Droning on About Drones—Acceptance of and Perceived Barriers to Drones in Civil Usage Contexts

  • Chantal LidyniaEmail author
  • Ralf Philipsen
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 499)


The word “drone” is commonly associated with the military. However, the same term is also used for multicopters that can be and are used by civilians for a multitude of purposes. Nowadays, drones are tested for commercial delivery of goods or building inspections. A survey of 200 people, laypersons and active users, on their acceptance and perceived barriers for drone use was conducted. In the present work, user requirements for civil drones in different usage scenarios with regard to appearance, routing, and autonomy could be identified. User diversity strongly influences both acceptance and perceived barriers. It was found that laypeople rather feared the violation of their privacy whereas active drone pilots saw more of a risk in possible accidents. Drones deployed for emergency scenarios should be clearly recognizable by their outward appearance. Also, participants had clear expectations regarding the routes drones should and should not be allowed to use.


Civil drones Usage contexts User requirements Barriers Technology acceptance Piloting experience Human factors 



The authors thank all participants for their patience and openness to share opinions on a novel technology. Furthermore, thanks go to Dennis Lohse for his research assistance.


  1. 1.
    Clothier, R.A., Greer, D.A., Greer, D.G., Mehta, A.M.: Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Anal. 35(6), 1167–1183 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boucher, P.: Domesticating the drone: the demilitarisation of unmanned aircraft for civil markets. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21(6), 1393–1412 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Villasenor, J.: Drones and the future of domestic aviation. Proc. IEEE 102(3), 235–238 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finn, R.L., Wright, D.: Unmanned aircraft systems: surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 28(2), 184–194 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracken-Roche, C., Lyon, D., Mansour, M.J., Molnar, A., Saulnier, A., Thompson, S.: Surveillance drones: privacy implications of the spread of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Canada. In: Surveillance Studies Centre, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross, P.E.: Open-source drones for fun and profit. Spectr. IEEE 51(3), 54–59 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grenzdörffer, G.J., Engel, A., Teichert, B.: The Photogrammetric Potential of Low-cost UAVs in Forestry and Agriculture. Int. Arch. Photogrammetry, Rem. Sens. Spat. Inform. Sci. 31(B3), 1207–2014 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandbrook, C.: The Social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 44(Suppl 4), 636–647 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DHL: unmanned aerial vehicles in logistics. A DHL perspective on implications and use cases for the logistics industry. In: DHL, Troisdorf, (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agatz, N., Bouman, P., Schmidt, M.: Optimization approaches for the traveling salesman problem with drone. In: ERIM Report Series, vol. Reference No. ERS-2015-011-LIS. (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hallermann, N., Morgenthal, G.: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for the assessment of existing structures. IABSE Symp. Rep. 101(14), 1–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ravich, T.R.: Commercial drones and the phantom menace. J. Int. Media and Entertainment Law 5(2), 175–213 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colomina, I., Molina, P.: Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: a review. ISPRS J Photogrammetry and Rem. Sens. 92, 79–97 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perritt Jr., H.H., Sprague, E.O.: Drones. (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Juul, M.: Civil drones in the european union. In: European Parliamentary Research Service (ed.). European Union, (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    House of Lords: Civilian Use of Drones in the EU. In: 7th Report of Session 2014-15. HL Paper 122. European Union Committee, London, (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacSween-George, S.L.: A public opinion survey- unmanned aerial vehicles for cargo, commercial, and passenger transportation. Paper presented at the 2nd AIAA, San Diego, California, September 15–18, 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boucher, P.: You wouldn’t have your granny using them: drawing boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable applications of civil drones. science and engineering ethics (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hermanns, A.: Anwender-Akzeptanz und Bewertung unbemannter Flugsysteme (Drohnen) im Katastrophenschutz. Theorie, Empirie, regulatorische Implikationen. Zivile Sicherheit, vol. 6. LIT Verlag, Münster (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugung im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep. Psychol. 24(9), 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chantal Lidynia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ralf Philipsen
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations