Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones

Risk Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1167-1183

  Clothier, Reece A ^a   Greer, Dominique A ^b   Greer, Duncan G ^c   Mehta, Amisha M ^b  

^a RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^c QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Drones; Remotely piloted aircraft; Risk communication; Risk perception; Unmanned aircraft systems

Indexed keywords

AIRCRAFT; AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATION; DRONES; PUBLIC RISKS; TERMINOLOGY;

AVIATION INDUSTRY; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT; RISK COMMUNICATION; UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM; UNMANNED AIRCRAFTS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

AIRCRAFT; COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION; TERMINOLOGY;

AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84937073724     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12330     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 1986; 6(4):403-415.
2. Palmer J, Clothier R. Analysis of the applicability of existing airworthiness classification schemes to the unmanned aircraft fleet. Pp. 228-244 in Proceedings of 15th Australian International Aerospace Congress (AIAC15). February 25-28, 2013, Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
3. Clothier R, Walker R. The safety risk management of unmanned aircraft systems. Pp. 2229-2275. Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 1st ed., Chap. 92. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media BV, 2014.
4. Speijker L, Lee X, Van de Leijgraaf R. Framework for unmanned aircraft systems safety risk management. SAE International Journal of Aerospace, 2011; 4(2):1228-1242.
5. Clothier RA, Palmer JL, Walker RA, Fulton NL. Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems. Safety Science, 2011; 49(6):871-885.
6. Oztekin A, Flass C, Lee X. Development of a framework to determine a mandatory safety baseline for unmanned aircraft systems. Journal of Intelligent Robot Systems, 2012; 65(1-4):3-26.
7. Weibel R, Hansman R. Safety considerations for operation of different classes of UAVS in the NAS. In Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 3rd "Unmanned Unlimited" Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, Chicago, IL, September 20-22, 2004.
8. Dalamagkidis K, Valavanis KP, Piegl LA. On Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System. SG Tzafestas (eds). Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.
9. Lum CW, Gauksheim K, Deseure C, et al. Assessing and estimating risk of operating unmanned aerial systems in populated areas. In Proceedings of the 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, September 20-22, 2011.
10. Lum CW, Waggoner B. A risk based paradigm and model for unmanned aerial systems in the national airspace. Pp. 272-302 in Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference and Exhibit, St. Louis, MO, March 29-31, 2011.
11. Clothier RA, Walker RA, Fulton NL, Campbell D. A casualty risk analysis for unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations over inhabited areas. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australian International Aerospace Congress (AIAC-12), 2nd Australasian Unmanned Air Vehicles Conference, Melbourne, Australia, March 19-22, 2007.
12. Roadmap for the Integration of Civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems into the European Aviation System. Brussels, Belgium: European RPAS Steering Group, 2013 June.
13. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, et al. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
14. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9(2):127-152.
15. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280-285.
16. Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C. Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 1984; 17(2):123-139.
17. Otway HJ, Winterfeldt DV. Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sciences, 1982; 14(3):247-256.
18. MacSween-George SL. A public opinion survey - Unmanned aerial vehicles for cargo, commercial, and passenger transportation. In Proceedings of the AIAA "Unmanned Unlimited" Systems, Technologies, and Operations Conference, San Diego, CA, September 15-18, 2003.
19. MacSween-George SL. Will the public accept UAVS for cargo and passenger transportation? Pp. 357-367 in Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 8-15, 2003.
20. Reason-republic opinion survey: February 2013 topline results. Available at: http://reason.com/assets/db/13620384648046.pdf, Accessed September 30, 2014.
21. The AP-National Constitutional Center poll August, 2012. Available at: http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-NCC%20Poll%20August%20GfK%202012%20Topline%20FINAL_PRIVACY.pdf, Accessed September 30, 2014.
22. Lynn F. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 1999; 28(6):569-574.
23. Renn O, Benighaus C. Perception of technological risk: Insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 2013; 16(3-4):292-313.
24. Sjöberg L. Risk perception and societal response. Pp. 661-675 in Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, Chap. 25. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2012.
25. Wahlberg AAF, Sjöberg L. Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 2000; 3(1):31-50.
26. Friedman SM, Egolf BP. A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(11):1701-1717.
27. Smith AE, Humphreys MS. Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 2006; 38(2):262-279.
28. Faulkner Rogers J. The public view: British attitudes to drone warfare and targeted killing. Pp. 7-17 in Hitting the Target? How New Capabilities are Shaping International Intervention. Whitehall, London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, 2013.
29. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Public perception of the risk of blood transfusion. Pp. 235-244 in The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception, Chap. 14. New York: Earthscan, 2010.
30. Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 1986; 6(4):403-415.
31. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 1988; 8(2):177-187.
32. Melchers RE. On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2001; 71(2):201-208.