Keeping pace with technology: drones, disturbance and policy deficiency

Abstract

This article analyses regulatory responses to rapid intensification of the use of drones/remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) in the context of wildlife protection.Benefits and disadvantages of the technology to wildlife are examined, before three key limitations in policy and law are identified: failure to address wildlife disturbance in RPA regulation; reliance upon insufficiently comprehensive existing wildlife protection legislation to manage disturbance effects; and limited species-specific research on disturbance. A New Zealand case study further reveals an inconsistent regulatory approach struggling to keep pace with innovation, inadequate regulatory capture of environmental effects due to exemption as "aircraft", and no recognition that specific geographical locations, such as coastal areas, distinguished by recreational pressures and high numbers of threatened species require special consideration. Recommendations include acknowledging the impact on wildlife in policy, gap analysis of legal arrangements for protection from disturbance (including airspace), and adoption of minimum approach distances to threatened species.

Drones Minimize Antarctic Predator Responses Relative to Ground Survey Methods: An Appeal for Context in Policy Advice

“…However, UAS use creates potential for negative interactions with wildlife (Lambertucci et al, 2015;Mulero-Pázmány et al, 2017;Bennitt et al, 2019). Managers and policy makers have created a patchwork of regulations to mitigate potential impacts, but policy creation and effectiveness is limited by a lack of objective data on the effects of UAS on wildlife (Linchant et al, 2015;Gomez et al, 2016;Wallace et al, 2017). Resultant appeals to ecological monitoring programs to systematically collect UAS-wildlife response data to better inform UAS guidelines (e.g., Smith et al, 2016;Mustafa et al, 2018) have produced varied results.…”

Escape responses of terrestrial and aquatic birds to drones: Towards a code of practice to minimize disturbance

“…Technological advancements and reductions in costs have underpinned a recent surge in the recreational, commercial and scientific use of drones (Sánchez‐Bou & López‐Pujol, ). Restrictions on drone use near people or houses displaces operators to natural or semi‐natural areas, places which also represent wildlife habitat (Wallace, Martin, & White, ). Drone–wildlife interactions occur when drones are within relatively close proximity to wildlife (after Weston, McLeod, Blumstein, & Guay, ) and may be unintentional or deliberate (Hodgson & Koh, ).…”

“…Given that drones occur across tenures and jurisdictions, often in publicly controlled airspace, the primary response to managing drones involves legislation. Current laws and regulations to control drone operations are human‐centric and reactionary to public concerns about privacy and the safety of piloted‐aircraft, people and homes (Civil Aviation Safety Authority, ; Parks Victoria, ; Stöcker, Bennett, Nex, Gerke, & Zevenbergen, ; Wallace et al, ). National laws to control drone operation have emerged and mandate restrictions such as minimum separation distances from people and assets (e.g.…”

A Comparative Analysis of the Legislation Evolution for Drone Use in OECD Countries

“…Drones have found applications in forest monitoring [29], illegal logging, deforestation, and smoke detection to prevent forest fires [15,30,31]. Small drones can be used for low-cost data collection for biodiversity [15], natural disasters [17,18], and wildlife monitoring and assessment [32]. Drones with executive programs can also be used for the detection of soil pollution and unknown perpetrators [33].…”