IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2153-d1045155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drone Use in On-Farm Environmental Compliance: An Investigation of Regulators’ Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Westbrooke

    (Farm Management and Agribusiness, Department of Land Management and Systems, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7674, New Zealand)

  • Xiaomeng Lucock

    (Agribusiness Management, Department of Agribusiness and Markets, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7674, New Zealand)

  • Isobel Greenhalgh

    (Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7674, New Zealand)

Abstract

Freshwater resources around the world are under increasing pressure from agricultural activities. As a result, regulatory frameworks around on-farm environmental compliance have become more complex. Consequently, farm plans which have been used in New Zealand to identify risks to and develop mitigation strategies for freshwater quality can be time consuming and costly to develop and monitor. Using semi-structured interviews, this study investigated the views of the regulators working in environmental policy and implementation on the use of drones to increase the efficiency of on-farm environmental compliance. Results show that drones can improve process robustness by providing an aerial view, and that they are quicker and safer to use on steeper contoured farms. However, there is confusion around the permissions required in order to capture footage, its ownership and storage, and who has access rights to the footage. This ambiguity in the implementation of environmental regulations can lead to uncertainty on the part of policy implementors around how to integrate drones in on-farm environmental compliance. In addition, positive relationships between farmers and compliance officers are needed in order for the benefits of drone use to be realised for on-farm environmental compliance purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Westbrooke & Xiaomeng Lucock & Isobel Greenhalgh, 2023. "Drone Use in On-Farm Environmental Compliance: An Investigation of Regulators’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2153-:d:1045155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2153/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2153/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Konow, 2009. "Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 101-127, June.
    2. Dolores Rey & Carlos Dionisio Pérez-Blanco & Alvar Escriva-Bou & Corentin Girard & Ted I. E. Veldkamp, 2019. "Role of economic instruments in water allocation reform: lessons from Europe," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 206-239, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Nicolas Pirsoul & Maria Armoudian, 2019. "Deliberative Democracy and Water Management in New Zealand: a Critical Approach to Collaborative Governance and Co-Management Initiatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(14), pages 4821-4834, November.
    5. Duncan, Ronlyn, 2016. "Ways of knowing – out-of-sync or incompatible? Framing water quality and farmers’ encounters with science in the regulation of non-point source pollution in the Canterbury region of New Zealand," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 151-157.
    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. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    2. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    3. Robin, Stéphane & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2014. "Ingratiation: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 16-38.
    4. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    5. Hong, Hao & Ding, Jianfeng & Yao, Yang, 2015. "Individual social welfare preferences: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 89-97.
    6. Urs Fischbacher & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Ulrike Stefani, 2017. "Non-additivity and the Salience of Marginal Productivities: Experimental Evidence on Distributive Fairness," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 587-610, October.
    7. Alexander W Cappelen & Johanna Mollerstrom & Bjørn-Atle Reme & Bertil Tungodden, 2022. "A Meritocratic Origin of Egalitarian Behaviour," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(646), pages 2101-2117.
    8. Immacolata Di Napoli & Pasquale Dolce & Caterina Arcidiacono, 2019. "Community Trust: A Social Indicator Related to Community Engagement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 551-579, September.
    9. James K. C. Chen & Thitima Sriphon, 2022. "Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-32, May.
    10. Ivo Bischoff & Nataliya Kusa, 2016. "Should wealth transfers be taxed? Citizens’ view on a fundamental question," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201636, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    11. 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.
    12. Mitter, Hermine & Schmid, Erwin, 2021. "Informing groundwater policies in semi-arid agricultural production regions under stochastic climate scenario impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Yoram Amiel & Michele Bernasconi & Frank Cowell & Valentino Dardanoni, 2015. "Do we value mobility?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 231-255, February.
    14. Pedro FrancŽs-G—mez & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2012. "Behavioral Business Ethics as a Method for Normative Business Ethics," Econometica Working Papers wp42, Econometica.
    15. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.
    16. Jacco L. Wielhouwer, 2015. "The public cost of broken trust: Spillover effects of financial reporting irregularities," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 132-152, October.
    17. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    18. Palomo-Hierro, Sara & Loch, Adam & Pérez-Blanco, C. Dionisio, 2022. "Improving water markets in Spain: Lesson-drawing from the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    19. Ivo Bischoff & Nataliya Kusa, 2015. "Policy preferences for inheritance taxation," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201531, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    20. Cloos, Janis & Mohr, Svenja, 2022. "Acceptance of data sharing in smartphone apps from key industries of the digital transformation: A representative population survey for Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    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:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2153-:d:1045155. 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.