Human Factors Approach to Study Border Control Automation Impacts and Needs: Methodology and Preliminary Results of Field Studies

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 598)


Passenger flows are continuously increasing in Europe and the number of border guards does not increase as quickly as it needs. The use of automatic systems such as e-gates and kiosks is envisaged to enhance security and to facilitate the border crossing. Border control activity should be thoroughly studied in order to understand in which ways it would be impacted by the introduction of more technological systems. The purpose of this study is to analyze the current border guards’ activities from a human factor point of view and to provide recommendations and requirements regarding the introduction of the future regulation and the use of automatic systems. The paper introduces the methodology used to investigate human factors at four types of borders based on a systemic human factors approach, organizational factors, technical tools and environmental aspects.


Automated border check Border guards Smart Borders Europe Man machine allocation Cognitive models Recommendations 



This work was conducted under the BODEGA project (Proactive Enhancement of Human Performance in Border Control; This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grand agreement No. 653676.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Schengen Code: Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). ELI:
  3. 3.
    Bainbridge, L.: Brief paper: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6), 775–779 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39(2), 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 30(3), 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oostveen, A.-M.: Non-use of automated border control systems: identifying reasons and solutions. In: HCI 2014 - Sand, Sea and Sky - Holiday HCI Proceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2014), Southport, UK, 9–12 September 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keyser, D.: Work analysis in French language ergonomics. Ergonomics 34, 653–669 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    COM (2016)194: Proposal for establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No. 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No. 1077/2011.
  9. 9.
    Fergusson, J.: Twelve seconds to decide. Frontex (2014)., ISBN 978-92-95033-92-4

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thales Communications & Security S.A.SGennevilliersFrance
  2. 2.Institut CARNOT CEA, LIST, DIASI/Laboratoire d’Interfaces Sensorielles et AmbiantesCEA Saclay Nano-INNOVGif sur Yvette CedexFrance
  3. 3.International Union of RailwaysParisFrance
  4. 4.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations