See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342415005

Analysis of barriers to implement drone logistics

Article  in  International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications · June 2020

DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1782862

CITATIONS READS

76 4,710

3 authors:

Bhawesh Sah Rohit Gupta

Northeastern University Indian Institute of Management Ranchi
13 PUBLICATIONS   314 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dana Bani-Hani
Binghamton University
8 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Project View project

Multi-echelon supply chain coordination View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dana Bani-Hani on 18 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

Analysis of barriers to implement drone logistics

Bhawesh Sah , Rohit Gupta & Dana Bani-Hani

To cite this article: Bhawesh Sah , Rohit Gupta & Dana Bani-Hani (2020): Analysis of barriers
to implement drone logistics, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, DOI:
10.1080/13675567.2020.1782862

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1782862

Published online: 23 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1782862

Analysis of barriers to implement drone logistics

Bhawesh Saha, Rohit Guptab and Dana Bani-Hanic
a
D’amore Mckim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA; bOperations Management Area,
Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; cDepartment of Systems Science and Industrial
Engineering, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Companies are adopting innovative methods for responsiveness and Received 31 January 2019
efficiency in the logistics sector. The implementation of drones in Accepted 10 June 2020
logistics sector is a move in this direction. Potential obstacles in the
KEYWORDS
smooth adoption of drones in the logistics sector must be thoroughly Drone logistics; barrier
analysed. The present study identifies and prioritises the barriers of analysis; fuzzy Delphi; AHP
drone logistics implementation based on their criticality by using the
fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
Initially, 34 barriers are identified through expert opinion and extensive
literature review. Furthermore, relevant barriers are finalised among all
the barriers by using the FDM. Finally, prioritisation of the barriers based
on their criticality is done by AHP technique. The study concludes that
regulations and threat to privacy & security are the most critical barriers
to implement drones in logistics sector. Public perception & psychological,
environmental, technical issues, and economic aspects are the other
identified critical barriers. The managerial implications of the findings
that could help practitioners and policymakers in the effective
implementation of drones in the logistics sector are also discussed.

1. Introduction
A drone is an aircraft that can fly without a human pilot on board and are typically small aircrafts
made of lightweight materials (Hayhurst et al. 2006). Drones are also called as unmanned aerial
vehicles (Nex and Remondino 2014), unmanned aircraft system (Gupta, Ghonge, and Jawandhiya
2013), and remotely piloted aircrafts (Chappelle et al. 2014). In this study, the term ‘drone’ is
used as it is commonly used in recent literature (Murray and Chu 2015; Ha et al. 2015; Ferrandez
et al. 2016; Agatz, Bouman, and Schmidt 2018). Drones have several vital applications such as mili-
tary operations (Samad, Bay, and Godbole 2007; Xia, Batta, and Nagi 2017), package deliveries (Mur-
ray and Chu 2015; Ponza 2016), and humanitarian relief & aid operations (Sandvik and Lohne 2014;
Marin 2016). These applications are likely to increase with the advent of big data methodology
(Kianmehr, Sabounchi, and Begdache 2018). Drones are also known for their major role in health-
care (Scott and Scott 2017; Kim et al. 2017). Several worldwide companies such as Google, Amazon,
FedEx, UPS, DHL, Alibaba, and Matternet have shown interest in using drones for last-mile delivery
which is an expensive and labour-intensive part of the logistics sector (Boyer, Prud’homme, and
Chung 2009). In March 2017, Matternet became the first company in Switzerland to receive full
authorisation for operating a drone logistics network (Ong 2017). DHL used a completely auton-
omous drone system to deliver consumer goods in the Bavarian community of Reit im Winkl
between January and March 2016 (Burgess 2016). In 2016, Amazon tested drone delivery of packages

CONTACT Bhawesh Sah b.sah@northeastern.edu; bsah1@binghamton.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. SAH ET AL.

weighing up to 5 lbs within 30 mins or less using Prime Air Service (Johnson 2017). UPS tested its
drone–truck delivery system in 2017, in which a drone flies off from the roof of the truck, drops the
package to the customer, and returns back to the truck (Kastrenakes 2017). In addition, Iceland’s
largest e-commerce company, AHA, has partnered with Flytrex, a drone delivery service, to make
deliveries in Reykjavik. AHA has been able to significantly cut down package delivery time by oper-
ating the Flytrex’s drone delivery system alongside its existing vehicle-based delivery network (Shu
2017). In 2019, Amazon added a new drone, MK27, to its fleet, which is highly reliable, efficient,
safer, and more stable compared with the previous models (Snow 2019). MK27 uses technology
based on artificial intelligence (AI) that enables autonomous operations in its environment. An
AI based drone can maneuver appropriately in response to people, animals, and any other detected
objects (Snow 2019). In 2019, Google Wing, the drone company owned by Google’s parent company
Alphabet, launched the first public drone delivery service in the suburbs of Canberra (Porter 2019).
In April 2019, Google Wing became the first company to get Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
approval for drone delivery to customers in Virginia, United States (Levin 2019).
Interest among academicians and practitioners in drone logistics is exponentially growing due to
its potential of reducing costs and improving responsiveness (Clarke 2014). Industry and academia
are coming together to make drone delivery a commercial success (Agatz, Bouman, and Schmidt
2018). However, the future of drone logistics is uncertain due to several barriers related to govern-
ment regulations, security, environmental, technical, and economic issues. Drones create a public
privacy and security concern because they fly close to residential areas. Additionally, the initiation
of full-fledged drone delivery creates a negative perception that one may expect to see only drones
when they look up at the sky. Apart from these public perceptions, the government is still working
out a robust plan for drone logistics. The uncertainty around government regulations makes the
adoption of drone delivery difficult even with the availability of technology. There are also other bar-
riers that are discussed in more detail in section 2.1.
Despite the potential benefits of drone logistics in improving responsiveness and reducing costs,
the widespread implementation of this disruptive logistic technology is not yet visible. This study
examines the various barriers in implementing drone delivery in the logistics sector and ranks
them based on their criticality by applying a two-step methodology. Firstly, we apply the fuzzy Del-
phi method (FDM) to identify the relevant barriers to implement drones in logistics sector. Secondly,
we rank the relevant barriers based on their criticality using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
technique. Both these techniques are used for decision making based on mathematics and psychol-
ogy under situations when previous data are not available (Ishikawa et al. 1993; Lai, Trueblood, and
Wong 1999). This is one of the first studies that identifies and ranks the barriers of drone implemen-
tation in logistics sector by applying fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) tools.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the related work regarding
drone barriers in logistics sector. Section 3 discusses the methodology. The application of the frame-
work is discussed in section 4. Section 5 presents the results & discussion and section 6 presents the
managerial implication. Section 7 concludes the work and provides suggestions for future research,
and finally section 8 presents the limitations of the study.

2. Literature review
Although drones were initially designed for military operations because of the dangers and risks for
personnel in manned aircrafts, they now have a wide range of other applications. Besides package
delivery, drones are used in aerial inspection and monitoring of power lines and oil & gas pipes
(Rathlev, Meyer, and Juerss 2012). Additional applications include surveying (Silvagni et al.
2017), mapping (McNeil and Snow 2016), and collecting spatial and geographic data (Coeckelbergh
2013). They have also been adopted in civil and construction applications (Ham et al. 2016; Bogue
2018), healthcare (Kim et al. 2017; Scott and Scott 2017), agriculture (Malveaux, Hall, and Price
2014), public safety and security (Vattapparamban et al. 2016), mining (Lee and Choi 2016), imaging
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 3

(Li and Ling 2015), and science and research (Marris 2013). Drones have been used for military oper-
ations (Springer 2013), data gathering (Marris 2013), and humanitarian aid (Emery 2016) for a much
longer time than package delivery.
Drones have been successful in mapping and surveying. Casella et al. (2017) employed motion
photogrammetry techniques to map coral reefs using drones. Hallermann and Morgenthal (2013)
demonstrated that drones equipped with high-definition photo and video cameras used for the
detailed visual inspection and damage detection of large structures is both effective and cost efficient.
Stehr (2015) exhibited the implementation of drones in agriculture and suggested that drones can be
more efficient than satellites as they are not obstructed by clouds. In healthcare, drones have proven
helpful for medical deliveries. Kim et al. (2017) discussed the application of drones in the delivery
and pickup of medications and test kits for patients with chronic diseases. In future, drones can
be a medium for worldwide organ transportation (Francisco 2016). Drones can play a crucial role
in relief and aid operations during disastrous situations. Drones can be used for humanitarian aid
during emergencies to survey damage, identify survivors, and deliver services. Matternet, a firm spe-
cialising in humanitarian aid using drones, announced in January 2013 that it will use drones to deli-
ver medicine and other supplies to remote areas of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Several authors have proposed methods to tackle different issues related to drone delivery. Kim
et al. (2016) enumerated the various pros and cons of drone delivery in urban cities. Carlsson and
Song (2018) proposed a delivery system to counter the limited travel range of drones in which
the drone serves customers while making return trips to a moving truck, demonstrating an increased
efficacy of drone–truck combinations. Gonźalez-Jorge et al. (2017) reviewed the technology behind
delivery drones and the various parts used in making them such as propellers, batteries, and motors.
Mourelo Ferrandez et al. (2016) compared the efficacy of the drone–truck delivery system and a stan-
dalone drone or truck. Dorling et al. (2017) developed a vehicle routing problem (VRP) formulation
specifically for drone delivery as the existing VRPs may not be applicable to drone delivery due to
situations such as multiple trips to a depot and the effects of battery limit and payload capacity. San-
jab, Saad, and Basar (2017) studied the cyber–physical security challenges for drone delivery; a zero-
sum game was formulated between the vendor making the drone delivery and an attacker trying to
disrupt the delivery using cyber or physical attacks. Scott and Scott (2017) proposed models for
drone delivery specifically for the healthcare sector to promote timely, economical, and efficient
healthcare delivery.
However, drones also have certain drawbacks as they are aerial vehicles, they pose a potential
threat to humans, properties, wildlife, nature, and the environment. Some of their drawbacks include
privacy issues. Drones have elicited concerns about the privacy and safety of people ever since they
were introduced to the public (Luppicini and So 2016). Another drawback is the psychological dis-
tress that they might cause in some people because of data security issues (Sandbrook 2015). Good-
child and Toy (2018) discussed the impact of CO2 emissions on the environment and argued that
when the customer is far away from the service depot, drones cause higher CO2 emissions than
trucks. Aforementioned drawbacks are barriers for successful implementation of drones in the logis-
tics sector.
Most of the literature focuses on the problems of drones applied at a tactical or operational level
such as routing (Bae and Rathinam 2015; Babel 2017; Coelho et al.,2017; Dorling et al. 2017), area
coverage (Barrientos et al. 2011; Dille and Singh 2013; Avellar et al. 2015; Balampanis, Maza, and
Ollero 2017), and search operations (Sujit and Ghose 2004; Lanillos et al. 2014; Oh et al. 2014;
Ho and Ouaknine 2015). Drone delivery is a new technology, so it is important to analyse the bar-
riers in drone logistics to provide critical insights to researchers and practitioners. None of the above-
mentioned studies focus on analysing barriers of drone logistics implementation using a MCDM
technique. Some successful studies on barrier analysis have been in different contexts such as sustain-
able renewable energy development (Kumar et al. 2017), blockchain implementation (Biswas and
Gupta 2019), development of biorefineries (Janssen et al. 2010), electronic medical records in health-
care (Miller and Sim 2004), and starting a wind energy plant (Govindan and Shankar 2016).
4 B. SAH ET AL.

This study presents a FMCDM framework for the barrier analysis of drone logistics implemen-
tation. Classical MCDM techniques use crisp data to model scenarios; however, using precise weights
for practical applications may not always be feasible (Chen, Lin, and Huang 2006; Kannan, de Sousa
Jabbour, and Jabbour 2014). The FMCDM employs a fuzzy set theory to enable fuzzy assessment and
multiple expert judgments.
Many studies have utilised FDM technique in the supply chain and logistics sector. Chen (2002)
apply the FDM technique to evaluate the logistic performance of different distribution centres. Liu
and Wang (2009) used the FDM for provider evaluation and selection in third-party logistics. Lin
and Lee (2011) used it to identify the factors essential for green supply chain management. Lin
and Wu (2011) used the FDM and AHP to select suppliers in supermarket retail chains in Taiwan.
There is a lack of studies focusing on prioritising barriers of drone logistics implementation based
on their criticality. We propose a FMCDM framework to analyse the barriers in drone logistics
implementation to fill this gap. The additional motivation behind conducting this study are as
follows:

. The exponentially growing interest of academicians and practitioners in drone logistics.

. The uncertainty of the future of drone logistics.
. The growing popularity of drones among the general public.

2.1. Identification of barriers to drone logistics

An extensive literature review on drone logistics from various sources such as Google Scholar, Web
of Science, ProQuest, and EBSCO is performed to identify the critical barriers. Initially, 34 barriers
are identified (Table 1), out of which 28 are selected as relevant barriers by FDM. For FDM, the
group of experts consisted of five industrial managers and five academicians, all having an experience
of at least 5 years in the logistics sector. The barriers are summarised in Table 1.
The above-mentioned barriers can be explained as follows:

2.1.1. Threat to privacy and security

People fear non-consensual recording by drones because drones have cameras installed in them to
assist with landing. Although drones have been used successfully for activities such as border surveil-
lance in the past (Finn and Wright 2012), however it hinders with an individual’s freedom of
expression or assembly. Drones could potentially discourage people from participating in social
events and movements due to the fear of being recorded.
Drones used for logistics applications have the potential to be viewed as mass data collection
devices when they are in fact making deliveries to customers (Bracken et al. 2014). Thus, this can
be perceived as a violation of the Fourth Amendment in the United States (Villasenor 2014). Anbar-
ŏglu (2017) proposed transparency in the data collection system by drones such that the people are
aware of any data collection process and the data are also shared with the people.
Drones can jeopardise national security if placed in the wrong hands. They are capable of cyber
and physical attacks against the public (Kwon, Kim, and Park 2017). Scam drones can also disguise
themselves as delivery drones and send tricked wireless signals that can steal personal information
such as credit card details from mobile phones, leading to identity theft. Drone-to-drone communi-
cations create a potential for terrorist organisations, computer hackers, and hostile nations to target
drone transportation systems and cause collisions between drones and other objects or people (San-
jab, Saad, and Basar 2017).

2.1.2. Regulations
Government regulations are laws that control the way a business can operate. Government regu-
lations related to consent for drone deliveries in residential areas are needed as delivering a package
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 5

Table 1. Barriers to implement drones in logistics sector.

Main criteria
1. Threat to privacy and security
(Th)
2. Regulations (R)
3. Public perception and
psychological (P)
4. Environmental issues (En)
Sub–criteria References
Unauthorised photography (Th1) Maharana (2017)
Identification of non-authorized drones Anbarŏglu (2017)
(Th2)
Surveillance and privacy (Th3) Finn and Wright (2012)
Violating rights (Th4) Villasenor (2014)
Physical attacks, jamming and spoofing Solodov et al. (2018)
(Th5)
Intentional hacking and cyber-attacks, Akram et al. (2017)
terrorism (Th6)
Accountability for drone owners (R1) Chang, Chundury, and Chetty (2017)
Drone’s route (R2) Lidynia, Philipsen, and Ziefle (2017)
Insurance obligations (R3) Lords (2015)
Pilot certification and training (R4) Dalamagkidis, Valavanis, and Piegl
(2008)Rainerpp(2015 (2015 (2015)
Crowding airspace for manned aircrafts (R5) Heutger and Kuckelhaus (2014)
Determination of liability (R6) Rao, Gopi, and Maione (2016)
Higher the perceived risk (P1) Clothier et al. (2015)
Transparency (P2) (Infer the purpose of use Lidynia, Philipsen, and Ziefle (2017)
from appearance)
Societal anxiety about automation (P3) Ravich (2013)
Awareness about drone technology (P4) Rao, Gopi, and Maione (2016)
Drones and theft (P5) Duffy (2015)
Public annoyance (e.g. full skies) (P6) Kwon, Kim, and Park (2017)
Private sector use of drones (P7) Bracken et al. (2014)
CO2 emissions (En1) Goodchild and Toy (2018)
Harming wildlife (En2) Chang, Chundury, and Chetty (2017)
Visual pollution and sound pollution (En3) Kwon, Kim, and Park (2017)
Create debris (En4) Stewart (2018)
Uneven distribution of income (Ec1) Clarke and Moses (2014)

High initial cost (Ec2)

5. Economic aspects (Ec)
6. Technical issues (Te)
Higher Initial costs (Ec2)
Economy and employment (Ec3)
Disrupt trucking industry (Ec4)
Short flight range (Te1)
Navigation (Te2)
Obstacle avoidance and mid–air collisions
(Te3)
Bad weather conditions (Te4)
Tracking of drones (Te5)
Delivery and performance risk (Te6)
Limited carrying capacity (Te7)
Sudbury and Hutchinson (2016)
Boucher (2016)
Luehrs (2015)
Gupta, Jain, and Vaszkun (2016)
Parker et al. (2017)
Dalamagkidis, Valavanis, and Piegl (2008)
Hallermann and Morgenthal (2013)
Anbarŏglu (2017)
Yoo, Yu, and Jung (2018)
Hallermann and Morgenthal (2013)

to a customer would require the drone to fly through the whole community-occupying secondary
space (Chang, Chundury, and Chetty 2017). Even if the customer gives consent for the drone to deli-
ver the product, the question of other people’s consent in the community remains. Therefore, a law
regarding this is required, which is possible only through government intervention.
Regulations regarding data collection or video recording by delivery drones is required. Commer-
cialisation of drones could be a threat to public privacy as it is difficult to determine the recording of a
delivery drone (Chang, Chundury, and Chetty 2017). Moreover, a concern about drone identity
exists as it is difficult to differentiate a commercial drone from a private one. Thus, implementing
drones for logistic sector would be challenging until regulations are laid down for tackling these
issues.

2.1.3. Public perception and psychological

According to Ravich (2013), drones lead to societal anxiety about automation among people because
they do not have a pilot on board and the decisions are made using a computer, which is potentially
6 B. SAH ET AL.

vulnerable to cyberattacks. People also have a perception that drones are only applicable for surveil-
lance and military purposes, and hence they do not want to be in the vicinity of a drone due to the
fear of being recorded or attacked (Kwon, Kim, and Park 2017). Although package delivery drones
may not attack or record without consent, awareness about different drones and their roles should be
made available to the public. A fear of ‘full skies’ also exists among people due to several drones flying
around them most of the time. Moreover, because drones are not limited to roads like ground
vehicles, people may not have an option of avoiding the omnipresent drones (Boucher 2016).
The delivery drones will fly above people, creating a risk for them. Thus, the expected large num-
ber of drones would create fear among the public of being hit by these drones (Clothier et al. 2015).
People might also have misconceptions about the purpose of drones, believing them to be from a
terrorist group or a hostile nation (Sandbrook 2015). Such perceptions can create new conflicts or
fuel existing ones.

2.1.4. Environmental issues

Drones create a negative physiological impact on animals (Kwon, Kim, and Park 2017). Chang,
Chundury, and Chetty (2017) observed that drones could possibly hit birds and other wildlife ani-
mals. The widespread use of drones generates a buzzing noise and shadows which result in visual and
sound pollution (Kwon, Kim, and Park 2017). Drones also cause CO2 emissions. Further, it was
found that drones cause more emissions than trucks when the customers are far away from the
depot (Goodchild and Toy 2018).

2.1.5. Economic aspects

The logistics industry creates employment opportunities for vehicle drivers. However, as the industry
incorporates drones into the logistics business, many individuals including truck drivers are either
facing a decrease in their paychecks or a job loss. This problem would mainly affect the middle
class, leading to the widening of the economic gap between the rich and poor (Kwon, Kim, and
Park 2017; Boucher 2016). The cost of living is continuously increasing worldwide, this economic
gap causes a huge burden for the global economy.

2.1.6. Technical issues

Drones face technical barriers such as flying in bad weather conditions (e.g. rain, fog, storms, or
strong winds). Bad weather conditions may cause a drone to crash which could result in physical
injuries and property damage (Kwon, Kim, and Park 2017). This increasing the delivery risk of
the drones. The delivery risk is defined as the probability of drone malfunctioning and not being
able to deliver the product and is a vital factor affecting the adoption of drones by the public.
Thus, drones need to be dynamically monitored during their flight to check for any malfunctions
(Yoo, Yu, and Jung 2018; Anbarŏglu 2017).
Agatz, Bouman, and Schmidt (2018) observed limited battery life which could be a problem if a
customer’s location is outside the drone’s flight range. Ross (2014) identified the lack of obstacle
avoidance technology. Drones should be able to avoid buildings, structures, other drones, aircrafts,
and birds while making deliveries to customers. Drones also possess limited payload capacity which
makes it difficult to deliver heavy packages (Hallermann and Morgenthal 2013).

3. Research methodology
This section is divided into two subsections: in subsection 3.1, we explain the FDM which is used for
selecting the relevant barriers, and in subsection 3.2, we present the AHP method to rank the barriers
based on relative importance.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 7

3.1. Fuzzy delphi method

The traditional Delphi method was developed by Dalkey and Helmer (1963) and was further
modified by Ishikawa et al. (1993) by incorporating fuzzy set theory. In traditional Delphi method
expert opinions are collected to identify relevant barriers. For expert opinions, a specific Delphi ques-
tionnaire is developed. This questionnaire uses quantitative values that reflect the degree of barrier
importance. The barriers having the lowest scores are not considered for further analysis. However,
an expert’s opinion cannot be represented in quantitative terms in real-life situations as some ambi-
guity or vagueness will exist due to the differences in the meanings and interpretations of the
opinion. The fuzzy theory helps to quantify linguistic terms such as ‘important’ or ‘very important’
which are often used by experts. Therefore, the traditional Delphi method is modified using fuzzy
theory and is termed as the FDM.
For capturing the vagueness of expert opinions, triangular fuzzy numbers are used. A triangular
fuzzy number is represented by a triplet (a, b, c) in which ‘a’ represents the smallest possible value, ‘b’
represents the most likely value, and ‘c’ represents the largest possible value for a fuzzy event as illus-
trated in Figure 1, where m(x) represents the membership function.
The FDM can be illustrated using the following steps:

. Step 1: Identification of the barriers and collecting expert opinions: An extensive literature review is
done to identify the barriers (Table 1) of drone logistics implementation. The expert opinions are
collected using the linguistic variables (Table 2).
. Step 2: Set up the triangular fuzzy numbers: A fuzzy number is associated with each linguistic vari-
able listed in Table 2.

After identifying the barriers, 10 experts from industrial and academic backgrounds are invited to
determine the importance of the barriers through FDM questionnaire. A triangular fuzzy number is

Figure 1. A triangular fuzzy number.

Table 2. Linguistic variable conversion scale.

Linguistic variable Fuzzy number
Very low (0,0,0.1)
Low (0,0.1,0.3)
Medium low (0.1,0.3,0.5)
Medium (0.3,0.5,0.7)
Medium high (0.5,0.7,0.9)
High (0.7,0.9,1.0)
Very high (0.9,1.0,1.0)
8 B. SAH ET AL.

associated with each linguistic variable as listed in Table 2. A triangular fuzzy number ãij is defined as
ãij = (aij , bij , cij ), in which i ∈ {1,2,..,n} denotes the experts and j ∈ {1,2,..,m} denotes the barriers,
where n and m are the number of experts and barriers, respectively. The fuzzy weights of the barriers
are given as follows: ã−j = (aj , bj , cj ), where aj = min{aij }, bj = (Pni=1 bij )1/n , and cj = max{cij }. This
study uses a geometric mean model (Ma et al. 2011) to determine the group decision of the experts.

. Step 3: Defuzzification: The simple centre of gravity method is used to defuzzify the fuzzy weights
to get a crisp value (Sj ), which is given by the following formula:
aj + bj + cj
Sj = , j [ {1, 2, .., m}
3
. Step 4: Barrier selection based on their importance: A threshold value ‘S’ is calculated as:

m
Si
S = i , i [ {1, 2, .., n}
n

The barriers are selected on the basis of the following principles:

– If Si ≥ S, then barrier i is selected

– If Si < S, then barrier i is not selected

3.2. Analytic hierarchy process

AHP is a decision-making technique for analysing complex decisions when multiple criteria are to be
considered (Vaidya and Kumar 2006). AHP is based on the mathematical structure of matrices and
the abilities of their associated eigen vectors to generate approximate or true weights (Saaty 1990).
The AHP steps in this study can be summarised as follows:
Step 1: Obtain the list of barriers that are selected using the FDM.
Step 2: Construct a questionnaire and collect expert opinions: The data is collected using the Saaty
scale (Table 3), and the questionnaire is prepared under the guidance of three academic experts in
transportation and logistics sector.
Step 3: Determine the weight of each barrier and evaluate for consistency using the consistency
ratio (CR).

Table 3. Saaty scale (Saaty 1990).

Intensity of importance
on an absolute scale Definition Explanation
1 Equally important Two activities contribute equally to the
objective
3 Moderate importance of one over another Experience and judgment slightly favour one
activity over another
5 Strong importance of one over another Experience and judgment strongly favour
one activity over another
7 Very strong importance An activity is strongly favoured, and its
dominance demonstrated in practice
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments When compromise is needed
Reciprocals If activity i has one of the above non- zero numbers A reasonable assumption
assigned to it when compared with activity j, then j
has the reciprocal value when compared with i
Rationals Ratios arising from the scale If consistency were to be forced by obtaining
n numerical values to span the matrix
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 9

The decision is accepted if the CR < 0.1; otherwise, the pairwise comparison matrix is modified to
remove any inconsistency. This step is performed separately for each respondent and for the aggre-
gated opinions.

3.2.1. Method to evaluate the consistency of the pairwise comparisons

The method used is adapted from Haq and Kannan (2006) and consists of the following steps:

(1) The relative weights and λMax are calculated for each pairwise comparison matrix of
order m.
(2) The consistency index (CI) is calculated for each matrix of order m by using the following for-
mula:
lmax − m
CI =
m−1
(3) The CR is calculated using the following formula:
CI
CR =
RCI
Where RCI is average random consistency index as shown in Table 4.
(4) The global weight of each barrier is calculated. Finally, barriers are ranked on the basis of their
weights.

4. Application of the framework

Data are collected using questionnaires and the framework for analysis is presented in Figure 2.
Initially, the list of 34 barriers is sent to 10 experts for their opinions for identifying the relevant
barriers through FDM. Several previous studies such as Watson and Hudson (2015), Hsu, Lee,
and Kreng (2010), and Bueno and Salmeron (2008) have also used 10 or less experts to analyse
barriers.
The respondents are five logistics managers and five academicians, all of whom have at least 5
years of experience in the logistics sector. The industrial experts are logistics and supply chain man-
agers in companies that are pioneers in drone delivery, whereas all the academic experts are actively
researching drone delivery. Once the critical barriers are identified through FDM, they are grouped
under six major categories in consultation with the academic and the industrial experts. Then, the
pairwise comparison is performed for all the barriers using the AHP technique by the 15 experts
from three companies (X, Y, and Z).
All the 15 experts of these companies are working with drone delivery systems. These companies
are of different sizes and market shares. The first company X has the largest market share & size and
can deliver products ranging from clothing to electronics. The second company Y has a medium
market share & size and delivers mostly household electronics. The last company Z is a startup
based on the idea of drone logistics; they have tested their delivery methods under test conditions
and are set to enter the logistics market. Thus, the combination of responses from these companies
represents a good average case. The responses collected from experts are analysed using the AHP
technique.

Table 4. Average random consistency index (RCI) based on matrix size (m) (Saaty 1990).
m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RCI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.45
10 B. SAH ET AL.

