In 1889, the first ever portable camera was unveiled, revolutionizing the world of photography (Fischer et al., 1). 30 years later, the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV or drone) was constructed in 1918 to attack enemies over short distances during WWI (Estrada and Ndoma, 375). Later, in 2006, UAVs were first utilized for humanitarian aid as surveillance technology in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and then in 2010, to provide satellite imagery after the Haiti Earthquake (Wynsberghe & Comes, 2019). Drones proved to be very helpful in humanitarian aid but were still not widely used in the humanitarian field. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, worldwide use of military and civil drones has increased dramatically since (West & Bowman, 2). This rapid increase in drone usage begs the question of how drones can help in humanitarian aid and what the potential concerns are that come alongside this new technology.
Drones were initially implemented as merely surveillance tools for a handful of actors in humanitarian operations (Wynsberghe & Comes, 2019). While the military increased UAV technology, the humanitarian field quickly latched on and applied it to their missions (Haidari et al. 2016). As technology improved, drones were used to inspect damage after natural disasters such as earthquakes and typhoons and deliver aid during the Ebola outbreak (Want et al., 4). Because of these improvements, drones became more popular as they served genuine needs, such as surveillance info and communication. Drones became attractive to the media, the UN, and several humanitarian NGOs, irrespective of their potential negative outcomes (Wynsberghe & Comes, 2019).
Surveillance
Drones have many different application possibilities, and many of them will be outlined in this paper. The first usage is the most practical: surveillance capabilities. Capable of getting a bird’s eye view of a physical location, drones have a natural advantage in surveillance applications. Surveillance is the most widespread use of military drones today and has been used in humanitarian operations since the mid-1990s in Bosnia (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). Ostensibly, surveillance drones (military or humanitarian) are not inherently malicious. Drones are used to fulfill legitimate goals like stopping crime and finding missing persons (Fischer et al., 1). Drones are a low-cost option for acquiring high-resolution images and guaranteeing the safety of operational crews that do not have to go into dangerous areas.
Compared to older techniques of acquiring imagery, drones can be superior (Tatsidou et al., 2). For example, after an earthquake in Nepal, experts and Kathmandu University students utilized drones to help the most affected communities. Drones were used to create large-scale aerial maps to provide information on the location of safe drinking water, dangerous debris, displaced people, and ruined buildings. This information was used to inform navigation crews transporting aid (Tatsidou et al., 2). Without the use of these humanitarian drones, these relief efforts would have incurred greater costs, required more time, and posed greater risks.
Humanitarian drones provide benefits. For example, UAVs provide numerous benefits in surveillance opportunities, including the ability to fly at low levels, reach remote locations, host multiple sensors, capture images at various angles, and carry out any scale of operation (Brighenti et al., 2). The next best option in these situations is helicopters, but if helicopters are being used to obtain imagery, they are unavailable to simultaneously deliver heavy cargo. Drones are also more cost-effective compared to helicopters. UAVs cost about $50,000 to purchase and $75 an hour to operate. In contrast, military helicopters can cost up to $40,000,000 and over $300 an hour to operate (West & Bowman, 4). Drones are also safer in many cases. Sending in operational crews to disaster areas poses serious dangers in active sites, whereas the worst-case scenario with the deployment of a drone is that it gets destroyed or damaged — a preferable alternative to losing human lives.
Natural Disaster Response
Alongside surveillance, humanitarian drones can respond immediately to natural disaster emergencies. First responders have found drone abilities to be imperative in disaster response (Tatsidou et al., 4). In disaster management, the first step is assessing specific requirements. Considering that UAVs do not rely on buildings or roads that are frequently destroyed in natural disasters, they can provide the initial response in delivering aid and information (Bravo et al., 6).
For example, after the 2009 Sichuan earthquake in China, 69,000 people were killed, and 18,000 were missing (Estrade & Ndoma, 7). Quadcopter drones were sent in to evaluate the damage and were able to detect and evaluate highways, buildings, schools, hospitals, electric plants, bridges, tunnels, and population-dense locations (Estrada & Ndoma, 7). This information was extremely valuable in finding missing persons and identifying the most affected areas. Aid operational crews that rely on roads and require more time would not have been as impactful in this situation. After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, quadcopters were specifically used to evaluate the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (Estrada & Ndoma, 7). This type of aid might not be possible without drones, as sending crews close to a damaged nuclear power plant is unsafe.
There are numerous other examples of drones in environmental disasters, but Nepal, in particular, has some interesting applications. In 2015, Nepal suffered a major earthquake, and similar to China, they used quadcopters to evaluate the damage and rebuild the area based on the photos and videos taken at different locations (Estrada & Ndoma, 7). In addition, UAVs with thermal cameras were also utilized. These cameras could sense body heat under rubble and aided rescue groups in prioritizing which areas to prioritize (Bravo et al., 2). As technology is always progressing, drones currently on the market have sensors equipped with sensors that can detect breathing and heartbeats (Tatsidou et al., 2). These capabilities are not only an incredible technological advancement but the benefits they could provide are life-changing. After natural disasters like earthquakes, it is impossible to pinpoint which parts of rubble bodies may be under. Even if the person under the debris is alive, it is unlikely that they will be able to verbally cry out for help. Aid groups only have so much time to get under the rubble and save people, and when an entire area is rubble after an earthquake, it can be difficult to choose a location to prioritize. Drones that can tell where someone might be under rubble provide monumental benefits of humanitarian aid in these situations.
Aid Delivery
Surveillance might be the most ‘obvious’ application of drones, but drones are also being utilized in delivering small amounts of aid. This alternative application changes the dynamic because instead of humanitarians interacting with the drones, the beneficiaries of the aid are interacting with the drones. This leaves space for some ethical issues, which will be expanded upon later in the paper.
This application of drones as delivery systems of aid was introduced in part as a solution to issues with the current system. Current aid delivery of materials such as food, water, clothing, and medical supplies takes far too much time in urgent situations (Haidari et al., 2016). For example, in low and middle-income countries, immunization programs face various issues in getting vaccines to those who need them (Haidari et al., 2016). After entering a country, vaccine vials travel by road and are stored in multiple storage locations before arriving at clinics (Haidari et al. 2016). Vaccines are commonly spoiled and wasted throughout this lengthy process before they can be administered. This has led experts to believe that an innovative and cheaper distribution system needs to be implemented (Haidari et al., 2016).
Drone delivery services that can send anything from vaccines, HIV tests, bandages, and blood have the ability to revolutionize medical aid in humanitarian interventions. For example, drones have the ability to deliver vaccines much more efficiently and ensure that no vaccine is spoiled. Furthermore, drones can be useful in curbing the transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19. A robot can’t catch a human virus.
In Papua New Guinea, drones have been very successful in the delivery of medical supplies. Papua New Guinea is struggling with some of the world’s highest rates of tuberculosis and is in desperate need of medical aid to treat and prevent illness (Tatsidou et al., 3). Drones have been implemented to carry microbiological samples, vaccines, and medications to rural and remote areas that would not otherwise have access (Tatsidou et al., 3).
The proliferation of drones could also help to eliminate the frequency of corruption and theft in aid delivery (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). Aid is commonly stolen or sold to rebel groups in humanitarian operations, preventing those who need the aid from receiving it. These logistical problems could be alleviated by implementing drones in aid delivery.
Search And Rescue Operations
Lastly, another way drones can be used in humanitarian settings is for search and rescue operations. The critical factor in the success of a search and rescue (SAR) operation is a fast visual survey of the situation from a bird’s eye view. In SAR operations, a victim could be surrounded by extremely dangerous conditions that are hard to navigate, making it unsafe for a rescue team to go in blind (Tatsidou et al., 1). Drones are perfectly suited for this need. The ability to have a bird’s eye view and not rely on roads or dangerous pathways is essential for quickly rescuing someone in danger. This is yet another marvelous humanitarian application of drones.
There are lots of great examples of drones being used in SAR operations. The Air Force currently uses drones for SAR after natural disasters, such as Global Hawk in the 2007 California wildfires, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan, and the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). These relief operations would be very dangerous if rescue teams were to proceed without information about the terrain.
In Dry Creek, a canyon in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic area in Oregon, a man ascended the rock and continued 15 meters above a waterfall. His group members then saw him slip and fall the 15 meters he had just ascended and disappear into a slot canyon at the top of the waterfall (Tilburg 2017). It was unsafe for group members to go in and find him without risking a similar fall, so they called the fire department. The fire department showed up an hour later, alongside the mountain with rescue responders. The firefighters could not ascend the route the victim took as it was unsafe. Additionally, they could not safely ascend the cliff without rock-climbing protection – which they did not have (Tilburg, 2017). With the fire department and rescue team unable to help, a local resident brought in their personal drone (a quadcopter) to help the situation. The resident flew the UAV into the slot canyon, about 30 meters away and 30 meters high. Tragically, the images acquired confirmed that the man did not survive the fall, and the rescue team came by the following day with the proper equipment to recover the body (Tilburg, 2017). As unfortunate as this tragedy was, it is incredible what a resident’s drone was able to do. Had this drone not been used, the rescue team would have eventually rappelled down the slot canyon, a very risky task, to locate the remains of the body. Subsequently, they would have had to ascend and descend multiple times to retrieve the remains. Implementing a drone meant they did not have to make multiple risky trips.
Humanitarian workers have spoken about drone efficiency while in SAR operations. They claim that UAVs help by monitoring difficult areas such as flooding and landslides and monitoring conditions of rivers, forests, and water. They are also helpful for estimating the number of people injured and delivering medical supplies and small devices. Lastly, they can serve as points of communication, with the ability to reach interest points quickly so teams don’t have to go into dangerous areas (Bravo et al., 16). It is good to speculate from the outside what good drones can provide. However, hearing this from humanitarians themselves and seeing how drones are already being implemented underscores the crucial role drones play in SAR operations.
Ethical Considerations
Even though drones in humanitarian emergencies have proven to be abundantly helpful, they do not come without various consequences and ethical concerns. Skepticism is constantly increasing, with reports of drones being invasive, unauthorized, and threatening, leading to a lack of trust and feelings of insecurity (Tatsidou et al., 4). New technology frequently has many ethical implications, especially when regulations are still being implemented. This section will explore the various emerging ethical issues regarding the utilization of drones.
Privacy
Privacy concern is a universal fear when it comes to humanitarian, military, and even personal recreational drones. Regulations and safeguards around drone usage are currently insufficient. As aforementioned, drone usage for surveillance is crucial in many humanitarian operations, but ensuring that they are used only to gather necessary information and not to spy on citizens is a genuine concern (Bravo et al., 17). Even in the humanitarian sphere, this fear that privacy could be compromised through the unlawful use of drones through data collection has started to make waves (Tatsidou et al., 3). Drones performing surveillance can be seen as either justifiable deployment with the intent to save lives or oppressive technology catering to the interests of people with power, at the expense of those who are vulnerable (West & Bowman, 3). With the realization that proper regulations are not in place to ensure proper drone usage, this lack of transparency and accountability threatens the rule of law in international security (Takemura).
Hypothetically, let us say that there was a drone taking videos of an area after an earthquake with the purpose of finding a route for aid operations. However, someone operating the drone snaps an image of a child and likes the picture. Through whatever means, the photo ends up being sold to a newspaper, and then the photo is used as advertisement material. Although this may seem far-fetched, it has occurred. There are frequently photos of injured or malnourished children being used as advertisements for a range of NGOs. In this situation, the child clearly suffered an injustice. Without their consent, they are now part of an advertisement. The issue here is assigning responsibility to someone. Is it the drone technician, the person who ordered the use of the drone, or whoever sold the photo? Responsibility is entirely unregulated. When a robot is technically the perpetrator of the situation, who takes the blame?
Impact on Local Communities
With drones becoming increasingly commonplace, their impact on local communities needs to be considered. In interviews with humanitarian workers currently in the field, it was explicitly mentioned that in SAR operations, local populations demonstrated negative feelings and reactions toward the usage of drones. Many of the beneficiaries of drone aid are refugees with severe trauma and do not know if a drone has malicious intent. Understandably, this can lead to fear, anxiety, and even rejection of the aid provided by the drone (Bravo et al., 17). This is precisely because it is impossible to distinguish the purpose of a drone, especially from several meters high. As previously mentioned, drones were first invented for military purposes, with humanitarian usage being implemented later on. Many still see drones as solely military devices.
Due to the understanding by many that drones are tools of war and control, some humanitarians believe that, regardless of the potential positive impact, drones should not be used in humanitarian settings. At this point in time, there is no way for someone receiving aid via drone to know if it is carrying weapons to an army, blood to a local hospital, or aid intended for them. The inability to know the intent of the drone is also exacerbated during wartime (Tatsidou et a., 9). For the time being, drones will be assumed to have malicious intentions until their use in humanitarian aid is more universally understood.
The PlayStation Phenomenon
The last ethical implication to discuss is the PlayStation phenomenon. When people are behind a screen, they tend to act differently. It is easier to dehumanize someone when behind a screen, which leads to making different choices than when looking at someone in real life. The PlayStation phenomenon is precisely this. The PlayStation phenomenon makes it less likely that the person controlling a remote drone will hesitate to use lethal force because physical distance can break physiological barriers that stop one person from killing another (Takemura). Physical and psychological distance plays a role in dehumanization, which is required for killing in wartime and is an aspect of military practice that could pose real consequences for humanitarian intervention (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). It is clear that drones are helpful, but only in the right hands.
This phenomenon might seem like it only applies to military drones, where the soldier or officer operating the drone cannot be trusted to use it properly due to being behind a screen. However, this is also slowly seeping into the humanitarian field. Firstly, there are instances of humanitarian intervention that involve the use of force. There are humanitarian wars, where the purpose of the war is not necessarily political or about power but about the pursuit of human rights and the protection of those who were wronged. Drones could also be deployed to fire humanitarian missiles, missiles being used in the interest of humanitarian aid as opposed to war.’Depending on the operator’s perception of who deserves it from wherever in the world they are, this could cause consequences (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). Here, the line between military drones and humanitarian drones is more blurred. However, the PlayStation phenomenon remains an ethical implication even in non-force settings. Loyalty to those on the ground can shape where operators direct drones, what types of footage are captured, and how footage is interpreted (Sandvik & Lohne, 12). This psychological distance can sway an operator’s perception of what is happening on the field and shift their decision-making. As drones become more common, this effect will likely increase, which is something to keep in mind.
Should Drones be Used?
Considering these ethical implications, it, of course, begs the question of whether or not drones should even be used for humanitarian interventions. Drones can gather data and provide small bits of short-term physical aid. Nevertheless, is it worth the possibility of corruption and violating privacy? It is not surprising that with new technology, new ethical issues arise. However, there does seem to be a pattern to the ethicality. The root of ethicality seems to be whether the drone is interacting with the humanitarian in the field themselves or the beneficiary of the humanitarian aid.
When the humanitarian interacts with the UAV, there is less concern for the ethical implications. If the drone is nowhere near the beneficiary, their privacy and autonomy are not at risk, and fear of malicious intentions is not of concern. The PlayStation phenomenon is lessened because the humanitarian on the field can deliver and utilize whatever service the drone provides, such as aid and missiles, and distribute it appropriately. On the other hand, when the drone interacts with the beneficiary of the aid, issues of privacy of the beneficiary, whether or not the drone is malicious, and the PlayStation phenomenon become increasingly apparent.
It seems that in this situation, the way to use drones ethically is to keep the usage of drones solely to the humanitarian workers themselves. This application would mean that drones in humanitarian operations such as SAR with a team at the site, drones delivering medical supplies to a hospital, and drones locating bodies under rubble operated by someone on the scene pose less ethical threats to the beneficiaries of humanitarian intervention. However, at this time, drones that deliver aid to people when an operational crew cannot get to them can not be performed ethically. As drone technology becomes more common, and its various uses become more well-known, it might become ethical to have drones interacting with beneficiaries of humanitarian aid. Alternatively, if regulations become stricter and more reliable, it is also possible that humanitarian aid of this form could become objectively ethical. However, for the time being, this does not seem possible.
Suggestions for Regulations
Regulations about drones in general, specifically humanitarian drones, could involve numerous different suggestions. First, it makes sense to have some kind of distance regulation for aid beneficiaries. If someone uses a drone in SAR operations, regulations on how close a drone can be from stranded individuals seem justifiable. This distance is far enough so the person does not feel in harm’s way but also close enough for modern-day cameras to get all the necessary information. With regards to surveillance drones, some type of conventions should also be created concerning surveillance drones to lay out regulations for drones that collect data. Negotiations should be held on topics such as what pictures can be taken, how they are regulated, what official governmental body is reviewing data that is stored, and what kind of drones should be used.
Even though drones are not commonplace right now, they will become increasingly prevalent as the technology advances and replaces more expensive options like helicopters. There are humanitarian organizations that are currently choosing to take a principled stance against the usage of drones, but these organizations have been criticized. This stance is seen as a rejection of “live-saving technology” (Bravo et al., 17). that could help people. Humanitarian workers have argued that,
Soon, human rights groups will actually be demanding that drones be included as a staple ingredient in peacekeeping operations. Opting not to use drones could indeed someday be a breach of international humanitarian law as a failure to take all measures to protect civilians and document violations (Bravo et al., 17).
This argument is, of course, just a prediction and speculation, but it does seem to be reasonable. Drones have shown impressive capabilities to benefit those who are struggling while still protecting the humanitarian workers themselves. It seems impractical to reject new technology because there are some ethical implications to get around and to let the ethical implications prevent someone from doing the right thing. Especially when options to find ethical ways to do it are available.
*******
Works Cited
Bravo, Raissa Zurli Bittencourt, et al. “The Use of UAVs in Humanitarian Relief: An Application of POMDP‐Based Methodology for Finding Victims.” Production & Operations Management, vol. 28, no. 2, Feb. 2019, pp. 421–440. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12930.
Brighenti, Fabio, et al. “UAV Survey Method to Monitoring and Analyzing Geological Hazards: The Case Study of Mud Volcano of Villaggio Santa Barbara, Caltanissetta (Sicily).” Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences Discussions, Dec. 2020, pp. 1–31. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-378.
Estrada, Mario Arturo Ruiz, and Abrahim Ndoma. “The Uses of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – UAV’s- (or Drones) in Social Logistic: Natural Disasters Response and Humanitarian Relief Aid.” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 149, Feb. 2019, pp. 375–383. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.151.
Fischer, Amy Sherry, et al. “Drones: A New Front in the Fight between Government Interests and Privacy Concerns.” Defense Counsel Journal, vol. 84, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 1–14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.defcon84.26&site=eds-live.
Haidari, Leila A., et al. “The Economic and Operational Value of Using Drones to Transport Vaccines.” Vaccine, vol. 34, no. 34, July 2016, pp. 4062–4067. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.022.
Sandvik, K. B., and K. Lohne. “The Rise of the Humanitarian Drone: Giving Content to an Emerging Concept.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, Sept. 2014, pp. 145-164. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814529470.
Takemura, H. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Humanization from International Humanitarian Law.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, Jan. 2014, pp. 521–546. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.wisint32.24&site=eds-live.
Evanthia Tatsidou, et al. “Reflecting upon the Humanitarian Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones).” Swiss Medical Weekly, vol. 149, no. 1314, Apr. 2019. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20065.
Van Tilburg, C. “First Report of Using Portable Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones) for Search and Rescue.” Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, vol. 28, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 116-118–118. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2016.12.010.
Wang, Ning, et al. “Ethical Considerations Associated with ‘Humanitarian Drones’: A Scoping Literature Review.” Science & Engineering Ethics, vol. 27, no. 4, Aug. 2021, pp. 1–21. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00327-4.
West, Jonathan P., and James S. Bowman. “The Domestic Use of Drones: An Ethical Analysis of Surveillance Issues.” Public Administration Review, vol. 76, no. 4, July 2016, pp. 649–59. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.pbcamnstn76.136&site=eds-live.
van Wynsberghe, Aimee, and Tina Comes. “Drones in Humanitarian Contexts, Robot Ethics, and the Human–robot Interaction.” Ethics & Information Technology, vol. 22, no. 1, Mar. 2020, pp. 43–53. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09514-1.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.