Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possible Inspiration: Drone-Related Literature and its Potential for Public Perception Research

  • Regular paper
  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article identifies the current leading streams in the research of drones across multiple disciplines in order to identify topics and factors that have not been sufficiently considered in the context of public opinion research to date. A sample of drone-related literature is analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis is a method that systematizes and characterizes the main themes and main factors included in texts. As a result, the article proposes a systemization of drone-related research and an overview of the main factors considered within the identified categories. Beyond the literature systemization, the article evaluates which of the themes and factors have and which have not been researched in regard to public perception. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that, even though they have been researched in other contexts, two essential aspects are missing in the research of public opinion regarding drone use: 1) a systemic reflection and theorization of privacy, 2) measurements of the perception of the actual technological capabilities of drones. Therefore, these topics should be addressed in future surveys and interviews. Moreover, the analysis shows the prevalence of American public samples in existing surveys and points out a possible bias in conclusions made based on these works. Broader international representation is recommended for future works.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

List of the examined literature is included in the annex, coding scheme and assigned codes can be made available on request.

References

  1. Komasová, S., Tesař, J., Soukup, P.: Perception of drone related risks in Czech society. Technol. Soc. 61, 101252 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Heen, M.S., Lieberman, J.D., Miethe, T.D.: The thin blue line meets the big blue sky: perceptions of police legitimacy and public attitudes towards aerial drones. Crim. Justice Stud. 31, 18–37 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1404463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. West, J.P., Klofstad, C.A., Uscinski, J.E., Connolly, J.M.: Citizen support for domestic drone use and regulation. Am. Politics Res. 47, 119–151 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18782208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anania, E.C., Rice, S., Pierce, M., Winter, S., Capps, J., Walters, N.W., Milner, M.N.: Public support for police drone missions depends on political affiliation and neighborhood demographics. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2018.12.007

  5. Klauser, F.: Interacting forms of expertise in security governance: the example of CCTV surveillance at Geneva international airport. Br. J. Sociol. 60, 279–297 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01231.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kotsemir, M.: Unmanned aerial vehicles research in Scopus: an analysis and visualization of publication activity and research collaboration at the country level. Qual. Quant. 53, 2143–2173 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00863-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Washington, A., Clothier, R.A., Silva, J.: A review of unmanned aircraft system ground risk models. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 95, 24–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, R.: What drones inherit from their ancestors. Comput Law Secur Rev. 30, 247–262 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Luppicini, R., So, A.: A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technol. Soc. 46, 109–119 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke, R., Bennett Moses, L.: The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on public safety. Comput Law Secur Rev. 30, 263–285 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. EBSCO Academic Search Complete, https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/academic-search-complete

  12. Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. SAGE. (1998)

  13. MAXQDA

  14. Yao, Y., Xia, H., Huang, Y., Wang, Y.: Free to Fly in Public Spaces: Drone Controllers’ Privacy Perceptions and Practices. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 6789–6793. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017)

  15. Wang, Y., Xia, H., Yao, Y., Huang, Y.: Flying eyes and hidden controllers: a qualitative study of People’s privacy perceptions of civilian drones in the US. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2016, 172–190 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2016-0022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghatas, R.W., Comstock, J.R., Vincent, M.J., Hoffler, K.D., Tsakpinis, D., DeHaven, A.M.: UAS Detect and Avoid – Alert Times and Pilot Performance in Remaining Well Clear. Presented at the (2017)

  17. Chang, V., Chundury, P., Chetty, M.: Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 6765–6776. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017)

  18. JaneL, E., IleneL, E., Landay, J.A., Cauchard, J.R.: Drone & Wo: Cultural Influences on Human-Drone Interaction Techniques. CHI ‘17. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025755

  19. Nelson, J., Gorichanaz, T.: Trust as an ethical value in emerging technology governance: the case of drone regulation. Technol. Soc. 59, 101131 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rao, B., Gopi, A.G., Maione, R.: The societal impact of commercial drones. Technol. Soc. 45, 83–90 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Freeman, P.K., Freeland, R.S.: Agricultural UAVs in the U.S.: potential, policy, and hype. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment. 2, 35–43 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2015.10.002

  22. Aydin, B.: Public acceptance of drones: knowledge, attitudes, and practice. Technol. Soc. 59, 101180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: Droning on about drones—acceptance of and perceived barriers to drones in civil usage contexts. In: Savage-Knepshield, P., Chen, J. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 317–329. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sandbrook, C.: The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation. Ambio. 44, 636–647 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0714-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Markowitz, E.M., Nisbet, M.C., Danylchuk, A.J., Engelbourg, S.I.: What’s that buzzing noise? Public Opinion on the Use of Drones for Conservation Science. BioScience. 67, 382–385 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix003

  26. Rosenfeld, A.: Are drivers ready for traffic enforcement drones? Accid Anal Prev. 122, 199–206 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clothier, R.A., Greer, D.A., Greer, D.G., Mehta, A.M.: Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Anal. 35, 1167–1183 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rice, S., Tamilselvan, G., Winter, S.R., Milner, M.N., Anania, E.C., Sperlak, L., Marte, D.A.: Public perception of UAS privacy concerns: a gender comparison. J. Unmanned Veh. Sys. 6, 83–99 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2017-0011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Clarke, R.: Understanding the drone epidemic. Comput Law Secur Rev. 30, 230–246 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Royal Aeronautical Society Drones Polling, https://comresglobal.com/polls/royal-aeronautical-society-drones-polling/, (2017)

  31. Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., Cohen, G.: Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 87–90 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nelson, J.R., Grubesic, T.H., Wallace, D., Chamberlain, A.W.: The view from above: a survey of the Public’s perception of unmanned aerial vehicles and privacy. J. Urban Technol. 26, 83–105 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2018.1551106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: The Sky’s (not) the limit - influence of expertise and privacy disposition on the use of multicopters. In: Chen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 270–281. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Yao, Y., Xia, H., Huang, Y., Wang, Y.: Privacy mechanisms for drones: Perceptions of drone controllers and bystanders. In: CHI 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Explore, Innovate, Inspire. pp. 6777–6788. Association for Computing Machinery, (2017)

  35. Zwickle, A., Farber, H.B., Hamm, J.A.: Comparing public concern and support for drone regulation to the current legal framework. Behav Sci Law. 37, 109–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Winter, S.R., Rice, S., Tamilselvan, G., Tokarski, R.: Mission-based citizen views on UAV usage and privacy: an affective perspective | request PDF. J Unmanned Vehicle Syst. 4, 125–135 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lofland, L.H.: The public realm: exploring the City’s quintessential social territory. Transaction Publishers

  38. Clarke, R.: The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioural privacy. Comput Law Secur Rev. 30, 286–305 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Valente, J., Cardenas, A.: Understanding Security Threats in Consumer Drones Through the Lens of the Discovery Quadcopter Family. Presented at the November 3 (2017)

  40. Zhu, X., Pasch, T.J., Bergstrom, A.: Understanding the structure of risk belief systems concerning drone delivery: a network analysis. Technol. Soc. 62, 101262 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhu, X.: Segmenting the public’s risk beliefs about drone delivery: a belief system approach. Telematics Inform. 40, 27–40 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wallace, R., Loffi, J.: Examining Unmanned Aerial System Threats & Defenses: A Conceptual Analysis. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace

  43. Finn, R.L., Wright, D.: Unmanned aircraft systems: surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Comput Law Secur Rev. 28, 184–194 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2012.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lum, C., Gauksheim, K., Deseure, C., Vagners, J., McGeer, T.: Assessing and Estimating Risk of Operating Unmanned Aerial Systems in Populated Areas. Presented at the September 20 (2011)

  45. Musavi, N., Onural, D., Gunes, K., Yildiz, Y.: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Airspace Integration: A Game Theoretical Framework for Concept Evaluations. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 40, 96–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000426

  46. Wild, G., Murray, J., Baxter, G.: Exploring civil drone accidents and incidents to help prevent potential air disasters. Aerospace. 3, 22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace3030022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Truong, D., Choi, W.: Using machine learning algorithms to predict the risk of small unmanned aircraft system violations in the National Airspace System. J. Air Transp. Manag. 86, 101822 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Clothier, R., Walker, R., Fulton, N., Campbell, D.: A casualty risk analysis for unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations over inhabited areas. In: Sinha, A. (ed.) Proceedings of AIAC12: 2nd Australasian Unmanned Air Vehicles Conference. pp. 1–16. Bristol UAV Conference, CD Rom (2007)

  49. Primatesta, S., Rizzo, A., la Cour-Harbo, A.: Ground risk map for unmanned Aircraft in Urban Environments. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 97, 489–509 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-019-01015-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Öztekin, A., Flass, C., Lee, X.: Development of a framework to determine a mandatory safety baseline for unmanned aircraft systems. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 65, 3–26 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-011-9578-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cour-Harbo, A. la: The Value of Step-by-Step Risk Assessment for Unmanned Aircraft. 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2018.8453411

