IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13208-d690473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaomeng Lucock

    (Department of Agribusiness and Markets, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

  • Victoria Westbrooke

    (Department of Land Management and Systems, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

Abstract

Worldwide, the agricultural sector is under pressure to demonstrate environmental sustainability. In New Zealand, farm environment plans (FEPs) and their auditing were intended to guide farmers towards sustainable practices by meeting regulations. However, on-farm audits can be time consuming, costly, and stressful for farmers. Meanwhile, the advancement of drone technology has made it possible to incorporate such tools in environmental audits. By means of field observation and in-depth interviews with both farmers and auditors, this research investigated the processes and perceptions of incorporating drones in environmental audits. The aerial views provided additional, high-quality information for the audit. However, flying a drone is subject to weather conditions. Additionally, reductions in audit time were dependent on farm scale, topography, and the auditor’s knowledge of the farm and the farmer. Farmer-auditor relationships are critical for enabling the benefits of drone use within the FEP audit process. Such relationships require a high level of interaction-based trust between farmers and auditors. Further clarity around the use and ownership of drone images could enhance trust, enabling the benefits of drones in audits to be fully utilised, hence furthering the environmental management and compliance processes towards achieving their objectives of better environmental outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaomeng Lucock & Victoria Westbrooke, 2021. "Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13208-:d:690473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13208/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13208/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret H. Christ & Scott A. Emett & Scott L. Summers & David A. Wood, 2021. "Prepare for takeoff: improving asset measurement and audit quality with drone-enabled inventory audit procedures," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1323-1343, December.
    2. Susmita Dasgupta & Ashoka Mody & Subhendu Roy & David Wheeler, 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Development: A Cross-country Empirical Analysis," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 173-187.
    3. Sandro Castaldo & Katia Premazzi & Fabrizio Zerbini, 2010. "The Meaning(s) of Trust. A Content Analysis on the Diverse Conceptualizations of Trust in Scholarly Research on Business Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 657-668, November.
    4. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    5. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    6. Carolin Leitner & Christian R. Vogl, 2020. "Farmers’ Perceptions of the Organic Control and Certification Process in Tyrol, Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Reinhard Bachmann, 2011. "At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 203-213, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Jingwen Lu & Lihua Dai, 2023. "Examining the Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation: The Impact of Agricultural Product Trade Openness on Agricultural Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    4. Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of renewable energy innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Sciences Po publications 2012-05, Sciences Po.
    5. Kurt T. Dirks & Patrick J. Sweeney & Nikolaos Dimotakis & Todd Woodruff, 2022. "Understanding the Change and Development of Trust and the Implications for New Leaders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 711-730, October.
    6. Daniel Fiorino, 2011. "Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence, and implications," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(4), pages 367-389, November.
    7. Nicolli, Francesco & Vona, Francesco, 2012. "The Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy in OECD Countries: Aggregate Indicators and Determinants," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 130897, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Copeland, Brian R., 2005. "Policy Endogeneity and the Effects of Trade on the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tamazian, Artur & Bhaskara Rao, B., 2010. "Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-145, January.
    11. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    12. Songhong Chen & Jian Ming Luo, 2023. "Understand Delegates Risk Attitudes and Behaviour: The Moderating Effect of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccination," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Hettige, Hemamala & Mani, Muthukumara & Wheeler, David, 2000. "Industrial pollution in economic development: the environmental Kuznets curve revisited," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 445-476, August.
    14. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/f6h8764enu2lskk9p544jc8op is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Fernando Broner & Paula Bustos & Vasco Carvalho, 2011. "Sources of comparative advantage in polluting industries," Economics Working Papers 1331, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Dec 2019.
    16. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    17. Matthew A. Cole & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2005. "FDI and the Capital Intensity of “Dirty” Sectors: A Missing Piece of the Pollution Haven Puzzle," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 530-548, November.
    18. Dana C. Andersen, 2016. "Credit Constraints, Technology Upgrading, and the Environment," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(2), pages 283-319.
    19. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jiang, Rong & Kang, Yuanjie & Liu, Yongsong & Liang, Zhihong & Duan, Yunlong & Sun, Yani & Liu, Jialan, 2022. "A trust transitivity model of small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises under blockchain-based supply chain finance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    21. Concetta Castiglione & Davide Infante & Maria Teresa Minervini & Janna Smirnova, 2014. "Environmental taxation in Europe: What does it depend on?," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, December.
    22. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/f6h8764enu2lskk9p4oq2cqb0 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Zhang, Chanyuan (Abigail) & Cho, Soohyun & Vasarhelyi, Miklos, 2022. "Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in auditing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    24. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel De Lara & Héctor Ramírez Cabrera, 2011. "Bargaining with intertemporal maximin payoffs," EconomiX Working Papers 2011-7, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13208-:d:690473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.