INNOVATIVE SOLUTION FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY AT ISABELA STATE

UNIVERSITY ROXAS CAMPUS

A Thesis Proposal

to the Faculty of the

College of Criminal Justice Education

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

Roxas, Isabela

In Partial

Fulfillment of the course

Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

(BSLEA)

By:

CLARENZE M. CLARION

REYNALDO T. LIDAY JR.

JOHNDAVE A. LOMBOY

MHERILLE N. NATIVIDAD
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Problem and Its Background

In today’s rapidly evolving, schools are the cornerstone of our society, nurturing

young minds and shaping the future. Ensuring the safety of staff and students is paramount,

and physical security plays a crucial role in achieving this goal. Physical security in a school

setting involves measures used to protect students, staff, and school infrastructure. Each

school must have innovative solutions to determine the necessary.

In other countries they conducted a study to identify and define physical factors

affecting the security in Varzaghan border. According to the analysis of this study, they found

out that their place has the lowest level of physical security among areas. (Abolfazl Ghanbari,

Samira Hashemi Amin, Hamed Shali 2021)

In this study they conducted to assess the digital services of the Philippines Social

Security System in terms of processing of personal data, organizational measures, physical

measures, and technical measures. The study’s findings show that Philippine Social Security

requires additional physical and electronic paperwork. Additionally, the Philippine Social

Security System shares and exchange personal data with other parties through digital

channels.(Glenn Mhar B Galang, Elizabeth B Villa, 2024)

The ISU Roxas Campus with its diverse academic and administrative activities faces

unique security challenges that require innovative solutions to safeguard its community

effectively, well-planned security solutions are implemented to monitor attendees, deter

intrusions, enhance emergency response, and provide peace of mind for all stakeholders.
 This research explores cutting edge strategies and technologies designed to enhance

physical security on campuses by integrating smart surveillance systems, emergency

communication tools and aerial surveillance with drones. It aims to propose a comprehensive

security solution tailored to specific needs of ISU Roxas Campus. The goal is to ensure a

safer and more resilient campus environment, ensuring that student, faculty staff can focus on

their educational and professionals’ pursuits without concern for their safety.

The ISU Roxas Campus can significantly enhance its physical security by embracing

innovative solutions that leverage technology to create a safer and more secure environment

for students, faculty staff. This introduction will explore the potential of integrating cutting

edge technologies like Internet of Things (LoT) devices, smart identification cards and

advanced video surveillance systems to create a comprehensive and proactive security

approach.

These technologies can be integrated into a unified platform allowing for a real time

monitoring data analysis, and automated response to potential threats. This shift from reactive

to proactive security management will not only enhance safety but also optimize resource

allocation and improve overall campus operation.

With this inspiration the researchers were motivated to explore and uncover the

factors of innovative solutions for physical security at isabela state university roxas campus.

This study endeavours to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing discourse on enhancing

physical security by addressing infrastructure limitations, policy deficiencies, and operational

weaknesses identified in prior research. By focusing on innovative security solutions for

Isabela State University Roxas, the study aims to bridge the gap between traditional security

measures and the need for adaptive, technology-driven systems. It will explore the integration

of advanced surveillance, data management, and emergency response mechanisms to create a

comprehensive and proactive security framework. This research aspires to offer a model that

can be replicated in similar academic environments, ensuring that security strategies evolve

alongside the unique needs of modern institutions.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

1.Demographic profile
of respondent’s age,
gender, civil status.

2. The status of physical

security of Isabela State
University The data of the study
was interpreted and
3. To determine the analyzed through
current security policies Collection and
and operational analyzing data from
protocols of ISU Roxas various sourses. INNOVATIVE
SOLUTION FOR
4. The problems PHYSICAL
encountered of ISU
SECURITY OF ISU
Roxas on the physical
security of the campus ROXAS

5. Problems encountered
by ISURoxas on
physical security

FEEDBACK

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

It presents the input, process and output of the study. The input of the study is

illustrating the structured approach to analyzing the effectiveness of innovative solutions for
physical security at ISU Roxas through Input-Process-Output (IPO) model. The input phase,

data is collected on respondents' demographics, the status of physical security, the current

policies and operational protocols of ISU Roxas and problems encountered by ISU Roxas on

physical security. The process involves analyzing data through surveys and reports to assess

the effectiveness of existing security measures and the output provides an evaluation of

current protocols and recommends specific enhancements, such as advanced technologies and

improved security strategies, at Isabela State University Roxas Campus.

Statement of the Problem

1. What is the demographic status of the respondents in terms of:

a. Age;

b. Gender and

c. Occupation

d. Course and Year level and

e. Civil Status.

2. What is the status of physical security in Isabela State University Roxas Campus?

3. What current security policies and operational protocols at ISU Roxas contribute to or

hinder the overall safety and security of the campus?

4. What are the different problems encountered by Isabel State University Roxas Campus on

physical security?

5. What are the innovative solutions different from traditional physical security measures at

ISU Roxas Campus?

Scope and Delimitation

 This study on “Innovative Solutions for Physical Security at Isabela State University

Roxas Campus” is primarily focused on evaluating and enhancing the physical security

measures implemented at the ISU Roxas Campus. The study will specifically examine the

campuses current security infrastructure, including surveillance systems, access control

mechanisms, and emergency response protocols. It will involve security personnel, campus

administrators, and potentially other stakeholders to assess how demographic and health

factors influence security performance. The research will explore advanced technologies and

strategies, such as smart sensors and camera surveillance, to identify and recommend

innovative solutions tailored to the campuses unique security challenges.

This study will be conducted at the Isabela State University-Roxas Campus, Roxas

Isabela, in its three (3) sites, West Site, Mid-Site and East Site. The data will be gathered to

the faculty and staff, students and stakeholders of ISU Roxas. Specifically, there are 100

respondents to this study, 25 faculty, 25 staff, 25 students and 25 stakeholders. A total of 100

respondents will conduct this study.

Theoretical Framework

According to Arunesh Sinha, Thanh H Nguyen, Debarun Kar, Matthew Brown,

Milind Tambe, Albert Xin from Oxford Academic. Physical security, like many other forms

of security (e.g., cybersecurity). Is a critical concern globally, especially in environments

where limited security resources must be optimally deployed . Whether in academic

institutions, government facilities, or corporate settings, physical security involves protecting

assets, infrastructure , and individuals from physical threats such as theft, vandalism, or

intrusion. These threats often arise from adversaries who actively plan to exploit
vulnerabilities. Given resource constraints, it is impossible to provide full protection at all

times, and as such, an efficient allocation of resources is necessary.

According to John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern who authored the “Game of

Theory” that, the concept of game theory can offer insightful framework for addressing the

challenge of limited security resources in physics. Game theory, particularly in the context of

stackelberg games, provides a structured approach for allocating security resources while

considering the potential responses of adversaries.

Significance of the Study

This study will be beneficial to the following:

Parents. The result of this study will give them a peace of mind that contributes to their trust

in the university’s ability to their children while they pursue their studies on campus.

Student. The primary beneficiaries of this study are the students of ISU Roxas. A safer

campus environment will allow students to focus on their academic pursuits without concerns

about personal safety or the security of their belongings. Implementing innovative solutions

for physical security will help reduce incidents of theft, unauthorized access, and foster a

more conductive learning environment.

Faculty and Staff. Faculty members will benefit from the enhanced physical security on

campus, as it will safeguard their personal property, academic resources, and intellectual

assets. A more secure campus environment will support their teaching and research activities

by minimizing disruptions and potential threats. This fosters an environment of academic

productivity and professional development.

Security Personnel. Campus security personnel will benefit from the introduction of

advanced security technologies such as smart surveillance systems and automated emergency

response mechanisms. These innovations will enhance their ability to monitor and manage

campus security more efficiently. Additionally, the study may recommend improved training

programs, enabling security personnel to handle security threats with greater competence and

responsiveness.

Researcher. The result of this study will teach the researcher valuable information on the

physical security of Isabela State University.

Future Researchers. This study will provide future researchers with valuable insights and a

foundation for conducting further research in the field of campus security. The findings and

methodologies used in this study can serve as a reference for future studies focused on the

effectiveness of specific security innovations, infrastructure improvements, or human factors

ensuring safety in educational institutions.

Definition of Terms

For clarity and a better understanding of this study, the following terms are defined in

the context of this research.

Innovative Solutions. Refers to new and advanced methods or strategies designed to address

physical security challenges. These are the different methods used by the school to protect the

students , faculty, staff and stakeholders more on the ICT side.

Physical Security. The protection of people, property and physical assets from harm or

unauthorized access. The physical security like cctv cameras, walkie talkie and free wifi to

protect our students against intruders and cyber attack.

Smart Surveillance System. advance camera systems or automation to monitor areas and

enhance campus safety. These are cameras used to identify the intruders to protect the

students, faculty and staff and the stakeholders.

Campus Security. The overall measures and personnel responsible for maintaining safety

within the university environment. The system used by Isabela State University Roxas

campus like no ID no Entry practice by the security guards.

Human Factory. The role of individuals, such as security personnel, students, and faculty

staff. In the success of the security system, it is the different factors that are man-made.

Security Protocols. Established procedures and guidelines designed to maintain security on

campus. The system of protocols used by the Isabela State University Roxas Campus in

protecting its personnel inside the school.

Infrastructures. The physical layout and facilities such, as entry gates, fences and lightning,

which support campus security. The buildings, fence, barriers used by the campus as a

limitation against the intruders.

Security Enhancement. The process of upgrading or improving existing security measures

to address new or evolving targets.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter provides the information taken from internet sources, books and

magazines used as a baseline or reference of the researchers in the discussion of the result of

this study. The information provided herein is related to the variables measured hence, it

provided support for the results that were gathered.

RELATED LITERATURES

Foreign Literature

Boustras & Waring (2020) discussed the needs for a reconceptualization of safety and

security in the 21st century, highlighting how the application of systems thinking and

methodologies could significantly enhance physical security measures. They emphasize that,

despite advancements in the safety domain, security practices, particularly in relation to

events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lacked a systematic approach in policy and planning.

This gap, according to the authors, indicates a missed opportunity to apply risk reduction

techniques such as redundancy and diversity, both technical and organizational, that are

widely used in safety practices.

The authors further argue that, although systems methodologies have been utilized in

military and computer security planning, their application in broader security contexts

remains limited. However, since 9/11, there has been a growing body of research in the

security domain, and the adoption of systematic frameworks could align security with the

long-established safety domain. This shift would ensure that physical security measures are
not only reactive but also proactive and robust, incorporating advanced planning techniques

that reduce vulnerabilities and enhance protection.

Denardis, L. (2020) explores the growing convergence of cybersecurity and physical

security, particularly as critical infrastructures increasingly rely on internet-connected

devices. The author argues that this integration introduces significant risks, as vulnerabilities

in the digital domain can have direct consequences on physical systems. For instance,

cyberattacks targeting power grids, transportation networks, or surveillance systems could

result in widespread disruption, compromising both safety and security. This emerging threat

landscape calls for heightened attention to cyber-physical security measures, ensuring that

physical security systems are not undermined by digital vulnerabilities.

Denardis further emphasizes the need for comprehensive security frameworks that

bridge the gap between traditional physical security and cybersecurity. The author advocates

for proactive measures, including the adoption of advanced encryption, regular security

audits, and real-time monitoring, to protect both digital and physical assets from potential

cyberattacks. As the world becomes more interconnected, ensuring the resilience of these

hybrid systems is essential for maintaining the integrity and functionality of critical

infrastructure.

As pointed out by Mohamed et al. (2021) physical security refers to the protection of

building sites, equipment, and all information and software contained therein from theft,

vandalism, natural disaster, man made catastrophes, and accidental damage. Physical security

is a vibrant fragment of any security design and is vital to all security efforts; without it,

information security, software security, user access security, and network security are

substantially more problematic, if not unbearable to initiate. It remains possible to

characterize physical protection as a safety tool conceived to refute unauthorized access to

buildings, facilities, and services.

Physical safeguard is identified as well as a system or plan of measure to defend staff

and properties from mistreating or injuries, such as spying, stealing, or arsonist assault. The

use of several tiers of interrelationship security systems, such as CCTV monitoring, security

guards, defensive obstacles, locks, a procedure for access control, and many other plans of

action, must include physical security. In safeguard, the organization for every one of the

installed systems at the organization has their task. Access control is a security feature that

restricts who or what can access or use resources in a computing environment. It is a basic

protection notion that minimizes the danger to the corporation or organization. Electronic

access control systems that rely on user passwords, access card readers, auditing, and

reporting are used to monitor employee access to restricted business locations and proprietary

areas, such as data canter.

Physical protection has three main components. First-line defenses can be erected in

the direction of potential attackers, and locations can be fortified against accidents and natural

disasters. Multiple locks, fences, doors, fireproof safes, and water sprinklers may be used in

such steps. Second observation and warning devices such as lighting, heat sensors, smoke

detectors, intrusion detectors, alarms, and cameras, may be mounted on the spot. Third, to

capture attackers and to recover quickly from collisions, fires, or natural disasters, strategies

may be introduced.

According to Charles Devellennes (2023) the political transformations under

Macron's leadership, highlighting how the state's increasing focus on security measures is

rooted in an ideological shift toward a more conservative stance. One key aspect related to
physical security is the government's emphasis on the expansion of surveillance, policing,

and state-controlled mechanisms to ensure public safety. This approach aligns with a broader

global trend where governments justify physical security measures as necessary for

countering civil unrest, terrorism, and other perceived threats. These measures often involve

stricter regulations on public spaces, the use of advanced security technologies, and the

intensification of law enforcement efforts.Moreover,

Devellennes points out that these physical security measures are not just responses to

external threats, but also serve to reinforce the state's authority over its population. By

framing security in terms of public order, the government seeks to legitimize its actions, even

when they may restrict civil liberties. The implementation of physical security in this context

reflects a balance between safeguarding the public and controlling societal dissent. This

underscores how physical security can be a political tool, intertwined with ideological

motivations, particularly when addressing the needs of modern states to maintain control and

order.

Ciagala et al. (2024) The study of security within soft targets has commonly been

broken down into two areas of interest: information security and physical security (Sas et al.,

2021a). While these are not the only two categories’ researchers have studied concerning

security and crime within organizations, these are the two most relevant constructs for the

purpose of this paper. One proposed security taxonomy includes five broad categories:

political, economic, and military threats, terrorism and radicalization, ideological threats,

organized crime, and white-collar crime (Boustras and Waring, 2020). These five categories

cover a wide array of different types of crime and security threats that can manifest in similar

ways. For example, a terrorist organization and a gang can attack an organization in similar

ways (e.g., cyber-attack or physical attack) but have completely different ideologies and

motivations for doing so. Thus, while not completely comprehensive, lessons learned from
information security and physical security can be applied to a wide variety of security threats

and criminal activity within organizations.

Information security refers to the process of protecting critical or sensitive

information along with all of the technological and physical systems that use, store, and

transmit said information (von Solms and van Niekerk, 2013). On the other hand, physical

security has been defined as the protection of an organization’s infrastructure and employees

(Sas et al., 2021a, Sas et al., 2021b). While both information and physical security are

important for the overall security of organizations, they are not treated as equal aspects.

The research and literature on information security has been detailed and robust, with

definitions, hypothesized antecedents, and potential consequences explored (e.g., Ali et al.,

2021, Cram et al., 2017, Lebek et al., 2014, Siponen and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2007, Spanos and

Angelis, 2016). Although some attention has been paid to the physical security of soft targets

and its consequences (e.g., Hesterman, 2019; Orlob, 2004), there is significantly less

information and empirical research on the matter. Further, there is very little information on

what enhances or impedes the success of physical security policies and practices in both

organizations and soft targets (i.e., antecedents). While information security potentially

involves physical objects that have the potential to be destroyed (e.g., data hard drives,

patient files stored in file cabinets), the outcomes of interest involve the loss of critical

information, not necessarily the object itself. On the other hand, the main outcome of interest

in physical security involves the loss of infrastructure and individuals. The security of

information and the security of property and people are different; therefore, aspects that lead

to pro-security behaviors for each construct may be different as well.

Local Literature
 In the study conducted by Mabanglo (2019) highlights campus security practices at

the Philippine College of Science and Technology (PhilCST), the focus is on the vital role of

security in educational institutions. The study highlights that educational institutions are not

immune to threats, such as physical harm, disruptions, and disturbances. Campus security is

essential to protect employees, students, and property, with specific systems tailored to each

institution's unique needs. These may include ID badges, registration protocols for visitors,

and monitoring systems like CCTV or alarms.

Despite the implementation of basic security measures, campuses in the Philippines

and the US have still experienced serious security breaches, such as stabbing, shooting

incidents, and bullying. These occurrences emphasize the need for a more comprehensive and

integrated approach to security, rather than temporary, reactionary measures. A school

security plan should be incorporated into the daily operations of the campus, fostering a

culture of responsibility among students and staff for both their own safety and that of others.

According to Cipres (2022) assesses the security practices at Visayas State University

Tolosa, Security is one of the primary concerns of the governments. Full attention has been

given to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) security to address the security threats. Thus,

all HEIs in the country are also allocating funds for security purposes in order to address

possible arising security risks. These security practices include rules and regulations

regarding student conduct such as potentially violence arising from students’ activities. The

security measures also include security strategies like monitored door gates or exits, the use

of metal detectors, the presence of security guards on campus patrol and possibility of

students to link with terrorist or fraternities causing negative effects and responses. All of

these are examples on the value of school based security practices done at the academic

institutions specifically in Visayas State University Tolosa on the security concerns.

