's eye: Looking out for you. (2011). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://archerseye.dlsu.edu.ph/
Batalla, J. & Santiago, F. (2013). DLSU to change security agency starting November.
The Lasallian. http://thelasallian.com/2013/10/17/dlsu-to-change-security-agencystarting-november/
Castillo, M. (2011). The industry of CT scanning. American Journal of Neuroradiology,
33, 583-585. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.ajnr.org/content/33/4/583.full
Corral, N. (2011). The importance of campus safety on college campuses. Retrieved from
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-importance-of-campus-safety-on-collegecampuses
Flitton, G. (2013). A comparison 3D interest point descriptors with application to airport
baggage object detection in complex CT imagery. United Kingdom: Cranfield
University.
Herold, R. (2009). 6 critical factors for effective information security & privacy policies.
Retrieved April 7, 2015 from http://www.compliancehelper.com/article/53349-6critical-factors-for-effective-information#.VSflYpSUc4Q

Mitchener-Nissen, T., Bowers, K., & Chetty, K. (2012). Public attitudes to airport
security: The case of whole body scanners. Palgrave journals, 25, 229-243. doi:
10.1057/sj.2011.20

University of Arizona. (2010). Creating a safe campus culture.

Retrieved March 18, 2015, from
http://studentaffairs.arizona.edu/assessment/documents/DeanofStudentsSafetySurvey2009.pdf
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. (September 1999). The appropriate and
effective use of security technologies in U.S. schools. Retrieved April 5, 2015,
from www.ncjrs.gov/school/178265.pdf
Paperclip Communications. (2007). The role of campus security. Retrieved on April 10,
2015 from www.Paper-Clip.com
Rajaonah, B., Castelli, J., Ravenel, J., Osmont, A., Cabrol, P., & Le Fur, G. (2014).
Acceptability of security scanners at airports: A French opinion survey. Retrieved
March 18, 2015, from hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01010844/document
Reveal CT-120 baggage inspection system. (2015). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
www.leidos.com/products/security/reveal-ct-120
Romana, M., & Tolentino, M. (2014). On safety and security around DLSU. The
Lasallian. Retrieved from http://thelasallian.com/2014/01/27/on-safety-andsecurity-arounsu/
Tyson, J. & Grabianowski, E. (2001). How airport security works. Retrieved April 9,
2015, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/ airportsecurity.htm

APPENDIX I
Survey Form

APPENDIX II
Computations for the Data using PHStat
Table 1. Z test for the Mean
Data
Sample Standard Deviation
Sample Mean
Sample Size
Confidence Level

0.7481
3.1933
150
99%

Intermediate Calculations
Standard Error of the Mean
0.061082109
Degrees of Freedom
149
t Value
2.609227907
Interval Half Width
0.159377144
Confidence Interval
Interval Lower Limit
Interval Upper Limit

3.03
3.35

Chi-square test of Independence

Row variable
Male
Female
Total

Observed Frequencies
Column variable
somewhat
very safe
mostly safe
safe
31
34
8
25
36
13
56
70
21

Expected Frequencies
Column variable
Row variable
very safe
mostly safe somewhat safe
Male 27.62666667 34.53333333
10.36
Female 28.37333333 35.46666667
10.64
Total
56
70
21

unsafe

Total
1
2
3

unsafe
1.48
1.52
3

74
76
150

Total
74
76
150

Data
Level of Significance
Number of Rows
Number of Columns
Degrees of Freedom

0.05
2
4
3

Results
Critical Value
7.814728
Chi-Square Test Statistic 2.197534
p -Value
0.532434
Do not reject the null hypothesis

Table 2: Z Test for Proportion

Data
Sample Size
Number of Successes
Confidence Level

150
86
99%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Proportion
0.573333333
Z Value
-2.5758293
Standard Error of the Proportion 0.040383348
Interval Half Width
0.104020612
Confidence Interval
Interval Lower Limit
0.469312722
Interval Upper Limit
0.677353945

Table 3: Z test for Proportion

Data
Sample Size
Number of Successes
Confidence Level

150
106
99%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Proportion
0.706666667
Z Value
-2.5758293
Standard Error of the Proportion 0.037174264
Interval Half Width
0.095754559
Confidence Interval
Interval Lower Limit
0.610912107
Interval Upper Limit
0.802421226

Table 4: Z test for Proportion

Data
Sample Size
Number of Successes
Confidence Level

150
132
99%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Proportion
0.88
Z Value
-2.5758293
Standard Error of the Proportion 0.026532998
Interval Half Width
0.068344475
Confidence Interval
Interval Lower Limit
0.811655525
Interval Upper Limit
0.948344475

Table 5: Z test for Proportion

Data
Sample Size
Number of Successes
Confidence Level

150
135
99%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Proportion
0.9
Z Value
-2.5758293
Standard Error of the Proportion 0.024494897
Interval Half Width
0.063094675
Confidence Interval
Interval Lower Limit
0.836905325
Interval Upper Limit
0.963094675