Figure 2. Framework for identifying the barriers to drone logistics implementation.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 11

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Selecting essential barriers using the FDM
The results from the FDM are presented in Table 5. Initially, 34 barriers are identified from the lit-
erature out of which 28 barriers are chosen as relevant barriers for further analysis and 6 barriers are
rejected by experts. These relevant barriers are classified in main category and sub-category as shown
in Table 6. The rejected barriers are crowding airspace for manned aircrafts, unauthorised photogra-
phy, drones and theft, create debris, navigation, and disrupt trucking industry.
Crowding airspace for manned aircrafts is not a relevant barrier as the maximum allowable alti-
tude for drones is 400 feet above the ground according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
guidelines (Calandrillo, Oh, and Webb 2020), and most manned aircrafts fly much higher than
400 feet. FAA guidelines also state that a drone cannot be flown over anyone not directly participat-
ing in its operation, not under a covered structure, and nor inside a covered stationary vehicle. These
guidelines ensure the public’s privacy, thus unauthorised photography becomes an irrelevant barrier.
The same guidelines ensure that a drone cannot be used for stealing purposes, thus drones and theft
becomes an irrelevant barrier too. A team led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer
Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory hopes to solve the navigation problem by using a sys-
tem called NanoMap, which allows the drones to avoid obstacles and fly in densely populated
environments; thus, navigation may not be a relevant barrier. Furthermore, drones are not meant
to disrupt but augment the trucking industry. A drone can be mounted on the top of the truck

Table 5. FDM results.

Barrier Fuzzy Weights Selected/Rejected
Th1 (0, 0.143, 0.4) Rejected
Th2 (0.5, 0.673, 0.9) Selected
Th3 (0.5, 0.791, 1) Selected
Th4 (0.7, 0.819, 1) Selected
Th5 (0.5, 0.713, 0.9) Selected
Th6 (0.5, 0.791, 1) Selected
R1 (0.5, 0.730, 1) Selected
R2 (0.5, 0.829, 1) Selected
R3 (0.7, 0.838, 1) Selected
R4 (0.5, 0.689, 1) Selected
R5 (0,0.131,0.3) Rejected
R6 (0.7, 0.838, 1) Selected
P1 (0.5, 0.834, 1) Selected
P2 (0.5, 0.713, 0.9) Selected
P3 (0.5, 0.713, 0.9) Selected
P4 (0.5, 0.834, 1) Selected
P5 (0, 0.137, 0.4) Rejected
P6 (0.5, 0.834, 1) Selected
P7 (0.7, 0.819, 1) Selected
En1 (0.5, 0.713, 0.9) Selected
En2 (0.7, 0.819, 1) Selected
En3 (0.5, 0.834, 1) Selected
En4 (0,0.100,0.2) Rejected
Ec1 (0.5, 0.730, 1) Selected
Ec2 (0.7, 0.828, 1) Selected
Ec3 (0.5, 0.769, 1) Selected
Ec4 (0, 0.114, 0.3) Rejected
Te1 (0.7, 0.819, 1) Selected
Te2 (0, 0.137, 0.4) Rejected
Te3 (0.5, 0.730, 1) Selected
Te4 (0.7, 0.819, 1) Selected
Te5 (0.5, 0.795, 1) Selected
Te6 (0.5, 0.730, 1) Selected
Te7 (0.5, 0.834, 1) Selected
THRESHOLD (0.446, 0.651, 0.851)
12 B. SAH ET AL.

Table 6. Relevant barriers.

Main category Sub-category
Identification of non-authorized drones (Th2)
Surveillance and privacy (Th3)
1.Threat to privacy and security (Th) Violating rights (Th4)
Physical attacks, Jamming, and spoofing (Th5)
Intentional hacking and cyber-attacks, terrorism (Th6)

Accountability for Drone Owners (R1)

Drone’s route (R2)
2.Regulations (R) Insurance obligations (R3)
Pilot certification and training (R4)
Determination of liability (R6)

Higher perceived risk (P1)

3.Public perception /Psychological (P)
Transparency (Infer the purpose of use from appearance) (P2)
Societal anxiety about automation (P3)
Awareness about drone technology (P4)
Public annoyance (e.g. full skies) (P6)
Private sector use of drones (P7)

CO2 emissions (En1)

4.Environmental issues (En) Harming wildlife (En2)
Visual pollution and Sound pollution (En3)

Uneven distribution of income (Ec1)

5.Economic aspects (Ec) Higher Initial costs (Ec2)
Economy and employment (Ec3)

Short flight range (Te1)

Obstacle avoidance and mid-air collisions (Te3)
6.Technical Issues (Te) Bad weather conditions (Te4)
Tracking of drones (Te5)
Delivery and performance risk (Te6)
Limited carrying capacity (Te7)

such that the drone and truck can deliver packages to customers simultaneously. Therefore, disrupt
trucking industry is not a critical barrier.

5.2. AHP results for barrier ranking

The results of the AHP analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 presents the aggregated
pairwise comparison matrix (geometric mean) of all the pairwise comparison matrices obtained
from the expert opinions of the main barrier category. Table 8 presents the weights of the main
barrier category. We infer that regulations (R) and threat to privacy & security (Th) are the most
critical barriers while technical issues (Te) and economic aspects (Ec) are the least critical, and
public perception (P) and environmental issues (En) are medium critical barriers. If government
regulations for a new technology or product are not favourable, then the chances of success of

Table 7. Aggregated pair-wise comparison matrix for barrier.

