Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the ethical considerations of using drones in humanitarian contexts and develop recommendations to address safety, privacy, and regulatory concerns. Humanitarian drones are predominately used to support disaster prevention, relief, and global health missions. Despite clear benefits of using drones for humanitarian missions, evidence of drones’ military past is still present, raising serious ethical concerns. Due to the rapid evolution of this technology, drone regulations are lagging, which only adds to these collective concerns. Widespread regulatory change is needed to guide ethical drone use. The recommendations developed in this paper can be used by public agencies and volunteer organizations to guide their drone use in humanitarian contexts. These recommendations include implementing standards that combine the principles outlined in the Framework for the Ethics Assessment of Humanitarian Drones (FEAHD) and proactive aviation Safety Management Systems (SMSs) to address safety and privacy concerns.
Introduction
Humanitarian drones are predominately used to support disaster prevention, relief, and global health missions (Emery, 2016). According to a report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2021), by mid-2020, nearly 2,500 public safety agencies were using drones, with over 10,000 drones registered to these agencies. The commercial drone industry, which encompasses public safety drones, is continuously growing with an expected cumulative annual growth rate between 3.1% and 6.9% compared to the expected 1.6% for recreational drones (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2023). Volunteer organizations, such as search and rescue teams that work closely with public safety agencies, are also seeing a rise in drone usage for humanitarian purposes. These drones can serve public safety agencies and volunteer organizations by providing transportation and delivery services, monitoring emergencies, and increasing communication and technological integration within the team (Rejeb et al., 2021).
Despite the clear benefits of using drones to assist in humanitarian missions, the political landscape that shaped the development of this technology creates serious ethical concerns (Gendron, 2011; Sandvik & Lohne, 2014). Ethical concerns refer to considerations about what is morally right or wrong, encompassing issues such as safety, privacy, accountability, impacts on the victim’s affective state, and broader societal consequences (Battistuzzi et al., 2021; Emery, 2016; Rejeb et al., 2021; Sandvik & Jumbert, 2017; Sandvik & Lohne, 2014; Tatsidou et al., 2019; van Wynsberghe & Comes, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). The role of specific technologies in society is shaped by their interactions with people (Gendron, 2011), and drones’ historical association with warfare and surveillance creates complex issues that bleed into their humanitarian use (Sandvik & Lohne, 2014).
The reality is that evidence of drone’s military past is still present in the minds of consumers and the victims involved in humanitarian missions (Tatsidou et al., 2019). Even the word “drone” has a negative connotation among humanitarian and commercial operators who aim to distance themselves from the aircraft’s military past. Other military inventions, such as GPS and radar, have been repurposed, and public perception surrounding their use has evolved away from their military origins. However, drones are still widely associated with war, target killings, and conflict, propagating ethical concerns that have the potential to erode public trust in humanitarian efforts (Emery, 2016; Tatsidou et al., 2019).
The complex sociotechnical landscape surrounding drone deployment encompasses the interplay between technological capabilities, societal norms, and regulatory frameworks. The rapid evolution of drone technology has outpaced current regulations, exacerbating existing concerns and stifling innovation (Calandrillo et al., 2020). There is a pressing need for comprehensive regulatory change to ensure ethical drone use. The current sociotechnical landscape creates dynamic ethical concerns, such as privacy violations, safety risks, and accountability issues, that must be addressed before using drones in humanitarian contexts. The recommendations provided in this work can inform regulatory changes to foster safe and ethical drone use.
Drawing from relevant literature and illustrating these challenges through a case study approach, we consider the ethical implications of humanitarian drone use, specifically in post-disaster search and rescue mission contexts. Historically, disaster victims have been greeted by human volunteers or first responders. Now, drones allow response teams to reach victims much faster (Wankmüller et al., 2021). A case study described in the next section underscores how broader issues in current humanitarian drone operations, such as the lack of standardized ethical frameworks and practices, can foster increased uncertainty, vulnerability, and discomfort for the victims in these scenarios.
Illustrative Example
In a typical search and rescue mission, a humanitarian organization may deploy drones to locate missing persons in a remote, disaster-affected area. For example, a powerful earthquake in a remote but well-populated mountainous region could cause widespread destruction that leaves many individuals trapped under debris. The widespread destruction may make it challenging to leverage traditional search and rescue methods; thus, humanitarian organizations are turning to drones equipped with cameras and advanced sensors to speed up operations (Wankmüller et al., 2021). The team assesses the area, and drones are deployed. The drones fly over residential housing and commercial areas where there may be missing persons to capture real-time data, which is sent back to the incident command team for analysis. This data helps the rescue team identify potential locations of trapped individuals and plan subsequent efforts (Tatsidou et al., 2019). The team may also deploy drones carrying a payload to deliver medical supplies to the injured victims. Imagine being a disaster victim greeted by an unemotional machine instead of a comforting human, an inherently unsettling experience (Battistuzzi et al., 2021).
This brief example highlights a range of ethical and operational challenges. Although drones offer the advantage of rapid area coverage, they also risk capturing footage of private property and individuals (Finn & Wright, 2012). Further, the challenging terrain could increase the likelihood of technical malfunctions, jeopardizing mission safety (Rejeb et al., 2021). The current approach to humanitarian drone use faces several ethical and operational challenges, including the lack of a guiding ethical framework, inadequate safety measures, and privacy violations (Battistuzzi et al., 2021; Tatsidou et al., 2019). To our knowledge, no established ethical guidelines drive drone operations across humanitarian organizations, leading to the potential misuse of drone-collected data and increased public scrutiny over unwarranted surveillance. Further, the ad hoc nature of many of these missions requires drone operators to make quick decisions. The absence of structured standard operating procedures for drone use in these contexts increases the risk of drone malfunctions, potentially causing accidents or mission failures (Rejeb et al., 2021). Without the guidance of standard procedures, unintended or perceived misuse may persist, adding to the public’s concern regarding unwanted surveillance and drone misuse.
Ethical Concerns
Through a systematic literature review, Wang et al. (2021) pinpointed eleven key areas of concern, which we have categorized into four main groups for the purposes of this paper: (a) safety, (b) privacy, (c) human-drone relationship, and (d) regulatory gaps. This categorization not only organizes the concerns for clearer analysis but also highlights the most pressing challenges in humanitarian drone operations, offering a structured approach to understanding and addressing these issues.
Safety Concerns
Safety in humanitarian drone use is particularly critical due to the significant risks involved in these missions. Typically, humanitarian drones are employed to increase the safety of human responders (Battistuzzi et al., 2021; Wankmüller et al., 2021). Unfortunately, similar devices like rescue robots have been shown to generate new safety risks, such as technical malfunctions and accidents (Finn & Wright, 2012). Humanitarian drones must be highly reliable, as system failures can lead to mission-critical delays and jeopardize safety.
Moreover, these drones operate in adverse conditions (e.g., disaster-stricken areas) and must be able to withstand these conditions. Due to the complex environments in which these drones operate, safety issues are often more pronounced in humanitarian contexts compared to other types of drone use (Rejeb et al., 2021). Humanitarian teams need to develop resilient systems that can anticipate drone malfunctions and minimize harm by balancing reactive and proactive safety approaches (Hollnagel, 2012), such as anticipating off-nominal events while implementing measures to ensure graceful extensibility and sustained adaptability (Woods, 2015). In the dynamic context of humanitarian relief and emergency response, the ability of teams to consistently adapt to their evolving environment is vital for effective and sustained operations.
The primary ethical obligation of humanitarianism is to maintain neutrality and do no harm (Emery, 2016). Presently, ambiguous and occasionally overly restrictive drone regulations hinder safe operations in post-disaster situations (Calandrillo et al., 2020; Tatsidou et al., 2019). In the fast-paced emergency response environment, meeting the high demands of lengthy regulatory processes (e.g., flight approvals) is challenging (Tatsidou et al., 2019). Further, there are no specific regulations for drone use in these contexts, and many countries entirely lack well-defined drone regulations (Rejeb et al., 2021; Tatsidou et al., 2019). Ensuring drones are safe, meaning reliable contributors rather than subtractors of system resilience, directly correlates with the ethical duty to protect both the human responders and the affected populations. Any failure in this regard could be considered an ethical violation, where the intended aid becomes a source of harm (Wang et al., 2021).
Privacy Concerns
Privacy is a fundamental human right, and there is a strong sense of public fear concerning unwarranted drone surveillance (Calandrillo et al., 2020; Finn & Wright, 2012; Gendron, 2011; Rogers & Scally, 2018; Zwickle et al., 2019). Aerial surveillance is generally viewed as invasive, and drone use is blurring the lines for what is defined as “private property.” For example, drones used in search and rescue contexts could inadvertently record footage while flying over nearby neighborhoods. This footage could be obtained by the police and used to prosecute without requiring a search warrant, as illustrated in California versus Ciraolo (Finn & Wright, 2012).
It is vital to consider privacy concerns when considering humanitarian drone use to ensure that these efforts do not inadvertently infringe upon personal freedoms (Finn & Wright, 2012). Privacy concerns can significantly impact public support of drone missions, regardless of the purpose of the mission (Zwickle et al., 2019). If the public perceives drones as tools for invasive surveillance rather than instruments of aid, this can undermine trust in humanitarian organizations and hinder their efforts. Addressing these concerns proactively can help build public trust and support for drone technology in emergency response efforts.
Although the public generally supports more restrictive regulations to address privacy concerns (Zwickle et al., 2019), current drone requirements themselves create privacy issues (Calandrillo et al., 2020). Stringent regulations and public apprehension can restrict the deployment of drones, even in critical situations where their use could save lives (Calandrillo et al., 2020). Ensuring robust privacy protections increases public trust and enhances the effectiveness and ethical integrity of humanitarian drone operations.
Human-drone Relationship
The human-drone relationship is unique in humanitarian contexts (van Wynsberghe & Comes, 2020). Trust between responders and victims is vital for the success of humanitarian missions. However, drone use for military purposes has historically dominated international media coverage (Sandvik & Lohne, 2014). As a result, introducing drones into humanitarian use contexts can significantly undermine trust in humanitarian missions (Kaufmann, 2017). Despite the growing popularity of beneficial rather than destructive drone applications, the negative connotation associated with drones persists, especially in war-torn countries (Sandvik & Jumbert, 2017). Consequently, regardless of the aid drones provide, many individuals remain wary, fearing that even “good” drones may one day revert to harmful uses.
As drones become increasingly autonomous, they can assist with more complex cognitive tasks like decision-making (Kaufmann, 2017). For example, in search and rescue, drones can use statistical models to determine which areas to search. However, this raises new ethical concerns considering that algorithmic decision-making is often based on logic statements that are removed from social and emotional knowledge key to successful humanitarian missions (Kaufmann, 2017). This can take the humanness out of humanitarian relief, minimizing the interpersonal and emotional aspects that are so valuable for mission success (Emery, 2016).
Given the unique aspects of the human-drone relationship in humanitarian contexts, it is crucial to consider these dynamics from a regulatory standpoint. The rapid evolution of drone technology is outpacing the development of governing regulations (Zwickle et al., 2019). There are currently no explicit standard operating procedures regarding drone use in these contexts nor for the algorithms guiding drone automation, leading to uncertainty that can cause “a perceived risk of arbitrary decisions on the part of local authorities” (Wang et al., 2021, p. 51). Implementing regulatory frameworks that have provisions for fostering and maintaining trust across the different interest groups can promote more ethical humanitarian drone missions while increasing public trust and acceptance. An individual’s trust in an automated system evolves over time based on circumstances and past experiences (Chiou & Lee, 2021). Addressing these regulatory gaps may, therefore, have the potential to affect appropriate adoption of humanitarian drones more broadly in the future, improving the human-drone relationship and allay concerns surrounding safety, privacy, and human-drone interaction (Rejeb et al., 2021).
Recommendations
To effectively use drones in humanitarian contexts, we propose an integrative framework that leverages Wang et al.’s (2022) FEAHD, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2024) SMS principles, and Cavoukian’s (2012) Privacy by Design (PbD) principles. This integration serves as a robust foundation for developing safe, resilient systems that also prioritize ethical considerations. The aim is to help humanitarian organizations navigate regulatory uncertainties and build public trust more effectively. The integrative framework is described as follows:
Develop an ethical safety policy. Policies guiding humanitarian drone use must incorporate ethical guidelines from the FEAHD (Wang et al., 2022), safety commitments from SMS (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024), and privacy safeguards derived from PbD principles (Cavoukian, 2012). These policies should provide clear directives on ethical drone use, ensuring all operations align with core humanitarian values, such as safeguarding justice and respecting autonomy (Wang et al., 2022). Embed SMS safety commitments by setting clear safety objectives and defining risk management strategies (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024). To ensure that privacy considerations are built into system design and operational protocols, policies should mandate that only necessary data is collected and transparency is maintained about data usage (Cavoukian, 2012).
Conduct ethical and safety assessments. Regularly assess drone operations for ethical implications, safety risks, and privacy concerns using a combined checklist derived from all three frameworks. This ensures that all aspects of drone use are systematically reviewed and potential issues are identified and addressed promptly. Use scenario-based evaluations, similar to mission training currently used in search and rescue, to test how policies and procedures hold up in various conditions to ensure that ethical considerations are robustly addressed across different operational contexts.
Implement proactive measures. Although several agencies work proactively to address safety risks, combining SMS’s risk management processes (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024) and FEAHD’s decision chain (Wang et al., 2022) will ensure that ethical considerations remain central to decision-making during drone design and operations. Applying SMS’s systematic risk management process to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks allows the team to develop detailed protocols tailored to the unique challenges of humanitarian drone operations. Further, evaluating the ethical preparedness of the organization, identifying guiding values, and systematically navigating ethical dilemmas through the FEAHD ensures that ethical considerations are involved in every step of the decision-making process during the mission (Wang et al., 2022).
Continuous monitoring and improvement. Establish continuous monitoring systems to track the performance and safety of drone operations, drawing from SMS safety assurance guidelines (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024). Incorporate feedback to improve ethical practices, safety measures, and privacy protections. Although several agencies already conduct debriefing exercises after each mission (Savoia et al., 2012), the proposed approach based on SMS allows for real-time identification and mitigation of issues. The proactive stance helps prevent problems from arising rather than focusing on correcting problems as they occur (Hollnagel, 2012). Obtaining feedback from multiple sources, including drone operators, responders, and affected communities, ensures a more complete understanding of the operation, allowing the organization to make informed and lasting improvements.
Foster a culture of responsibility by increasing transparency and community involvement. Promote a culture of ethical responsibility, safety, and privacy within the organization through ongoing training and community engagement. Providing transparent information to local communities impacted by drone operations, addressing their concerns, and involving them in decision-making can enhance public perception, trust, and reinforce organizational accountability (Rogers & Scally, 2018; van Wynsberghe & Comes, 2020). Practices that appear transparent but result in obscured information can harm public trust (Ananny & Crawford, 2018); therefore, it is crucial to inform surrounding neighborhoods impacted by humanitarian drone use before operation.
Use one drone for one purpose. While drones’ modularity is a huge functional benefit, using a single drone for multiple situations can have negative psychological impacts on aid recipients (Emery, 2016; Sandvik & Jumbert, 2017). As such, it is recommended that one drone be restricted to one purpose. Drones being used for military purposes should not be repurposed for humanitarian use, and vice versa. Using the same drone for both harm and good degrades aid recipients’ trust in the technology and the agencies using the technology (Sandvik & Jumbert, 2017).
By adopting an integrated approach, humanitarian organizations can address the limitations of current regulatory processes and existing guidelines for drone use in these contexts. While existing frameworks often fall short in addressing the complex interplay of ethical considerations (van Wynsberghe & Comes, 2020), this integrated approach offers a comprehensive solution. Specifically, it can inform the development of detailed operational guidelines, training programs, and real-time decision-making protocols for humanitarian drone missions. Humanitarian organizations, policymakers, and governing agencies can use this framework to create more effective regulations and practices that ensure drones enhance mission effectiveness while upholding human rights, public safety, and privacy. Our approach addresses gaps in existing regulations and provides a structured method for evaluating and improving drone operations, offering a robust foundation for ethical and effective humanitarian aid.
Conclusion
Drones enable operational flexibility, decrease response times, reduce emergency response costs, and increase the safety of responders in humanitarian contexts (Rejeb et al., 2021; Wankmüller et al., 2021). Yet, the current lack of ethical standards propagates public distrust of the technology and, consequently, the agencies using the technology. To address this gap, we propose implementing standards that combine features of the FEAHD (Wang et al., 2022) and proactive aviation SMS principles (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024). These standards must be consistent across organizations, with shared outcomes to facilitate mutual learning. Presently, SMS requirements are limited to certain manned operations and aircraft manufacturers (Safety Management Systems, 2024). However, there is a clear need for SMS principles to extend to other areas of aviation, including drones. Furthermore, the PbD framework posits that privacy protections should be built in as a default setting (Cavoukian, 2012), especially when developing drone systems for humanitarian relief. This would limit the potential for unwarranted aerial surveillance and address public privacy concerns.
Emotional and experiential knowledge are vital to humanitarian missions. The decisions made during these missions must not be solely based on logical algorithmic models that cannot factor in this knowledge. Combining the FEAHD (Wang et al., 2022) and proactive SMS principles (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2024) enables agencies to use experiential knowledge to drive safe and ethical drone use through a dynamic risk management approach. The future of humanitarian drone use hinges on our ability to implement a cohesive framework that integrates ethical standards, safety protocols, and privacy safeguards, transforming drones from controversial tools into beacons of effective and trustworthy humanitarian intervention.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
