Advertisement

Obtaining Public Opinion About sUAS Activity in an Urban Environment

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1210)

Abstract

Members of the public completed a short survey to complement a larger flight demonstration and data collection exercise in Corpus Christi, Texas. Respondents were invited to share their concerns and were asked about their knowledge of small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) operations. Participants were familiar with sUAS operations and reported feeling moderately comfortable with urban area operations, reflecting this in opinions that sUAS are as safe as other modes of transport. Compared to other UAS opinion surveys, participants gave similar responses to affect questions but were more knowledgeable concerning sUAS operational regulations. At first exposure to these live sUAS flights, participants reported positive impressions about the traffic management system that was being demonstrated.

Keywords

Unmanned aerial systems UAS traffic management Autonomy Public opinion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Natalia Menking (LSUASC, Corpus Christi, Texas) who spearheaded the data collection effort in the field and trained the Visual Observers.

References

  1. 1.
    Calo, R.: The case for a federal robotics commission. Brookings Institution (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    West, J., Bowman, J.: The domestic use of drones: an ethical analysis of surveillance issues. Public Adm. Rev. 76(4), 649–659 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson, J., Grubesic, A., Wallace, D., Chamberlain, A.: The view from above: a survey on the public’s perception of unmanned aerial vehicles and privacy. J. Urban Technol. (2019). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake_Nelson2/publication/330865366
  4. 4.
    Nelson, J., Gorichanaz, T.: Trust as an ethical value in emerging technology governance: the case of drone regulation. Technol. Soc. (2019). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake_Nelson2/publication/332644353
  5. 5.
    PytlikZillig, L.M., Duncan, B., Elbaum, S., Detweile, C.: A drone by any other name: purposes, end-user trustworthiness, and framing, but not terminology, affect public support for drones. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 37(1), 80–91 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    West, J.P., Klofstad, C.A., Uscinski, J.E., Connolly, J.M.: Citizen support for domestic drone use and regulation. Am. Polit. Res. 47(1), 119–151 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zwickle, A., Farber, H., Hamm, J.: Comparing public concern and support for drone regulation to the current legal framework. Behav. Sci. Law 37, 109–124 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keller, J., Adjekum, D., Alabi, B., Kozak, B.: Measuring public utilization perception potential of unmanned aircraft systems. Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp. 5(3), 9 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clothier, R., Greer, D., Greer, D., Mehta, A.: Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Anal. 35(6), 1167–1183 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herron, K., Jenkins Smith, H. and Silva, C.: US public perspectives on privacy, security, and unmanned aircraft systems. Cent. Risk Crisis Manage. Univ. of Oklahoma (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA
  2. 2.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations