ArticlePDF Available

Biology's drones: Undermined by fear

Authors:
Tatyana Humle at University of Kent
Tatyana Humle
Rosaleen Duffy at The University of Sheffield
Rosaleen Duffy
D L Roberts
D L Roberts
D L Roberts
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Chris Sandbrook at UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Chris Sandbrook
Show all 6 authorsHide
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Figures

No caption available
… 
Figures - uploaded by Robert J. Smith
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Robert J. Smith
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Robert J. Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert J. Smith on Jul 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
INSIGHTS
20 JUNE 2014 • VOL 344 ISSUE 6190 1351SCIENCE sciencemag.org
Biology’s drones:
Undermined by fear
IN HIS NEWS & ANALYSIS STORY “Drones
flying high as new tool for field biologists”
(2 May, p. 459), R. Schiffman reports the
use of drone technology for conservation
law enforcement to combat the surge in
elephant and rhino poaching. This rush
to deploy such technologies is based on
compelling ideas, partly influenced by nar-
ratives that describe the current situation
in terms of a war between poachers and
conservation staff.
The reality of conservation is much
more complicated, as many people live in
or around protected areas and depend on
them for fuel wood, medicines, and food (1).
Seen from the ground and through their
eyes, drones may be perceived as sinister
technologies of surveillance or be associ-
ated with warfare and civilian casualties.
Such negative perceptions could be seen as
a return to fortress conservation, reducing
support for protected areas and undermin-
ing the relationships on which successful
research and conservation projects are built.
Given the rise in poaching activities, one
could argue these negative risks are part of
a necessary trade-off. However, there are
two reasons for doubting the value of such
a compromise. First, the long-term cost-
effectiveness of drones in deterring
poaching remains untested. Second,
drone data will only be effective if fed into
well-functioning management and legal
systems, which are lacking in many coun-
tries. Thus, funding for enforcement may
be better spent on increasing park staff
numbers, resources, and training; develop-
ing intelligence networks to catch poachers
in the act and identify corrupt officials;
and strengthening the judicial system (2).
T. H uml e,1* R. Duffy,2 D. L. Roberts,1,3 C.
Sandbrook,4,5 F. A. V St John,1 R. J. Smith1
1Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology,
School of Anthropology and Conservation,
University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UK.
2Department of Development Studies, SOAS,
University of London, London WC1H 0XG, UK.
3Interdisciplinary Centre for Cyber Security
Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent,
CT2 7N F, UK. 4United Nations Environment
Programme World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3
0DL, UK. 5Department of Geography, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: t.humle@kent.ac.uk
REFERENCES
1. W. M. Adam s, J. Hu tton , Conserv. Soc. 5, 147 (2007).
2. R. Hilborn et al., Science 314, 1266 (2006).
Biology’s drones:
New and improved
IN THE NEWS & ANALYSIS STORY “Drones
flying high as new tool for field biologists”
(2 May, p. 459), R. Schiffman presents a
new useful application of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) in the field of monitoring
wildlife, but the drones still have some
limitations. The quadrotor UAVs that they
use to drive elephants out of the woods or
monitor tigers can only work for a maxi-
mum of 20 minutes and have to fly back to
the ground station to recharge. In this case,
the supervision time that biologists could
get from the UAVs will be quite little.
To provide longer working time and
finish tasks in different flight conditions,
scientists and engineers are working
to improve the design of UAVs. At the
University of Pennsylvania, researchers
have added a mechanical claw at the bot-
tom of a quadricopter (1) to allow the UAV
to catch a target. At the University of Utah
(2) and Tsinghua University, UAVs can land
in hazardous terrain or even tree branches
thanks to their biomimetic design.
Such improvements that merge bionics
and robotics together will let UAVs fly
inside caves, claw into tunnels, or perch on
tress. Biologists or scientists in other fields
will then be able to track their targets
more effectively.
Cai Luo,* Xiu Li, Qionghai Dai
Department of Automation, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, 100084, China.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: luo_cai@tsinghua.
edu.cn
REFERENCES
1. J. Thomas, J. Polin, K. Sreenath, V. Kumar, “Avian-inspired
grasping for quadrotor micro UAVs” (IDETC/CIE, Portland,
OR, 2013).
2 . C. Doy le et al., IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 18, 506
(2013).
Investigative bioethics
IN HIS PLENARY ADDRESS at the 2009
annual meeting of the American Society
for Bioethics and Humanities, Carl Elliott
challenged attendees to take up the role
of the investigative reporter. Many past
research scandals, he noted, were not
brought to light by traditional scholar-
ship of professional bioethicists. Rather,
they were discovered through the diligent
efforts of investigative journalists who
followed evidence wherever it led and
then shared their findings in a way that
grabbed the attention of the American
public. As newspapers continue to
downsize or go bankrupt, Elliott argued,
it should be the goal of the bioethics com-
munity to fill that role in the realms of
clinical research and medicine. J. Couzin-
Frankel’s Feature “A lonely crusade” (23
May, p. 793) details Elliott’s efforts to live
by his own words.
I commend Couzin-Frankel for helping
to shine a light into those “odd, interest-
ing corners” of psychiatric drug trials of
the kind Elliott is investigating. Serious
questions remain unsettled about such
research, not just the CAFE study in which
Dan Markingson, who committed suicide
10 years ago, was a participant: questions
of conflicts of interest, the distinctions
between research and therapy, standards
for assessing competency to provide
informed consent, and the adequacy of the
Edited by Jennifer Sills
LETTERS
A new, biomimetic design for  ying robots allows them to land on a convex cylindrical structure.
PHOTO: CAI LUO, XIU LI, AND QIONGHAI DAI/DEPARTMENT OF AUTOMATION, TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY
Published by AAAS
on June 20, 2014www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from on June 20, 2014www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
INSIGHTS |
LETTERS
PHONE: 415.883.0128 | FAX: 415.883.0572
EMAIL: INFO@SUTTER.COM | WWW.SUTTER.COM
LAMBDA VF-5
Tunable filter changer
Introducing the world’s first filter changer to
use tunable thin-film optical filters. The Sutter
LAMBDA VF-5 allows you to quickly access
any center bandpass from 330 to 800nm
in nanometer increments. Building on the
VersaChrome®filters from Semrock®, the
LAMBDA VF-5 maintains transmission
over the tuning range of each filter.
Easy Wavelength Selection
Wavelength range as wide as 330-800nm
Keypad or computer interface (USB or serial)
F
lexible
Suitable for excitation or emission
Easily switch between fluorophore
combinations
Optional liquid light guide offers absolute
vibration isolation
Images pass through filters
T
hin filter advantage
High transmission
Steep spectral edges
High out-of-band blocking
Polarization independence
(s and p nearly identical)
NEW!
Join the Conversation!
Twitter is a great way to connect with AAAS members and staff about
the issues that matter to you most. Be a part of the discussion while
staying up-to-date on the latest news and information about your
personal member benefits.
Follow us @AAASmember
and join the conversation
with #AAAS MemberCentral.aaas.org
regulatory framework under which this
research takes place. As bioethics is still
trying to sort out its features as a disci-
pline, I hope it heeds the example of Elliott
and his allies. Otherwise, these issues will
not receive the critical examination they
warrant and Markingson’s story will be,
sadly, one of many.
Kyle L. Galbraith
Human Subject Protection, Carle Foundation
Hospital, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. E-mail: kyle.
galbraith@carle.com
Deep-sea protection:
Coordinate efforts
THE PLIGHT OF deep-sea ecosystems in
areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)
has been persistently overlooked. As a
consequence, they remain very poorly pro-
tected despite calls for action dating back
more than a decade. In 2002, the United
Nations General Assembly called upon
intergovernmental organizations including
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the
Convention on Biological Diversity, and the
UN Secretariat itself to urgently consider
means to reduce risks to the biodiversity
of seamounts and other vulnerable deep-
sea habitats within the framework of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) (1). Since then, various
international and regional bodies such as
the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), the International Seabed Authority
(ISA), and Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations (RFMOs) began exploring
measures and regulations pertaining to
shipment; oil, gas, and mineral extraction;
and fishing and trawling (2). However,
these efforts have been slow to materialize,
in addition to lacking effective coordina-
tion. Therefore, we praise the call by K. J.
Mengerink et al. (“A call for deep-ocean
stewardship,” Policy Forum, 16 May, p. 696)
for the UN General Assembly to consider
the resolution of governance issues of the
ABNJ as a priority in its 2015 deliberations.
States agreed during the Rio+20
Conference to address the issue of
conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity of ABNJ (3).
This includes a call for the UN General
Assembly to consider the wisdom of
establishing an international instrument
under the UNCLOS to overcome the lack
of coordination between different inter-
governmental organizations and their
respective mandates. Such an instrument
could become more effective in promot-
ing comprehensive oceans governance
reform within the framework of an already
established convention, together with
fostering complementarity among relevant
organizations.
We also recognize the paucity of fund-
ing to generate baseline, protection, and
mitigation actions. At the same time, we
question whether the multiplication of
funding mechanisms would be practical or
even desirable. We believe that the finance
question should complement the resolu-
tion of the key governance issues, while
building on existing platforms.
Charlotte Gobin* and
Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca
Global Environment Facility, Washington,
DC 20433, USA.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cgobin@thegef.org
REFERENCES
1. United Nations, A/RES/57/141 (www.un.org/en/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/57/141&Lang=E).
2. E. B. Barbier et al., Nature 505, 475 (2014).
3. United Nations, The Future We Want (www.uncsd2012.
org/thefuturewewant.html).
Published by AAAS
... In the context of biodiversity conservation and nature-based climate change mitigation efforts (Bayrak and Marafa, 2016;Anguelovski and Corbera, 2023), which have well-documented histories of producing conflict and marginalisation (West et al, 2006;Adams and Hutton, 2007), these powerful technologies have the potential to create new frontiers of exclusion. Drones in particular have provoked calls for caution (Humle et al, 2014;Massé, 2018;Duffy et al, 2019). At the same time, the democratisation of earth observation has highlighted the potential of drones as increasingly accessible tools that may enhance inclusive and transformative governance, especially as Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) 2 take up these technologies for their own territorial goals, which encompass political, economic, cultural and socio-ecological priorities (López Sandoval et al, 2017;Paneque-Gálvez et al, 2017;Millner, 2020). ...
... Drones have gained growing relevance in a wide range of fields and civil applications (Otto et al, 2018), ranging from agriculture (Rejeb et al, 2022), to archaeology (Risbøl and Gustavsen, 2018), to risk and disaster management (Furutani and Minami, 2021), to nature conservation (Wich and Koh, 2018). The use of drones for this final field has generated some controversy, however, due to its relationship with militarised conservation surveillance and potential for negative social and cultural impacts given high social tensions around many protected areas (Humle et al, 2014;Sandbrook, 2015;Simlai and Sandbrook, 2021). Specific concerns range from unauthorised drone intrusions into culturally sensitive areas to exclusion of local knowledges from decision-making processes based on high-detail, droneacquired data to the criminalisation of local communities, especially around resource access and use (Reyes-García et al, 2022;Pritchard et al, 2022). ...
... These experiences suggest funding and partnership landscapes also matter -areas where communities have claims to land and where conservation priorities are high may find themselves well positioned to take up community-based monitoring (Guatemala, Peru) with strong external support (Millner, 2020;González and Kröger, 2023), while others may find themselves in potential conflict with actors who have greater access to drones, or who can use them in exclusionary ways, as previous literature suggests (Humle et al, 2014). However, conservation partners and donors might be key allies for communities who find themselves unable to use drones, as in the case of Colombia, whether for legal or for safety reasons. ...
Drones, communities and nature: pitfalls and possibilities for conservation and territorial rights
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2023
Since the early 2010s, small drones have become key tools for environmental research around the globe. While critical voices have highlighted the threat of ‘green securitisation’ and surveillance in contexts where drones are deployed for nature conservation, Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) worldwide have also begun using drones – most often in alliance with nongovernmental organisations or researchers – exploring this technology’s potential to advance their own territorial, political and socio-ecological goals. Against this backdrop, this paper examines six different experiences in five countries where communities are using small drones in areas of high ecological and cultural diversity with international significance for nature conservation. We highlight the ways that communities deploy drones – both in terms of their motivations and actual use strategies. We also reflect upon the opportunities and barriers that IPLCs and their collaborators encounter in designing and implementing meaningful drone strategies, explicitly considering social, economic and political challenges. Finally, we consider the socio-ecological outcomes that community drone use enables across these sites along with the ways that drones engender more biocultural and territorial approaches to conservation through IPLC-led monitoring and mapping efforts. In conclusion, we suggest that effective, meaningful and appropriate deployment of drones, especially with IPLCs as protagonists in their use, can support nature conservation together with the recognition and protection of biocultural and territorial rights. Given the mounting demands for conservation to counter intertwined global socio-environmental crises, community drones may play a role in amplifying the voices and territorial visions of IPLCs.
View
... When conservationists and planners use drones to document landscapes, they should avoid having drone technology reproduce stereotypical images of human-nature interactions or become part of the militarization of conservation (Duffy, Massé, Smidt, Marijnen, Büscher, Verweijen, Ramutsindela, Simlai, Joanny, & Lunstrum, 2019). Such a use could lead to an atmosphere of fear and alienation of the local populations (Humle, Duffy, Roberts, & John, 2014). Especially in urban areas, the privacy and land ownership need to be respected, as drones could potentially depict sensitive areas such as backyards that are not normally open to the views of strangers (Gevaert, Sliuzas, Persello, & Vosselman, 2018). ...
Drone imagery to create a common understanding of landscapes
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
  • LANDSCAPE URBAN PLAN
Negotiated solutions among contrasting land use interests in the nexus of water, energy, food and ecosystems require cooperation between actors with different viewpoints and backgrounds. We suggest aerial imagery and videos, captured by drones, to be “boundary objects”, easily interpretable landscape representations that might create a common understanding across stakeholders through their universal interpretability. We collected drone imagery and videos from different angles of a wide range of landscapes in Zambia, showing agricultural areas, forests, wetlands and water infrastructure. Then, we took the imagery back to the field to probe the perceptions of multiple stakeholders, including staff from both governmental and non-governmental organizations, hydropower operators, small- and large-scale farmers. In focus group discussions, we assessed the interpretability of oblique images, taken at an angle by a video drone, compared to nadir (vertical) imagery from Google Earth and from a high-end mapping drone. We show that oblique images produced better identification results across all groups of stakeholders, but especially from small-scale farmers, suggesting this type of imagery is helpful to empower people who lack previous experience in interpreting nadir images. Overall, the appreciation of the aesthetic value and the perceived professional benefits of drone imagery are high, but technical and legal barriers impede a wider adoption of the technology. While we highlight ethical concerns and technical limitations, we suggest that conservationists and environmental planners could benefit from a critical use of affordable video drones so as to produce intuitive landscape representations useful for more effective multi-stakeholder collaborations.
View
... Although awareness of these issues is not yet widespread, experts are working to illuminate and address them. For example, trepidations about the social risks of tools such as drones and camera traps being deployed without appropriate legislative and ethical frameworks (Humle et al., 2014;Sandbrook et al., 2018;Wallace et al., 2018) recently led to the development of guidelines for the socially responsible use of surveillance technologies (Sandbrook et al., 2021) and an ethical code of conduct for camera traps in wildlife research (Sharma et al., 2020). The first formal guidance on addressing data privacy concerns when using social media data in conservation science was also recently published (Di Minin et al., 2021). ...
A global community‐sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology
Article
Full-text available
Conservation technology holds the potential to vastly increase conservationists’ ability to understand and address critical environmental challenges, but systemic constraints appear to hamper its development and adoption. Understanding of these constraints and opportunities for advancement remains limited. We conducted a global online survey of 248 conservation technology users and developers to identify perceptions of existing tools’ current performance and potential impact, user and developer constraints, and key opportunities for growth. We also conducted focus groups with 45 leading experts to triangulate findings. The technologies with the highest perceived potential were machine learning and computer vision, eDNA and genomics, and networked sensors. A total of 95%, 94%, and 92% respondents, respectively, rated them as very helpful or game changers. The most pressing challenges affecting the field as a whole were competition for limited funding, duplication of efforts, and inadequate capacity building. A total of 76%, 67%, and 55% respondents, respectively, identified these as primary concerns. The key opportunities for growth identified in focus groups were increasing collaboration and information sharing, improving the interoperability of tools, and enhancing capacity for data analyses at scale. Some constraints appeared to disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Respondents in countries with developing economies were more likely to report being constrained by upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (p = 0.048, odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), and female respondents were more likely to report being constrained by development funding and perceived technical skills (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formally capture the perspectives and needs of the global conservation technology community, providing foundational data that can serve as a benchmark to measure progress. We see tremendous potential for this community to further the vision they define, in which collaboration trumps competition; solutions are open, accessible, and interoperable; and user‐friendly processing tools empower the rapid translation of data into conservation action. Article impact statement: Addressing financing, coordination, and capacity‐building constraints is critical to the development and adoption of conservation technology.
View
... Even when sensors are deployed with the aim to monitor biodiversity, the landscape of fear created by conservation surveillance can impact the communities (Humle et al., 2014;Sandbrook, 2015). The ease with which the gaze of the technology can shift from monitoring biodiversity to surveilling people reinforces the unease. ...
The Smart Forest Conundrum: Contextualizing Pitfalls of Sensors and AI in Conservation Science for Tropical Forests
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2021
The term ‘smart forest’ is not yet common, but the proliferation of sensors, algorithms, and technocentric thinking in conservation, as in most other aspects of our lives, suggests we are at the brink of this evolution. While there has been some critical discussion about the value of using smart technology in conservation, a holistic discussion about the broader technological, social, and economic interactions involved with using big data, sensors, artificial intelligence, and global corporations is largely missing. Here, we explore the pitfalls that are useful to consider as forests are gradually converted to technological sites of data production for optimized biodiversity conservation and are consequently incorporated in the digital economy. We consider who are the enablers of the technologically enhanced forests and how the gradual operationalization of smart forests will impact the traditional stakeholders of conservation. We also look at the implications of carpeting forests with sensors and the type of questions that will be encouraged. To contextualize our arguments, we provide examples from our work in Kibale National Park, Uganda which hosts the one of the longest continuously running research field station in Africa.
View
... Indeed, in some settings, conservation drone deployments may be met with resistance, fear, animosity, demands for paperwork, and proof of pilot competence. Humle et al. (2014) argue that within conservation settings, drones may be considered by some to represent the "sinister technologies of surveillance or be associated with warfare and civilian casualties", with such negative perceptions potentially viewed as a return to "fortress conservation, reducing support for protected areas and undermining the relationships on which successful research and conservation projects are built". Some agencies will simply refuse to grant permission for drone flights, on various grounds. ...
Conservation Technology Series Issue 5: DRONES FOR CONSERVATION
Technical Report
Full-text available
  • Nov 2020
for more information visit: https://space-science.wwf.de/drones this is a detailed handbook for conservation practitioners (not just academics) to understand the benefits, opportunities, limits of drone technology. Drones are often hailed as a panacea for conservation problems - in this guide we use the scientific literature and 10 case studies (5 of which are led by women) to explain HOW and WHERE drones can safely be used to deliver useful information, and what the key considerations surrounding their use can be. We use this illustrated report to translate current science into a language for a broader non-academic audience.
View
... Using reef monitoring as an example, drones have been used to map reef structures at very high resolution (Casella et al. 2017, Chirayath & Earle 2016, identify and map fish nursery grounds (Ventura et al. 2016), assess beach erosion (Casella et al. 2016), monitor populations of sea turtles (Rees et al. 2018) and dugongs (Hogson et al. 2013), and have been proposed as an effective way to assess illegal fishing (Arefin 2018). Although this last potential use of drones is of critical importance to many managers of MPAs, its implementation is beset with social dilemmas (Sandbrook 2015, Humle et al. 2014, Adams 2017 and any monitoring of the natural resource exploitation activities of local residents needs to be sensitive to cultural context and the potential of exacerbating conflict between resource users and authorities (Keane et al. 2008). In the PELD-CCAL, we are using drones to monitor sea turtles and manatees in 147 randomly selected transects that stretch across the length of the protected area (Figure 1b) and, at present, have no plans to use drones to study the temporal and spatial distribution of artisanal fishing crafts. ...
Integrating Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) and Marine Protected Areas management: challenges and solutions
Article
  • Jun 2020
Abstract: Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) generates unique data sets that have the potential to identify and quantify trends in ecological processes that may be difficult to detect at lower temporal resolutions. Even though many LTER sites are within protected areas, they do not necessarily produce data that are well aligned with the objectives of the institutions and individuals who manage and govern these sites. There are several potential reasons for this, including: i) insufficient information provided by the LTER on socio-ecological variables of relevance to management; ii) a mismatch between the spatial scale of the data collected by the LTER and the scale of data needed to inform management decisions; iii) a lack of inclusion of policy-makers in crucial steps of LTER project implementation, including experimental design and analysis, and; iv) an absence or insufficiency of formal or informal mechanisms for incorporating LTER data into environmental decision-making and protected area governance. Using examples from recently implemented LTER in the Costa dos Corais Environmental Protected Area (known as the PELD-CCAL), we reflect on how some of these challenges can be addressed and provide general recommendations for increasing the conservation management and policy relevance of LTER projects in Brazil.
View
Situational social influence leading to non-compliance with conservation rules
Article
  • Aug 2023
  • TRENDS ECOL EVOL
It is well established that the decisions that we make can be strongly influenced by the behaviour of others. However, testing how social influence can lead to non-compliance with conservation rules during an individual's decision-making process has received little research attention. We synthesise advances in understanding of conformity and rule-breaking in individuals and in groups, and take a situational approach to studying the social dynamics and ensuing social identity changes that can lead to non-compliant decision-making. We focus on situational social influence contagion that are copresent (i.e., same space and same time) or trace-based (i.e., behavioural traces in the same space). We then suggest approaches for testing how situational social influence can lead to certain behaviours in non-compliance with conservation rules.
View
Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance
Article
  • Dec 2022
Digital technologies increasingly mediate relations between humans and nonhumans in a range of contexts including environmental governance, surveillance, and entertainment. Combining approaches from more-than-human and digital geographies, we proffer ‘digital ecologies’ as an analytical framework for examining digitally-mediated human–nonhuman entanglement. We identify entanglement as a compelling basis from which to articulate and critique digitally-mediated relations in diverse situated contexts. Three questions guide this approach: What digital technologies and infrastructures give rise to digital entanglement, and with what material consequences? What is at stake socially, politically, and economically when encounters with nonhumans are digitised? And how are digital technologies enrolled in programmes of environmental governance? We develop our digital ecologies framework across three core conceptual themes of wider interest to environmental geographers: (i) materialities, considering the infrastructures which enable digitally-mediated more-than-human connections and their socioenvironmental impacts; (ii) encounters, examining the political economic consequences and convivial potentials of digitising contact zones; (iii) governance, questioning how digital technologies produce novel forms of more-than-human governance. We affirm that digital mediations of more-than-human worlds can potentially cultivate environmentally progressive communities, convivial human–nonhuman encounters, and just forms of environmental governance, and as such note the urgency of these conversations.
View
View
Unmanned aircraft systems for protected areas: Gadgetry or necessity?
Article
  • Oct 2021
  • J NAT CONSERV
The ease of use and availability of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) recently pervaded a wide range of topics and applications. In nature conservation and for the management of protected areas (PAs), UAS are still not an established approach compared to other methods such as satellite-based remote sensing, although several research articles have already discussed their use. In this context, UAS are even denoted as ‘conservation drones’, suggesting that their use is beneficial in terms of accomplishing various tasks such as land-cover mapping, vegetation monitoring, biomass estimation, and animal detection. However, although disturbance of wildlife or other issues caused by UAS are debated and guidelines for the use of UAS in wildlife studies suggest precautionary measures, the implications of the use of UAS in PAs has not been analyzed in detail yet. Therefore, by reviewing research articles, the present paper aims to show whether the use of UAS in PAs is relevant or irrelevant for the PA management in terms of biodiversity conservation, considers a controversial debate of the potential threats, and investigates whether the type of PA concerned matters in this context. We showed that a majority (73 %) of selected articles (89) report the use of UAS in PAs as relevant for the PA management in terms of biodiversity. However, most of these studies did not consider impacts of UAS on wildlife or the environment. The possibility of disturbances was discussed in 15 (approx. 17 %) of the reviewed works, of which most concluded that the effects were negligible or non-existent. Only in three articles (approx. 3 %) an impact has been demonstrated. While most research studies discussing UAS in PAs do not report nor mention any impacts, UAS are banned in many PAs. Therefore, the use of UAS in PAs as ‘conservation drones’ and the related pros and cons need to be carefully considered by the PA managers and stakeholders concerned.
View
Avian-Inspired Grasping for Quadrotor Micro UAVs
Conference Paper
Full-text available
  • Aug 2013
Micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (MAVs) have been used in a wide range of applications [1, 2, 3]. However, there are few papers addressing high-speed grasping and transportation of pay-loads using MAVs. Drawing inspiration from aerial hunting by birds of prey, we design and equip a quadrotor MAV with an actuated appendage enabling grasping and object retrieval at high speeds. We develop a nonlinear dynamic model of the system, demonstrate that the system is differentially flat, plan dynamic trajectories using the flatness property, and present experimental results with pick-up velocities at 2 m/s (6 body lengths / second) and 3 m/s (9 body lengths / second). Finally, the experimental results are compared with observations derived from video footage of a bald eagle swooping down and snatching a fish out of water.
View
Effective Enforcement in a Conservation Area
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2006
  • SCIENCE
Wildlife within protected areas is under increasing threat from bushmeat and illegal trophy trades, and many argue that enforcement within protected areas is not sufficient to protect wildlife. We examined 50 years of records from Serengeti National Park in Tanzania and calculated the history of illegal harvest and enforcement by park authorities. We show that a precipitous decline in enforcement in 1977 resulted in a large increase in poaching and decline of many species. Conversely, expanded budgets and antipoaching patrols since the mid-1980s have greatly reduced poaching and allowed populations of buffalo, elephants, and rhinoceros to rebuild.
View
  • Jan 2014
  • NATURE
  • 475
  • E B Barbier
E. B. Barbier et al., Nature 505, 475 (2014).
  • Jan 2007
  • 147
  • W M Adams
  • J Hutton
W. M. Adams, J. Hutton, Conserv. Soc. 5, 147 (2007).
  • Jan 2006
  • 1266
  • R Hilborn
R. Hilborn et al., Science 314, 1266 (2006).
  • Jan 2013
  • 506
  • C Doyle
C. Doyle et al., IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 18, 506 (2013).