 Another major challenge that the Philippine government is facing before the school

lockdown is the issue of managing the increasing trends of violence in academic settings. It

has become the forefront responsibility of schools to protect the welfare of our younger

generations as molded in academic institutions, especially that schools are now allowed to

gradually open for face to face classes. Recent study describes State universities and Private

colleges’ security practices to prevent rising conditions of threats on campus. Media reports

nationwide also highlighted violence which is no longer new in some schools and

occurrences of serious violence such as shootings are happening in few HEIs campuses while

other forms of violence are even unreported continue to take place. The incidents like

physical attacks, fights (without a weapon) , theft, larceny, or vandalism and weapons carried

in school premises are threatening. Any school-based violence is alarming and has become a

public’s knowledge in local media taking place in schools and universities. These

occurrences not only malign school reputation but it also poses questions on campus security

of children where schools are considered safe haven for youth and children.

Oreta & Aguja (2020) emphasize that Crafting the security sector governance and

reform (SSGR) agenda takes, as its beginning position, the assumption that the security

system, including the process of imagining, crafting, and planning it, is clear and rational. In

the ideal scheme of things, security planning begins with a clear articulation of what are (a)

the national interests of the state, and (b) a grounded security threat assessment. The process

of crafting the national interests and the subsequent analysis of security threats must be based

on a broad-based consultation with different sectors and groups in society, as well as

consultations with community, provincial and national tiers of government, private sector,

and civil society.

The national security policy and strategy guide the administration in crafting the

internal and external security plans of various agencies. Alignment of policy, strategy,
programs and plans is crucial in addressing both internal and external challenges. For the

security forces, it informs the planning process relative to the force structure, equipment,

budget, organizational set-up, and oversight mechanisms that must be in place to address the

security policy and strategy of the state. The policy and strategy also guide the diplomacy

engagement of the state with friends, allies, and adversarial states.

According to Samala, Ogale, and Ogale (2023) they discuss the growing need for

enhanced security measures in educational institutions across the Philippines. The article

identifies both external and internal threats, such as violence, vandalism, and unauthorized

access, that put the safety of students and staff at risk. The authors argue that these challenges

necessitate an immediate response from school administrators, focusing on the

implementation of stricter security protocols to safeguard the learning environment.

Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of modern security technologies,

such as surveillance cameras, biometric access systems, and emergency response tools, to

prevent and mitigate potential risks. The authors also advocate for comprehensive safety

training for school personnel and students, aiming to create a culture of preparedness and

awareness. This proactive approach, they suggest, will not only protect the physical well-

being of individuals but also contribute to a more secure and conducive atmosphere for

learning.

Barte et al. (2022) in their findings that according to Security Tx, (2021), school

security is one of the prime concerns. It involves students, staff, and every other individual

who is present at the premises. Hence, the duty of a school security guard is full of tough

challenges (Shpeizer, 2021). The guard must always stay alert and on his toes. Even after the

school hours come to an end. An empty school building needs to be guided to protect the

assets and ensure no illegal activity goes. Whether it‘s an elementary or high school or a
university, safety is an utmost priority (Thomas, 2016). The guards at the school building

need proper training as they are mostly without arms. However, it depends on the school‘s

needs. Many don‘t prefer having armed guards in front of children all the time; it is entirely

your choice (Anyon, 2017). No matter whoever stands for Security, the personnel should be

well trained and ready to use physical force if the necessity arises. Moreover, the security

forces should deal with pressures and always stay calm with children. Omer (2021), if parents

become aggressive in any situation, the guard should tackle the problem calmly. So, he

should know what action to take and when to take to guard the place and create a safe

environment (Shamsuddin, et al 2017). The researchers, in the context, discuss the "The

Level of Preparedness of the School Security Personnel and their Qualifications towards

institutional security." It is observed that there are limited studies related to this research

topic. Thus ignites the interest of the researcher to conduct this study. In addition, researchers

would like to emphasize the importance of security personnel preparedness and their

qualifications. To support the study, we examined various studies and literature that are

related to ours. One of which is the Teachers' perception towards security measures following

the terrorist attack on bacha khan university, charsadda conducted by Jehanzeb & Bangash,

(2018).

This research aimed to learn about the perceptions of faculty members at the

university on post-attack security measures. It highlights the significance of security

measures in educational systems in the face of unprecedented threats, particularly terrorist

attacks. In contrast, our research focuses on the level of preparedness of school security

personnel and their qualifications towards institutional security. Especially when the News

agency Associated Press reported recently that Japan‘s Foreign Ministry had advised its

citizens to avoid ―religious facilities and crowds‖ in six Southeast Asian countries, including

the Philippines, due to possible attacks (Nahdohdin, et al., 2019). This information also
alarms the schools which might be a vulnerable target for terrorist‘s attack. In relation to the

studies, it is able to give recommendations to strengthen the security of the schools.

RELATED STUDIES

Foreign Studies

Chen, Hao et al. (2023) examine how gamified educational systems enhance

individuals' awareness of information security threats and influence their intentions to adopt

protective behaviors. While the study centers on digital security, it offers important insights

applicable to physical security. The research demonstrates that security education—when

engaging and interactive—can significantly increase awareness of potential risks and

encourage proactive security measures. This concept is easily transferable to the realm of

physical security, where educating individuals on identifying and responding to threats in

their physical environment is critical to overall safety.

Their study emphasizes that cultivating security awareness through education helps

embed protective behaviors into everyday routines. In physical security, this could mean

increasing awareness of emergency procedures, recognizing suspicious activity, or

reinforcing access control protocols. By fostering a heightened sense of vigilance, security

education systems can reduce vulnerabilities and improve the effectiveness of physical

security strategies. The findings suggest that integrating gamified or interactive elements into

physical security training could similarly enhance engagement, leading to more consistent

application of protective behaviors in real-world settings.

A study by S y Su Subburaj (2023) has identified five digital innovations that will

have a significant impact on campus security over the next five years to help campus security

professionals address this challenge. These five physical security digital innovations will
shape campus security in future years: The Internet of Things (IoT) is set to maintain its

critical role in campus security. IoT devices provide valuable data and insights, allowing

security teams to monitor and respond to potential threats more efficiently. From smart

cameras to environmental sensors, these devices enhance situational awareness and

contribute to a safer environment for all. The use of gunshot detection systems (GDS) on

college campuses is a growing trend as universities and colleges seek to enhance campus

safety and protect their students, faculty, and staff. GDS utilizes various technologies, such as

acoustic sensors and muzzle flash detection, to identify and locate the source of gunshots in

real-time. Smart ID cards are becoming increasingly common, offering a multifaceted

approach to campus security. These cards, embedded with memory chips, serve as access

keys to buildings, bus passes, and even debit cards. Their enhanced security features make

unauthorized access a challenging feat, triggering alarms for any uninvited guests. Ensuring

the safety of students and staff during emergencies is a top priority. Mass notification systems

are becoming increasingly common on college campuses. These systems are designed to

quickly and reliably alert students, faculty, and staff to emergencies, such as active shooters,

fires, and natural disasters. [5]Streamlining security system management is essential for

higher education institutions. The future of campus security will see a shift towards digital

transformation. Embracing this transformation early will allow security teams to predict and

mitigate threats before they escalate, ultimately freeing up resources for strategic decision-

making. Digital innovation is set to revolutionize campus security, making higher education

institutions safer and more resilient.

Anish devasia (2024) outlines critical physical security measures that schools can

implement to safeguard students and staff. A central focus of the article is the establishment

of robust access control systems, including secure entry points, ID-based systems, and visitor

management protocols. These measures help prevent unauthorized individuals from entering
school premises, reinforcing the security of the campus. Additionally, Devasia highlights the

importance of physical barriers such as fences, gates, and surveillance cameras to enhance

perimeter security, making it more difficult for potential intruders to gain access. The

strategic placement of these elements can act as both a deterrent and a critical response tool in

monitoring school grounds.

Furthermore, Devasia stresses the importance of conducting regular security

assessments and audits. These evaluations allow schools to identify physical security

vulnerabilities, such as poorly lit areas, unsecured entry points, and blind spots in

surveillance. By addressing these gaps, schools can significantly reduce the risk of intrusions

or security incidents. Devasia also emphasizes the integration of physical security with

emergency preparedness protocols, including lockdown drills, evacuation plans, and active

shooter responses. This holistic approach ensures that schools are not only physically secure

but are also prepared to respond effectively to various threats, providing a safer environment

for both students and staff.

According to True (2020) school safety and the perception that students and staff

members face an unparalleled level of risk to their health and well-being while in American

schools is of primary concern when considering the most significant education-related issues

at the national, state, and local level. The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

School in Parkland, FL served to heighten tensions and increase scrutiny of school and

community safety measures across America. Not surprisingly, the dialogue has also included

varying viewpoints regarding how such tragic occurrences can be addressed and potentially

avoided in the future.

Solutions to these occurrences come from a variety of sources and philosophical

viewpoints, including many in the political and policy-making arena. The Federal
Commission on School Safety (Devos et al., 2018) has gathered and analyzed information

from a broad base of stakeholders to inform and guide best practices. Such work has typically

focused on three key outcomes: how schools can prevent violence, how students and staff can

be protected against potential threats, and how educational communities can best respond

when incidents occur. To ensure progress toward these outcomes, it is critical to identify the

key indicators of safety in each area, reach understanding as to the current state of safety on

both a local and national level, and recognize how such information should impact the

implementation of elements that can ensure student safety (Musu, et al., 2018).

Alexander’s (2020) study, explored student perceptions of campus safety at a Florida

university to find out more about university students’ perceptions of campus safety specific to

physical harm and how campus safety procedures are documented. My goal was to build on

understanding student perceptions of campus safety to better understand why campus safety

is important. The potential positive social change implications of the study would include

benefiting the students to feel safer on campus, as well as for the administration, staff, and

faculty to better understand the student perceptions of threats of physical harm. The

remainder of Chapter 1 includes the background of the study, the problem statement, the

purpose of the study, the research questions, conceptual framework, nature of the study,

definition of terms, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, the significance of the

study, and a summary and organization of the remainder of the study.

Local Studies

According to Moore et al.(2021) there has been growing attention to school safety and

the related growth in the school safety technology sector and to the development of guidance

at many levels and from a variety of sources. However, available tools and resources do not
yet provide local education agencies (LEAs)3 with everything that they need to support their

decisions about how to best approach physical security to protect their campuses (Steiner

et al., 2021). Guidance from the federal, state, and other levels in particular has been discrete

and disjointed, often focusing on one topic, technology, or procedure at the expense of

offering a holistic picture of how to protect and mitigate a full set of risks.4 Just as the risks

that schools face are diverse and manifold, so have been the physical security measures

schools have implemented to respond to these risks. This diversity in both risk and possible

responses underscores the complexity inherent in implementing a school safety plan that

appropriately protects students, staff, and the school but does not impede efforts to create a

welcoming and inclusive environment that promotes teaching and learning. Indeed, this is

arguably one of the biggest challenges that schools currently face. To add to the challenge,

LEA officials who are regularly tasked with making difficult decisions about how best to

protect their environments are most often not experts in physical security.

Although no school will ever be immune to the risk of violence, schools can take

effective approaches to safety by carefully considering and integrating security equipment,

technologies, and design features with carefully designed personnel roles, policies and

procedures, and training programs. Such an integrated approach can help stakeholders create

safe and secure spaces for school communities and do not require that school principals,

facility managers, or other teachers and staff become experts in physical security design and

implementation.

. As stated by Stenier et al.(2021). A core responsibility of the local education agencies

(LEAs) that operate kindergarten-through-12th grades (K-12) schools across the united states

is creating a safe and secure environment that supports effective teaching and learning. To

help them meet this obligation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s)

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) asked the Homeland Security
Operational analysis center to review the policy to landscape and relevant literature to

provide an overview of the challenges and facilitators related to physical security. The

authors findings, that LEAs face pressure from families and community members and are

also constrained by limited resources (e.g., equipment, personnel), as well as a lack of

expertise around physical security best practices. Physical security refers to the protection of

people and spaces from physical actions and events that could cause serious harm, damage, or

loss; DHS's Science and Technology Directorate defines it as “the protection of an

organization’s assets from threats that could cause losses or damages ” (DHS, 2016). Physical

security usually pertains to specific measures and equipment that are designed to deny

unauthorized access to facilities and protect individuals and property from damage or harm.

