People are likely to support new forms of air transport, such as cargo-carrying drones and Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing vehicles (eVTOLs) – if they serve the public good, new research reveals.
But public positivity in the UK about ‘Future Flight’ is tempered by concerns including socio-economic exclusion, accountability and transparency, regulation of Future Flight technologies’ rollout, cybersecurity, privacy and impacts on biodiversity and wildlife.
Funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), through the Future Flight Challenge, researchers at the University of Birmingham led two comprehensive studies – a UK public dialogue (supported and co-funded by UKRI Sciencewise), alongside a national representative survey.
The three Future Flight technologies considered were: Non-passenger-carrying drones; Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing vehicles (eVTOLs); and Electric/hydrogen Regional Air Mobility (RAM).
UK citizens involved in the public dialogue deliberated over four months to develop a framework for the roll out of Future Flight technologies, systems, and services - based around 14 top-level principles and recommendations. The findings of this in-depth qualitative dialogue are also supported by a nationally representative data that shows how the concerns raised in the public dialogue map onto publics opinions.
Researchers discovered that, overall, people in the UK believe the benefits of Future Flight technologies could outweigh the drawbacks, particularly where technology could:
- Benefit public services by reducing the cost and increasing efficiency of emergency services, such as fire, police, and ambulance;
- Increase connectivity to rural, remote, and isolated communities, as well as towns and cities poorly served by road or rail connections;
- Boost sustainability of UK-wide transport systems reducing use of fossil fuels, particularly in aviation, as part of a wider integrated transport approach; and
- Strengthen economic opportunities for the UK - creating new green and skilled jobs in areas such as manufacturing, drone or eVTOL pilots, and airspace management.
Alongside these benefits, the top cited drawbacks focus on cyber security, their impact on wildlife, safety concerns, congestion in the sky, privacy and that they may only be accessible to the wealthiest in society. A geographical split in terms of perceived uses of these technologies is apparent; for both drones and eVTOLs, respondents are generally more likely to perceive them as more beneficial in remote and rural areas or areas poorly served by current transport system or services, compared to urban and suburban ones.
Future Flight Social Science Research Director Professor Fern Elsdon-Baker from the University of Birmingham commented: “On the whole, people feel that the benefits of Future Flight technologies could outweigh the drawbacks where their use clearly delivers public benefits for wider society. There’s also strong support for greater levels of government involvement in the technology and transport sectors, as well as on climate change. But publics expressed an urgent need for independent bodies to be involved in oversighting these new technologies or transport systems to ensure public concerns and expectations are considered as they develop.”
“UK citizens believe that these services and systems should receive investment and support if they offer something better than what we have already. The top-level findings highlight that Future flight systems and services should not only be accessible by the most wealthy in society, if they are to be successfully supported and rolled out in the UK. Using these technologies must strengthen future sustainability, accessibility, and affordability.”
Gary Cutts, Future flight Challenge Director UKRI, commented: “Dependent on where people live they view these technologies in radically different ways. The findings of these studies are a really useful reminder that support for different transport systems or services is geography dependent – with different social needs across remote, rural, suburban and urban populations. There is no one size fits all and that there are many publics with different views. It is vital that we engage with this wide range of public hopes, concerns, and expectations about future flight in the UK and really consider the benefits or drawbacks across these different communities.”
Researchers used information from 3,279 survey participants and 43 dialogue participants to understand the public’s hopes and fears around the future operation of Future Flight technologies, systems, and services in the UK.
In a worst-case scenario, people worried that roll-out would be poorly managed, with little leadership, regulation, national policy, strategy or oversight to guide these technologies deployment. While also, due to overall lack of investment in UK transport, diverting investment away from other forms of public transport. They were also concerned about the sustainability and supply chain ethics of manufacturing and powering Future Flight vehicles.
However, in the best-case scenario, dialogue participants hoped Future Flight services could deliver social, environmental, and economic opportunities for all – creating opportunities for more accessible travel, including people living with disabilities, health conditions and those experiencing other barriers to accessing current public transport.
