Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20150027818</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20150914110144.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">150831e20150827esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">7</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones </subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Reece A. Clothier... [et al.]</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Unmanned aircraft, or drones, are a rapidly emerging sector of the aviation industry. There has been limited substantive research, however, into the public perception and acceptance of drones. This article presents the results from two surveys of the Australian public designed to investigate (1) whether the public perceive drones to be riskier than existing manned aviation, (2) whether the terminology used to describe the technology influences public perception, and (3) what the broader concerns are that may influence public acceptance of the technology. We find that the Australian public currently hold a relatively neutral attitude toward drones. Respondents did not consider the technology to be overly unsafe, risky, beneficial, or threatening. Drones are largely viewed as being of comparable risk to that of existing manned aviation. Furthermore, terminology had a minimal effect on the perception of the risks or acceptability of the technology. The neutral response is likely due to a lack of knowledge about the technology, which was also identified as the most prevalent public concern as opposed to the risks associated with its use. Privacy, military use, and misuse (e.g., terrorism) were also significant public concerns. The results suggest that society is yet to form an opinion of drones. As public knowledge increases, the current position is likely to change. Industry communication and media coverage will likely influence the ultimate position adopted by the public, which can be difficult to change once established.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080550592</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Encuestas</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20140013838</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Drones</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080602871</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Percepción del riesgo</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080638146</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Australia</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077000345</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Risk analysis : an international journal</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">McLean, Virginia : Society for Risk Analysis, 1987-2015</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">0272-4332</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">01/06/2015 Volumen 35 Número 6 - junio 2015 , p. 1167-1183</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>