These might range from closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance to protective barriers,

metal detectors, locks, intrusion detection sensors and alarms, security guards, and many

others in between. Physical security can have several goals and is most often assessed by the

ability of specific measures—technologies, procedures, and personnel—to interact and

effectively identify, slow, and stop specific threats (M. Garcia, 2008; U.S. Interagency

Security Council, 2015). In the context of this report, we focus on the physical security

outcomes of protection and mitigation; the measures that schools put in place as part of their

physical security system should protect against the effects of crime, intruders, student

victimization, and other safety-related incidents and attenuate the effects of incident

consequences in the case that an adverse event does occur (Moore et al., 2021). In addition,

we consider three intermediate physical security outcomes also widely cited in the literature

on physical security: a measure’s ability to detect an incident, delay its progression, and

respond effectively and in a timely manner to limit damage and casualties and enable first-

responder access (Williams, 2019). As we discuss in more detail in our companion report, it

is important for a school to pursue these outcomes while maintaining its mission of teaching
and learning and establishing a pleasant and welcoming environment for students, staff, and

visitors (Moore et al., 2021).

This study gathered by Rene B. Tablate, MS (2022) security management is the

totality of utilizing available resources (men, money, methods, machine, and materials) to

secure and keep the organization safe. The condition of being secured, freedom from fear,

harm, danger, loss, destruction, or damage is through security. Mostly it was the deed of man

against the man that led to many dangerous and perilous conditions. Security management

has three major areas. First, adopting physical measures to prevent unauthorized access to

physical equipment, facilities, material, and documents and to safeguard them against

espionage, sabotage, damage, loss, and theft through physical security. Second, to ensure that

a firm hires those best suited to assist the firm in achieving its goals and objectives. To assist

in providing necessary security to the workforce while carrying out their functions refers to

personnel security. The third is to protect the documents and classified papers from loss,

access by unauthorized persons, damage, theft and compromise through disclosure refers to

document and information security (Manwong & Sandiego, 2010).

Security, safety, and discipline are social issues as school management embarks on

creating a safe and secure school environment (Mathe, 2008). The most basic problem that

schools face is school safety, for that reason, creating and maintaining schools that are safe is

a priority that should be on every agenda of Education (Squelch, 2001). The intention of

implementing security procedures is to assess the susceptibility to risk and introduce

techniques and measures at schools to build a stable, fairly conventional environment in

which individuals may be in motion freely (Lombaard and Kole 2008).

According to Maria Celia et al. (2023) The "Campus Safety and Security Act" has

been passed by the House Committee on higher and Technical Education. It aims to establish
a Crime Prevention Committee to protect the academic community from both internal and

external dangers, such as theft, robbery, rape, and other types of violence. The Crime

Prevention Committee (CPC), which must be established in each HEI and TVI, will develop

policies and strategies for safeguarding the academic community both inside and outside the

region where the HEI or TVI is situated. The governing bodies of the HEIs and TVIs will

decide how the CPC will be made up. In consultation with the Punong Barangay, the School

Head, the Chief of Police for the community in which the college or university is located, and

any other school specialists they deem appropriate, the CPC shall develop crime prevention

strategies and programs that will be put into action by the CPC (House of Representatives

19th Congress, 2016). Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Service (DRRMS) Director

Ronaldo Co, an attached unit of the Department of Education (DepEd) further emphasized

that there is more to a safe school than its physical structures: Safety constitutes not only the

absence of physical harm, threats, and hazards but the presence of an enabling environment

(MENA Report, 2018). The study by Lindfors and Teperi (2018) explains that most teachers

lack the skills or knowledge about policies to promote safety at work. They need skills and

training to proactively manage the safety culture in schools. Xaba (2014) argues that the

physical environment's safety and security are a vital part of the safety of the entire school

and serve as the foundation for the psychological and social environment's safety. Moreover,

Xaba (2014) emphasizes the need to maintain school buildings and keep an eye on the

campus environment as part of a comprehensive strategy for a school's safety and security.

According to Atienza (2019) that human security, which shifts the definition of

security away from traditional military-oriented and state-centric focus to a people-centric

view, has become one of the most important concepts since the 1990s. It has become one of

the buzzwords globally among academics, international aid agencies, policy planners and

development workers. Human security was introduced in human development discourse

when it was made the theme of the Human Development Report (HDR) published by the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). In the report, human security is viewed in

terms of threats and rights. Human security threats can be considered in seven main

categories: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political

security Then, the Commission on Human Security came out with their report Human

Security Now which states that human security seeks: to protect the vital core of all human

lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment. Human security means

protecting fundamental freedoms— freedoms that are the essence of life. It means protecting

people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means

using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating political,

social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the

building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity.

In addition, there are also criticisms about the way many of the definitions, research,

and indices related to human security lack a more bottom-up perspective from the very

subject of the concept itself—the people who live with everyday threats and risks. Most of

the human security indices are based on statistical data from international agencies,

governments, and other groups.7 As a civil society position paper on human security in

conflict prevention and peace- building argues, “there is limited knowledge and research

conducted on local opinions, perceptions, and experiences that shape or react to peace-

building processes.” After all, the “human security approach is not only centred on people as

objects of interventions, but also as providers of security in their own right.” In-depth

knowledge of the situation and context- specific solutions are required.

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology used relevant to the study. It consists of areas

such as research design, respondents, data gathering instruments, data gathering procedure,

data analysis and statistical treatment.

Research Design

This study used the descriptive research method to describe the characteristics of the

population or phenomenon being studied. Descriptive research does not fit neatly into the

definition of either quantitative or qualitative research methodologies, instead, it can utilize

elements of both, often with the same study. The term descriptive research refers to the type

of research question, design, and data analysis that can be either quantitative or qualitative. It

can involve collections of quantitative information that can be tabulated along to continuum

in numerical forms, such as scores on a test or the number of times a person uses a certain

feature of a multimedia program, or it can describe categories of information such as gender

or patterns interaction when using technology in a group situation. Descriptive research

involves gathering data that describe events and then organizing, tabulating, depicting and

describing data collection.

This data collection and analysis is to describe the existing conditions and

relationships within the studied phenomenon. Data is systematically organized, tabulated, and
depicted through various means such as charts, graphs and narrative summaries. The goal is

to offer a detailed account of the current state, identify patterns and outline key characteristics

without necessarily exploring causal relationships. This comprehensive description aids in

understanding the present context, which can inform future research direction or practical

interventions aimed at addressing identified issues.

(Dagdagan nyo to para magkaroon kayo idea magbase nalang kayo sa Thesis Clariza or

Galang search nyo sa documents)

Locale of the study

This study will be conducted at the Isabela State University (ISU) Roxas campus, located in

Roxas, Isabela, Philippines. The ISU Roxas campus has been selected due to its unique

characteristics and the specific security challenges it faces, which will provide valuable

insights into the effectiveness and applicability of innovative physical security solutions. The

research will focus on various aspects of physical security within the campus, including

access control, surveillance systems, and emergency response protocols, to identify and

develop improvements tailored to the needs of this educational institution.

Respondent of the study

The respondents of this study will be selected from Isabela State University (ISU) Roxas and

will include a total of 100 participants, categorized as follows:

1.Faculty Members: 25 faculty members will be included to provide insights into their

experiences and perceptions of the current physical security measures on campus.

2.Staff: 25 administrative and support staff will be surveyed to understand their views on the

effectiveness and adequacy of the existing security protocols.

3.Students: 25 students from various departments will be involved to gather their feedback on

security issues and their perceptions of safety on campus.

4.Stakeholders: 25 stakeholders, including members of the local community and other

relevant parties, will be consulted to gain external perspectives on the security practices at

ISU Roxas.

Data Gather Instrument Used

The data-gathering instruments used in this study include survey questionnaires and

interviews. The survey questionnaires will be designed to collect quantitative data from

faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders regarding their views on the existing physical

security measures at ISU Roxas. This will allow for a structured collection of perceptions and

concerns that can be analyzed statistically. In addition, interviews with selected respondents

will be conducted to gather qualitative insights, providing a deeper understanding of the

challenges and opportunities related to campus security.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data gathering procedure for this study will involve several steps to ensure

comprehensive and accurate data collection. First a written request to the dean of CCJE

department and instructor was made for his approval, suggestion and insight. Following

approval, the survey questionnaires will be distributed to the 100 selected respondents, which

include 25 faculty members, 25 staff, 25 students, and 25 stakeholders. A clear explanation of

the study’s objectives and confidentiality measures will be provided to all participants. The
respondents will then be given ample time to complete the surveys. Afterward, follow-up

interviews will be conducted with selected individuals to gain deeper insights into the current

state of physical security. The data will be collected, organized, and stored securely for

analysis.

Statistical Treatment

The data gathered will be analyzed using the following statistical tools:

1. Frequency and Percentage Count will be used, using the following formula:

P = F/N X 100%

Where:

P = Percentage Count

F = Frequency

N = Number of Cases

100 % = Constant

2. The weighted mean will be used to determine the average of the different options provided

in the various parts of the survey questionnaire used. The method will be used in conjunction

with Likert scale. It will be solved with the formula.

X= {fx/n}

X = weighted mean

(fx the sun of all the products of f and x the weighted of each

operation.
 n = total number of respondents

3. The Likert Scale Method of summated ratings will be used in the study to analyze the

responses gathered. The total assigned value will be determined by using the weighted.

Table 1. Likert Scale for Status of Physical Security in Isabela State University Roxas

Campus

Rating Mean Range Verbal Description

5 4.20-5.00 Strongly agree

4 3.40-4.19 Agree

3 2.60-3.39 Neutral

2 1.80-2.59 Disagree

1 1.00-1.79 Strongly disagree

Table 2. Likert Scale for the Current Security Policies, Problems Encountered and Innovative

Solutions

Rating Mean Range Verbal Description

5 4.20-5.00 Strongly agree

4 3.40-4.19 Agree

3 2.60-3.39 Neutral

2 1.80-2.59 Disagree
 1 1.00-1.79 Strongly disagree

Table 3. Likert Scale for the Intervention Programs Used by Emergency Response Teams.

Rating Mean Range Verbal Description

5 4.20-5.00 Extremely effective

4 3.40-4.19 Very effective

3 2.60-3.39 Moderately effective

2 1.80-2.59 Slightly effective

1 1.00-1.79 Not effective at all

References

Local Literature
Samala, H. D. R., Ogale, G. S., & Ogale, M. M. (2023). Enemy at the gates: Safety and

security in Philippine schools. Polytechnic University of the Philippines; Philippine Normal

University.

Barte, B., Catugal, J., Largo, C., Paglinawan, L., Culanag, T. J., & Cuevas, J. (2022). Level

of preparedness of the school security personnel and their qualifications towards institutional

security. Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 06(1), 85-102.

https://doi.org/10.46382/MJBAS.2022.6210

Mabanglo, A. (2019). Campus security practices: Assessment of Philippine College of

Science and Technology. https://www.ijarp.org/published-research-papers/apr2020/Campus-

Security-Practices-Assessment-Of-Philippine-College-Of-Science-And-Technology.

Cipres, R. (2022). Assessment of school security practices implemented at Visayas State

University Tolosa in the new normal.

https://ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT22MAY1262.pdf

Oreta, J. S., & Aguja, M. J. (2020). Security sector governance and reform and the

sustainable development goals. Polytechnic University of the Philippines; Philippine Normal

University. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/philippinen/21002.

Foreign Literature

Boustras, G., & Waring, A. (2020). Towards a reconceptualization of safety and security,

their interactions, and policy requirements in a 21st century context.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753520303398

Denardis, L. (2020). Cyber-physical security. In The Internet in everything: Freedom and

security in a world with no off switch. Yale University Press.

Mohamed, M., [et al.]. (2021). Systematic literature review: Factors for physical security and

access control in maximum security protection.

http://eprints.utm.my/97498/1/RoslindaMohamed2021_SystematicLiteratureReviewFactor.pd

Devellennes, C. (2023). The Macron régime: The ideology of the new right in France (1st

ed.). Bristol University Press.

Ciagala, S., [et al.]. (2024). Physical security culture: The neglected foundation for effective

security. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753524001085

Foreign Studies

Chen, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., & Lyu, T. (2023). Exploring the role of gamified information security educa

Subburaj, S. S. (2023). Physical Security Outlook 2024 [Higher Ed]: Five Digital Innovations

Shaping Campus Security. Campus Security Trends Journal.

Devasia, A. (2024). School Security Problems and Solutions: Full Guide. School Security

Journal.

True, M. A. (2020). Perceptions of public school district administrators in Northeast

Tennessee regarding school safety. School Safety Journal, 35(2), 145-160.

Alexander, J. T. (2020). Exploring university students’ perceptions of campus safety: A

qualitative case study. University Security Studies, 27(3), 110-128.

Local Studies
Moore, A. L., et al. (2021). A systems approach to physical security measures in K-12

schools. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/systems-

approach-physical-security-k-12.

Stenier, S., et al. (2021). Challenges in implementing physical security measures in K-12

schools. Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2956.html.

Tablate, R. B. (2022). Security management and procedures in Universidad de Zamboanga-

Ipil: Basis for security management system. https://www.zu.edu.ph/security-management-

procedures.

Celia, M., et al. (2023). Safety, security, and disaster preparedness plan of AIMS as perceived

by internal stakeholders: Towards the enhancement of institutional safety and security plan.

https://www.aims.edu.ph/safety-security-plan.

Atienza, M. E. (2019). Human security in practice: The Philippine experience from the

perspective of different stakeholders.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335755830_Human_Security_in_Practice_The_Phi

lippine_Experience.
 Survey Questionnaire

Dear Participants,

We are conducting a survey to gather valuable insights regarding innovative solutions

for physical security at isabela state university roxas campus. Your participation in this

survey is highly valuable, as it will contribute significantly to the development of effective

and innovative solutions for enhancing campus security. Your responses will remain

confidential and will only be used for research purposes. Thank you for taking the time to

participate in this important survey.

Innovative Solution for Physical Security at Isabela State University-Roxas Campus

Part 1. Profile of the Respondents:

Name (Complete):_________________________________

1. Age: - [ ] 18-22 - [ ] 23-27 - [ ] 28-32 - [ ] 33 and above

2. Gender:

- [ ] Male - [ ] Female - [ ] Prefer not to say

3. Occupation (if applicable):

- [ ] Student - [ ] Faculty/Staff - [ ] Security Personnel - [ ] Other (Please specify:

___________

4. Course and Year Level (for students):

- Course: _________________ - Year Level: [ ] 1st year [ ] 2nd year [ ] 3rd year [ ] 4th year [

] Graduate level

5. Civil Status: - [ ] Single - [ ] Married - [ ] Separated/Divorced - [ ] Widowed ---

Part II: Status of Physical Security

Indicators 5 4 3 2 1

SA SLA A SD DA

1. Security personnel are regularly visible within the

campus.

2. The campus has adequate security cameras in place.

 3. Security cameras are positioned in key locations

across the campus.

4. The presence of security guards makes me feel safe.

5. The lighting around the campus is sufficient,

especially during the night.

6. The entrances and exits to the campus are properly

monitored by security personnel.

7. The university provides clear information on how to

report security concerns.

8. Security checkpoints at campus gates are effective

in screening visitors.

9. The campus environment promotes a sense of

security.

10. I feel safe walking around the campus at night.

Part III: Security Policies and Operational Protocols

5 4 3 2 1

1. The university’s security policies are clearly

communicated to students.

2. The security policies effectively address potential

security threats on campus.

 3. Campus security personnel are well-trained to

handle emergency situations.

4. Security drills (fire, earthquake, etc.) are regularly

conducted on campus.

5. The existing protocols ensure quick response during

emergencies.

6. Access to certain areas of the campus is

appropriately restricted for security purposes.

7. The security policies are properly enforced by the

university administration.

8. The university provides adequate support for

security personnel to perform their duties.

9. The current security policies contribute to a safer

campus environment.

10. I am aware of the procedures to follow in case of a

security emergency.

Part IV: Problems Encountered in Physical Security

5 4 3 2 1

1. There are areas of the campus that are not properly

secured.
 2. The number of security personnel is insufficient to

ensure campus-wide safety.

3. Unauthorized persons can easily enter the campus.

4. There are frequent security breaches on campus.

5. Some security personnel do not perform their duties

effectively.

6. The response time of security personnel during

incidents is too slow.

7. The physical barriers (e.g., fences, gates) on

campus are not enough to prevent unauthorized

access.

8. Security personnel are not always approachable or

helpful.

9. There is a lack of modern security equipment on

campus.

10. There are no sufficient security protocols in place

for new or emerging threats.

Part V: Innovative Solutions for Physical Security

5 4 3 2 1
1. The introduction of modern technology (biometric

scanners) could improve campus security.

2. The use of mobile apps for reporting security issues

would be beneficial.

3. Implementing smart surveillance systems would

enhance campus safety.

4. The use of drones for campus surveillance could

improve security monitoring.

5. Adopting automated security alert systems would

enhance real-time communication during

emergencies.

6. Facial recognition technology could help prevent

unauthorized individuals from entering the campus.

7. Incorporating digital IDs could strengthen campus

access control.

8. The installation of smart lighting systems could

improve security during nighttime.

9. Security robots or drones could supplement security

personnel in patrolling the campus.

10. Implementing an advanced, automated visitor

management system would enhance security at entry

points.
Comments and Suggestions:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________.

______________________

Respondent