  52. Soffronoff, J., Piscioneri, P., Weaver, A.: Public Perception of Drone Delivery in the United States, https://www.oversight.gov/report/usps/public-perception-drone-delivery-united-states, (2016)

  53. Yoo, W., Yu, E., Jung, J.: Drone delivery: factors affecting the public’s attitude and intention to adopt. Telematics Inform. 35, 1687–1700 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. MacSween, S.: A public opinion survey- unmanned aerial vehicles for cargo, commercial, and passenger transportation. Presented at the (2003)

  55. Kindervater, K.H.: The technological rationality of the drone strike. Critic Stud Secur. 5, 28–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1329472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wilcox, L.: Embodying Algorithmic War: Gender, Race, and the Posthuman in Drone Warfare: Security Dialogue. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616657947

  57. Espinoza, M.: State terrorism: orientalism and the drone programme. Critic Stud Terror. 11, 376–393 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2018.1456725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gurcan, M.: Drone warfare and contemporary strategy making: does the tail wag the dog? Dynam Asymm Conflict. 6, 153–167 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2013.859284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zegart, A.: Cheap fights, credible threats: the future of armed drones and coercion. J. Strateg. Stud. 0, 1–41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2018.1439747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ordoukhanian, E., Madni, A.M.: Human-systems integration challenges in resilient multi-UAV operation. In: Chen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 131–138. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Kallenborn, Z., Bleek, P.C.: Swarming destruction: drone swarms and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation Rev. 25, 523–543 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2018.1546902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Couture, N., Bottecchia, S., Chaumette, S., Cecconello, M., Rekalde, J., Desainte-Catherine, M.: Using the Soundpainting language to Fly a swarm of drones. In: Chen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 39–51. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Sanders, B., Vincenzi, D., Shen, Y.: Investigation of gesture based UAV control. In: Chen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 205–215. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Chandarana, M., Trujillo, A.C., Shimada, K., Allen, B.: A natural interaction Interface for UAVs using intuitive gesture recognition. Presented at the (2017)

  65. Gettinger, D., Michel, A.H.: Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis

  66. Murray, C.W., Anderson, D.: A CFD-based procedure for airspace integration of small unmanned aircraft within congested areas: International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1756829316669957

  67. Szabolcsi, R.: Numerical Analyis of the low-altitude air turbulence mathematical models used in modelling of the spatial motion of the small unmanned aerial vehicles. International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION. 23, 120–130 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/kbo-2017-0165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Campolettano, E.T., Bland, M.L., Gellner, R.A., Sproule, D.W., Rowson, B., Tyson, A.M., Duma, S.M., Rowson, S.: Ranges of injury risk associated with impact from unmanned aircraft systems. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45, 2733–2741 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1921-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Solodov, A., Williams, A., Al Hanaei, S., Goddard, B.: Analyzing the threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to nuclear facilities. Secur. J. 31, 305–324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0102-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Bunker, R.J.: Terrorist and Insurgent Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Use, Potentials, and Militrary Implications. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College (2015)

  71. Rossiter, A.: Drone usage by militant groups: exploring variation in adoption. Defense & Security Analysis. 34, 113–126 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2018.1478183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Jackson, B.A., Frelinger, D.R., Lostumbo, M.J., Button, R.W.: Evaluating novel threats to the homeland: unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. RAND Corporation (2008)

  73. Kim, S.J., Lim, G.J., Cho, J.: Drone relay stations for supporting wireless communication in military operations. In: Chen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 123–130. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. Boyle, M.J.: The legal and ethical implications of drone warfare. Intl J Human Rights. 19, 105–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2014.991210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Calhoun, L.: Totalitarian tendencies in drone strikes by states. Critic Stud Terror. 11, 357–375 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2018.1456726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Figliozzi, M.: Lifecycle Modeling and Assessment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones) CO2e Emissions. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2017.09.011

  77. Chao, H., Cao, Y., Chen, Y.: Autopilots for small unmanned aerial vehicles: a survey. Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst. 8, 36–44 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-010-0105-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported as part of the project “Design of U-space implementation for the Czech Republic” (CK01000185) by Technology Agency of the Czech Republic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Air Transport, Faculty of Transportation Sciences, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Sarah Komasová

Authors
  1. Sarah Komasová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Not applicable (one author).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Komasová.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent to Publish

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(XLSX 91 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Komasová, S. Possible Inspiration: Drone-Related Literature and its Potential for Public Perception Research. J Intell Robot Syst 103, 54 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-021-01498-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-021-01498-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation