Victoria Farrar
Drones are becoming more prevalent in our everyday lives, and it’s anticipated that drone delivery of fast food and alcohol will be the next big use for drones in our society.
Judging by the geographic reach of drone food delivery, which is already available in parts of Brisbane and Melbourne, these services could be in every Australian capital city by the end of the decade.
The issues and considerations of the emerging use of drone technology are far-ranging.
Drone food delivery will likely be faster and cheaper than the existing scooter or e-bike delivery options, and potentially less carbon emitting than people driving to the shops.
Delivery drones are likely to form part of the existing food delivery ‘ecosystem’, that predominantly delivers ready-to-eat meals, fast food and snacks to people.
This ‘ecosystem’ is ever more connected to meal delivery apps that have embedded artificial intelligence, which increase fast food access and convenience.
There are also concerns around hard-won gains in the provision of healthy food to schools and remote communities, that could be rapidly reversed if measures are not put in place to protect these groups from increased access to unhealthy foods.
Clearly, there are competing interests in seeing delivery drones in our skies.
While the food industry is likely to favour this new technology application that can increase profits by reducing labour costs, we must collectively think about how we want these drones to serve humans.
At The George Institute, we are advocating for pre-emptive policy, so that the technology does not outpace regulation and consequently worsen diets and public health.
Our new study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, reports on a survey of approximately 1000 Australians to identify which potential government policies would be considered acceptable to manage drone deliveries in our communities.
The policy options included prohibiting alcohol delivery altogether, prohibiting drone delivery to schools, limiting the time of day that drones can fly, and restricting the density of drones over homes, suburbs and shopping centres.
When researchers explained to the public what the future might look like, and asked them what measures they would like to see, there were some interesting results:
- Curfews at night were the most popular form of drone control
- All groups supported drone delivery not going to schools
- Both men and women were more in favour (than not) of banning alcohol delivery by drones, however, women were more likely to support the ban
- People wanted limits on the number of drones in the sky at any given time
We also found differences in views amongst different demographics:
- All people – were supportive of policies that could control how drone food delivery will occur
- Older people – were more in favour of limiting food delivery drones to daylight times only, having nighttime curfews (midnight to 6am), and limiting the number of drones in the airspace at any given time
- People living in metropolitan areas, older people, and people who already use grocery delivery services were more in favour of drone delivery controls
Our research shows that people in Australia understand the need to regulate drone delivery of food and beverages and support measures that would balance convenience with protecting public health.
It’s time for governments to take notice and start acting on this emerging issue – before the drones land.
Ms Victoria Farrar and Professor Simone Pettigrew from The George Institute for Global Health are authors on the new paper published in ANZJPH.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health is the official publication of the Public Health Association of Australia.
Image: Canva
Leave a Reply