Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Public Acceptance Challenge and Its Implications for the Developing Civil Drone Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Drone Use

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 27))

Abstract

The civil use of drones offers great potential in a growing number of fields of activity and also it is believed for job creation more generally. However, there are a number of challenges that must be faced, including technical and security weaknesses; the creation of an appropriate regulatory structure; and gaining the public acceptance for widespread civil drone use. Public concern can be seen to exist over issues such as safety, privacy, nuisance, and crime. Recent research from data obtained from United Kingdom Regional Police Forces shows a growing number of drone-related complaints being made by the public. Whilst the need for the public acceptance of drones is widely recognised, and that they must be consulted over the developing uses of drones, it is vital that such consultation is carried out in a timely and meaningful way, by which the public can be confident that their concerns are being addressed. Even with a robust regulatory structure in place, there remains the key issue of enforcement, with the failure to effectively enforce the applicable regulations leading to the risk of both an increasing loss of public confidence with regulatory authorities, and a growing possibility that the public could resort to self-help methods in order to prevent drone activity they disapprove of.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It has been estimated that in Europe by 2050 150,000 drone connected jobs may be created. European Commission—Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. ‘A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe and sustainable way’. COM (2014) 207 Final 8th April 2014.

  2. 2.

    Drones were for example recently used in the aid effort following the earthquake in Nepal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32384574. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  3. 3.

    Williams and Mills 1986, p. 4.

  4. 4.

    ‘The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones.’ Understanding Empire Blog. https://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  5. 5.

    ‘On This Day: Austria Drops Balloon Bombs on Venice.’ Finding Dulcinea: Librarian of the Internet. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/July-August-08/On-this-Day--Austria-Rains-Balloon-Bombs-on-Venice.html. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  6. 6.

    UAV universe. https://sites.google.com/site/uavuni/1920s-1930s. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  7. 7.

    Riga Declaration on Remotely Piloted Aircraft (Drones)—“Framing the Future of Aviation”. Riga, 6th March 2015.

  8. 8.

    Geofencing can be seen as a virtual barrier, whereby software contained with a drone’s operating system will be written containing geographic co-ordinates that would prevent a drone flying into the geographic location represented by the co-ordinates.

  9. 9.

    G7 Summit Versailles, 4–6 June 1982. Declaration of the Seven Heads of State and Government and Representatives of the European Communities. http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/1982versailles/communique.html. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  10. 10.

    Technology, Growth and Employment. Report of the Working Group set up by the Economic Summit Meeting of 1982. House of Commons Command Paper 8818, p. 2.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 32.

  12. 12.

    Bellaby 2007, p. 248.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Technology, Growth and Employment. Report of the Working Group set up by the Economic Summit Meeting of 1982. House of Commons Command Paper 8818, p. 32.

  17. 17.

    Gupta et al. 2011.

  18. 18.

    Gupta et al. 2011, p. 786.

    The ten technologies investigated were Genetic modification; Nuclear power; ICT; Pesticides; Nanotechnology; Cloning; Mobile Phones; Hydrogen power; Genomics; and, RFID.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p. 790.

  20. 20.

    Flynn 2007, p. 12.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., p. 13.

  23. 23.

    Hagendijk et al. 2005, p. 100.

  24. 24.

    Ibid. Irwin 2007, pp. 32–36.

  25. 25.

    Hagendijk et al. 2005, p. 101.

  26. 26.

    Sciencewise. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cmc/. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  27. 27.

    All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones—‘The new parliament and drones’ 8th June 2015.

    http://appgdrones.org.uk/the-new-parliament-and-drones/. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  28. 28.

    European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document—Towards a European strategy for the development of civil applications of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. SWD (2012) 259 final. 4th September 2012.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p. 23. See the Birmingham Policy Commission Report—The Security Impact on Drones: Challenges and Opportunities for the UK, October 2014, for detailed discussion on the issues surrounding military drone usage.

  30. 30.

    European Commission—Communication to the European Parliament and the Council. ‘A new era for aviation Opening the aviation market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe and sustainable manner.’ COM/2014/0207 final 8th April 2014.

  31. 31.

    European Commission—Mobility and Transport http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/consultation/2014-civil-drones_en.htm. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  32. 32.

    EU Drone Survey Consultation Results. https://ec.europa.eu/esurvey/publication/2014-civil-drones. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  33. 33.

    This research was conducted by the author during the summer of 2015.

  34. 34.

    British Airline Pilots Association—‘Public call for tougher drone laws as pilots hold drone safety summit.’ 11th May 2015. https://www.balpa.org/News-and-campaigns/News/PUBLIC-CALL-FOR-TOUGHER-DRONE-LAWS-AS-PILOTS-HOLD.aspx. Accessed 23 September 2015. It should be noted that full details of the BALPA survey have not been published.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Civil Aviation Authority—Freedom of Information response. Reference F0002175, 23rd January 2015.

  37. 37.

    Lancashire Constabulary—Freedom of Information request 6783/15. Merseyside Police—Freedom of Information request June 2015, reference DM175/15. Dorset Police—Freedom of Information request 2015-465. Hertfordshire Constabulary—Freedom of Information request 10th June 2015. Reference FOI/506/15. South Wales Police—Freedom of Information request 220/15. 31st March 2015. West Mercia Police—Freedom of Information request RFI 6322/15. Kent Police—Freedom of Information request 15/06/554.

  38. 38.

    Merseyside Police—Freedom of Information request June 2015, reference DM175/15.

  39. 39.

    Devon & Cornwall Police—Freedom of Information request number 001380/15.

  40. 40.

    Devon & Cornwall Police—Freedom of Information request number 4638/15.

  41. 41.

    Suffolk Constabulary—Freedom of Information request, F-2015-00757.

  42. 42.

    Lincolnshire Police—Freedom of Information request, June 2015, number 002094/15.

  43. 43.

    Email received by the author from Salford City Council—5th June 2015.

  44. 44.

    Evening Standard—Drones are banned from Royal Parks amid ‘fears over impact on wildlife and visitor safety.’—9th March 2015. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drones-banned-from-royal-parks-amid-fears-over-impact-on-wildlife-and-visitor-safety-10095538.html. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  45. 45.

    The Japan Times—Drones banned from Tokyo parks. 12 May 2015. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/12/national/drones-banned-tokyo-parks/. Accessed 23 September 2015.

  46. 46.

    Civil Aviation Authority—Freedom of Information response. Reference F0002175, 23 January 2015, p. 3.

  47. 47.

    Civil Aviation Authority—Model Aircraft: A Guide to Safe Flying (CAP 658). June 2013.

  48. 48.

    Deakin et al. 2013, Chapter 13.

  49. 49.

    Hatton v United Kingdom (2003)—European Court of Human Rights (36022/97).

  50. 50.

    Norfolk Police—Freedom of Information request FOI/147/15/16. Norfolk Police have received several complaints of drones landing in the gardens of houses as well as flying over gardens.

  51. 51.

    Deakin et al. 2013, Chapter 12.

  52. 52.

    Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] Q.B. 479.

  53. 53.

    Finn et al. 2014, p. 29.

  54. 54.

    No Fly Zone. https://www.noflyzone.org/. Accessed 23 September 2015.

References

  • Bellaby P (2007) Conclusions. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 246–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin S, Johnston A, Markesinis B (2013) Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn R, Wright D, Donovan A, Jacques L, De Hert P (2014) Privacy, data protection and ethical risks in civil RPAS operations. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/8550. Accessed 22 Sept 2015

  • Flynn R (2007) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Fischer A, Frewer L (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk R, Healey P, Host M, Irwin A (2005) Science, technology and governance in Europe: challenges of public engagement. Final report of the STAGE project. http://www.academia.edu/1176609/Science_technology_and_governance_in_Europe_challenges_of_public_engagement. Accessed 11 Apr 2016

  • Irwin A (2007) Public dialogue and the scientific citizen. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 24–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams R, Mills S (eds) (1986) Public acceptance of new technologies: an international review. Croom Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Alan McKenna

Authors
  1. Alan McKenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan McKenna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, eLaw, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Custers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McKenna, A. (2016). The Public Acceptance Challenge and Its Implications for the Developing Civil Drone Industry. In: Custers, B. (eds) The Future of Drone Use. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 27. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-131-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-132-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation