Drones for parcel and passenger transport: A qualitative exploration of public acceptance

Keywords: drones; logistics; transport; urban air mobility; qualitative research

Abstract

Civil and commercial drones are on the verge of becoming a key technology of future everyday life. Stimulated by recent technological progress and increasing regulatory clarity especially larger cities are anticipated to use drones for parcel and passenger transport hoping to relieve congested inner city traffic. Despite it is first and foremost the urban population that would be affected by accessing lower airspace, only few studies addressed the public perception of using transport drones. Aiming to fill the gap of attitudinal and acceptance research in the context of drones, the article embraces the subject by presenting qualitative results of a series of five focus groups conducted in three German cities. The analysis of discussions shows that participants were largely ambivalent towards the use of drones, putting special emphasis on a variety of object-related factors (safety and security, sustainability, usefulness), subject-related factors (general perception of technology) and also context-related factors (potential societal implications of drone technology). Framed by a discussion of identified acceptance factors in the context of the present scientific debate and assessing drones’ potential social implications the article provides a profound qualitative exploration into one of the most disruptive and controversial future technologies that may transform both the transport world and urban societies.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

Applin, S. A. (2016). Deliveries by Drone: Obstacles and Sociability. In B. Custers (Ed.), The Future of Drone Use (Vol. 27, pp. 71–91). T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6_4.

Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2007). Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2904–2927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.06.005.

Barnas, A., Newman, R., Felege, C. J., Corcoran, M. P., Hervey, S. D., Stechmann, T. J., Rockwell, R. F., & Ellis‐Felege, S. N. (2018). Evaluating behavioral responses of nesting lesser snow geese to unmanned aircraft surveys. Ecology and Evolution, 8(2), 1328–1338.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage.
Becker, H. (2018). Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. In O. Bendel (Ed.), Pflegeroboter (pp. 229–248). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_13.

Benighaus, C., & Benighaus, L. (2012). Moderation, Gesprächsaufbau und Dynamik in Fokusgruppen. In M. Schulz, B. Mack, & O. Renn (Eds.), Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft (pp. 111–132). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19397-7_6.

Boucher, P. (2016). ‘You Wouldn’t have Your Granny Using Them’: Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1391–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9720-7.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.

BMVI - Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. (2020). Unbemannte Luftfahrtsysteme und innovative Luftfahrtkonzepte: Aktionsplan der Bundesregierung. https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/DG/aktionsplan-drohnen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

Chamata, J. (2017). Factors Delaying the Adoption of Civil Drones: A Primitive Framework. The International Technology Management Review, 6(4), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.2991/itmr.2017.6.4.1.

Chamata, J., & Winterton, J. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for the Acceptance of Drones. The International Technology Management Review, 7(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.2991/itmr.7.1.4.

Chang, V., Chundury, P., & Chetty, M. (2017). Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17, 6765–6776. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025632.

Cheng, Y.-M., Lou, S.-J., Kuo, S.-H., & Shih, R.-C. (2013). Investigating elementary school students’ technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65.

Christen, M., Guillaume, M., Jablonowski, M., Lenhart, P., & Moll, K. (2018). Zivile Drohnen—Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. vdf. http://vdf.ch/zivile-drohnen-herausforderungen-und-perspektiven-e-book.html.

Clarke, R. (2014). The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioural privacy. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.005.

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. F. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. F. Crabtree & W. F. Miller (Eds.), Research methods for primary care, Vol. 3—Doing qualitative research (pp. 93–109). Sage Publications.

Dannenberger, N., Schmid-Loertzer, V., Liliann Fischer, Schwarzbach, V., Kellermann, R., & Biehle, T. (2020). Traffic solution or technical hype? Representative population survey on delivery drones and air taxis in Germany. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.17542.40003

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

Department for Transport. (2016). Public dialogue on drone use in the UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579550/drones-uk-public-dialogue.pdf.

Ditmer, M. A., Werden, L. K., Tanner, J. C., Vincent, J. B., Callahan, P., Iaizzo, P. A., Laske, T. G., & Garshelis, D. L. (2019). Bears habituate to the repeated exposure of a novel stimulus, unmanned aircraft systems. Conservation Physiology, 7(1), coy067.

Eißfeldt, H., Vogelpohl, V., Stolz, M., Papenfuß, A., Biella, M., Belz, J., & Kügler, D. (2020). The acceptance of civil drones in Germany. CEAS Aeronautical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-020-00447-w.

European RPAS Steering Group. (2013). Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems into the European Aviation System: Final report from the European RPAS Steering Group. https://uvs-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/European-RPAS-Roadmap_130620.pdf.

EASA. (2019). EU wide rules on drones published. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/eu-wide-rules-drones-published.

European Commission. (2019). European Commission adopts rules on operating drones. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/news/2019-05-24-rules-operating-drones_en.

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.

Figliozzi, M. A. (2017). Lifecycle modeling and assessment of unmanned aerial vehicles (Drones) CO 2 e emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.011.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389. https://doi.org/10.2307/249720.

Goodchild, A., & Toy, J. (2018). Delivery by drone: An evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in reducing CO 2 emissions in the delivery service industry. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 61, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.02.017.

Gregg, P. (2019). Risk in the Sky? Impact tests prove large aircraft won’t always win in collision with small drones. https://udayton.edu/udri/news/18-09-13-risk-in-the-sky.php.

Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. KIT Scientific Publishing.

Hård, M., & Jamison, A. (2005). Hubris and hybrids: A cultural history of technology and science. Routledge.

ICAO. (2019). State of Global Aviation Safety. https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2019_final_web.pdf.

Jakobs, E.-M., Lehnen, K., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Alter und Technik: Studie zu Technikkonzepten, Techniknutzung und Technikbewertung älterer Menschen. Apprimus-Verl.

Kellermann, R., Biehle, T., & Fischer, L. (2020). Drones for parcel and passenger transportation: A literature review. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 4, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100088.

Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., & Ziefle, M. (2017). Droning on About Drones—Acceptance of and Perceived Barriers to Drones in Civil Usage Contexts. In P. Savage-Knepshield & J. Chen (Eds.), Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (Vol. 499, pp. 317–329). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41959-6_26.

Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., & Ziefle, M. (2018). The Sky’s (Not) the Limit—Influence of Expertise and Privacy Disposition on the Use of Multicopters. In J. Chen (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (Vol. 595, pp. 270–281). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60384-1_26.
Lucke, D. (1995). Akzeptanz: Legitimität in der „Abstimmungsgesellschaft“. Leske & Budrich.

Mayring, P. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse—Ein Beispiel für Mixed Methods. In M. Gläser-Zikuda, T. Seidel, C. Rohlfs, A. Gröschner, & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (Eds.), Mixed methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung (pp. 27–36). Waxmann.

McKinnon, A., Floethmann, C., Hoberg, K., & Busch, C. (2017). Logistics Competencies, Skills, and Training: A Global Overview. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1140-1.

NASA. (2019). Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Market Study. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190001472.pdf.

Nelson, J. R., Grubesic, T. H., Wallace, D., & Chamberlain, A. W. (2019). The View from Above: A Survey of the Public’s Perception of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Privacy. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2018.1551106.

Nentwich, M., & Horváth, D. M. (2018). Delivery drones from a technology assessment perspective. Institute for Technology Assessement Vienna (ITA). http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/2018-01.pdf.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet adoption by the elderly: Employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.19.

Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., & Ciani, L. (2017). Reliability assessment of UAV systems. 2017 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1109/MetroAeroSpace.2017.7999577.

Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H., & Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Internet Research, 14(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410542652.

Pomeroy, P., O’connor, L., & Davies, P. (2015). Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(3), 102–113.

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

Rothfeld, R., Mengying Fu, & Constantinos Antoniou. (2019). Analysis of Urban Air Mobility’s Transport Performance in Munich Metropolitan Region. Unpublished. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.15444.42886.

Schäfer, M., & Keppler, D. (2013). Modelle der technikorientierten Akzeptanzforschung. Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft, TU Berlin. https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/4758.

Schulz, M. (2012). Quick and easy!? Fokusgruppen in der angewandten Sozialwissenschaft. In M. Schulz, B. Mack, & O. Renn (Eds.), Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft (pp. 9–22). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19397-7_1.

SESAR Joint Undertaking. (2016). European Drones Outlook Study Unlocking the value for Europe. https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/European_Drones_Outlook_Study_2016.pdf.

SESAR Joint Undertaking. (2018). European ATM Master Plan—Roadmap for the safe integration of drones into all classes of airspace. https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/European%20ATM%20Master%20Plan%20Drone%20roadmap.pdf.

Simmel, G. (2004). The philosophy of money (D. Frisby, Ed.; 3rd enl. ed). Routledge.

Soffronoff, J., Piscioneri, P., & Weaver, A. (2016). Public Perception of Drone Delivery in the United States (RARC Report Report Number RARC-WP-17-001). https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2016/RARC_WP-17-001.pdf.

UAV Coach. (2019). Drone Parachute Systems Provide a Path to Flights Over People. https://uavcoach.com/drone-parachute-system/.

University of Surrey, & Wu, P. (2012). A Mixed Methods Approach to Technology Acceptance Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00287.

Vascik, P. D., & Hansman, R. J. (2018, June 25). Scaling Constraints for Urban Air Mobility Operations: Air Traffic Control, Ground Infrastructure, and Noise. 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3849.

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981.

Wang, Y., Xia, H., Yao, Y., & Huang, Y. (2016). 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(3), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2016-0022.

West, J. P., Klofstad, C. A., Uscinski, J. E., & Connolly, J. M. (2019). Citizen Support for Domestic Drone Use and Regulation. American Politics Research, 47(1), 119–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18782208.

Wichmann, F., Sill, J., Hassenstein, M. J., Zeeb, H., & Pischke, C. R. (2019). Apps zur Förderung von körperlicher Aktivität: Einstellungen, Nutzungspräferenzen und Akzeptanz bei Erwachsenen im Alter von 50 Jahren und älter: Ergebnisse von Fokusgruppendiskussionen. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 14(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-018-0678-6.

Yao, Y., Xia, H., Huang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2017). Free to Fly in Public Spaces: Drone Controllers’ Privacy Perceptions and Practices. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6789–6793. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026049.

Yoo, W., Yu, E., & Jung, J. (2018). Drone delivery: Factors affecting the public’s attitude and intention to adopt. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1687–1700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.014.

Ziefle, M. (2013). Ungewissheit und Unsicherheit bei der Einführung neuer Technologien. In S. Jeschke, E.-M. Jakobs, & A. Dröge (Eds.), Exploring Uncertainty (pp. 83–104). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00897-0_5.
Published
25/11/2020