| Title |
The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-015-0714-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Sandbrook |
| Abstract |
Unmanned aerial vehicles, or 'drones', appear to offer a flexible, accurate and affordable solution to some of the technical challenges of nature conservation monitoring and law enforcement. However, little attention has been given to their possible social impacts. In this paper, I review the possible social impacts of using drones for conservation, including on safety, privacy, psychological wellbeing, data security and the wider understanding of conservation problems. I argue that negative social impacts are probable under some circumstances and should be of concern for conservation for two reasons: (1) because conservation should follow good ethical practice; and (2) because negative social impacts could undermine conservation effectiveness in the long term. The paper concludes with a call for empirical research to establish whether the identified social risks of drones occur in reality and how they could be mitigated, and for self-regulation of drone use by the conservation sector to ensure good ethical practice and minimise the risk of unintended consequences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 40% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Philippines | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 30 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 17 | 34% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 639 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 629 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 131 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 86 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 80 | 13% |
| Researcher | 71 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 5% |
| Other | 108 | 17% |
| Unknown | 129 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 145 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 115 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 58 | 9% |
| Engineering | 57 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 4% |
| Other | 92 | 14% |
| Unknown | 145 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2023.
All research outputs
#776,056
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#104
of 1,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,648
of 296,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.