R Th P En Te Ec
R 1 2.258 3.669 4.676 6.283 7.286
Th 0.442 1 2.656 3.669 4.781 6.283
P 0.272 0.376 1 4.011 5.378 6.381
En 0.213 0.272 0.249 1 2.895 4.573
Te 0.159 0.209 0.185 0.345 1 3.365
Ec 0.137 0.159 0.156 0.218 0.297 1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 13

Table 8. AHP weights for each barrier category (aggregated).

Barrier category Sorted weight values
R 0.397
Th 0.254
P 0.182
En 0.087
Te 0.051
Ec 0.029

the product or technology are very slim; thus, regulations is the most critical barrier of main
category. Public perception heavily depends on privacy and security concerns related to the tech-
nology. Thus, government regulations and public perception must also be taken into top con-
sideration while implementing drone logistics.

5.3. Barrier ranking for drone implementation in the logistics sector by using AHP
In Table 9, we can see the rankings of all the barriers. The AHP method is used to find the overall
rankings of the barriers, and the weights of each barrier is multiplied with the relative weight of the
barrier category to get the global weights.
Table 9 illustrates that regulations (R) is the most critical main category barrier, followed by threat
to privacy and security (Th). Public perception (P) is the third most critical barrier in our analysis.
Environmental issues (En) is the fourth most critical barrier. Technical issues (Te) and economic
aspects (Ec) are ranked at the fifth and sixth positions, respectively.

Table 9. Local and global weights of the barriers.

Performance evaluation main Sub-criteria Relative Relative Global Global
criteria Weights weights weights rank weights rank
Regulations (R) 0.396 R1 0.429 1 0.170 1
R2 0.154 3 0.061 6
R3 0.298 2 0.118 2
R4 0.041 5 0.016 17
R6 0.078 4 0.031 10
Threat to privacy and security (Th) 0.255 Th2 0.049 5 0.013 19
Th3 0.435 1 0.111 3
Th4 0.275 2 0.070 5
Th5 0.081 4 0.021 13
Th6 0.160 3 0.041 9
Public perception /Psychological 0.182 P1 0.407 1 0.074 4
(P)
P2 0.038 6 0.007 24
P3 0.253 2 0.046 8
P4 0.060 5 0.011 21
P6 0.151 3 0.028 11
P7 0.091 4 0.017 16
Environmental issues (En) 0.087 En1 0.288 2 0.025 12
En2 0.574 1 0.049 7
En3 0.138 3 0.012 20
Technical Issues (Te) 0.051 Te1 0.163 3 0.008 23
Te3 0.373 1 0.019 14
Te4 0.257 2 0.013 18
Te5 0.063 5 0.003 27
Te6 0.041 6 0.002 28
Te7 0.103 4 0.005 25
Economic aspects (Ec) 0.029 Ec1 0.125 3 0.004 26
Ec2 0.293 2 0.008 22
Ec3 0.582 1 0.017 15
14 B. SAH ET AL.

5.3.1. Regulations (R)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are R1 > R3 > R2 > R6 > R4, where R1, R3, R2,
R6, and R4 refer to accountability of drone owners, insurance obligations, drone’s route, determi-
nation of liability, and pilot certification and training, respectively.

5.3.2 Threat to privacy and security (Th)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are Th3 > Th4 > Th6 > Th5 > Th2, where Th3,
Th4, Th6, Th5, and Th2 refer to surveillance and privacy, violating rights, intentional hacking and
cyberattacks (terrorism), physical attacks, jamming and spoofing, and identification of non-authorized
drones, respectively.

5.3.3. Public perception / psychological (P)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are P1 > P3 > P6 > P7 > P4 > P2, where P1, P3,
P6, P7, P4, and P2 refer to higher perceived risk, societal anxiety about automation, public annoyance,
private sector use of drones, awareness about drone technology, and transparency, respectively.

5.3.4. Environmental issues (En)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are En2 > En1 > En3, where En2, En1, and En3
refer to harming wildlife, CO2 emissions, and visual pollution and sound pollution, respectively.

5.3.5. Technical issues (Te)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are Te3 > Te4 > Te1 > Te7 > Te5 > Te6, where
Te3, Te4, Te1, Te7, Te6, and Te5 refer to obstacle avoidance and mid-air collisions, bad weather con-
ditions, short flight range, limited carrying capacity, tracking of drones, and delivery and performance
risk, respectively.

5.3.6. Economic aspects (Ec)

The sub-barriers in decreasing order of their criticality are Ec3 > Ec2 > Ec1, where Ec3, Ec2, and Ec1
refer to economy and employment, higher initial costs, and uneven distribution of income,
respectively.

6. Managerial implications
The present study has several important implications for researchers and practitioners working on
drone logistics. It provides an initial guidance about the barriers that need to be overcome for the
success of drone logistics. The motivation behind this study is to understand and analyse potential
barriers in incorporating drone logistics into the supply chain of a firm.
The regulations barrier is the most critical barrier in drone logistics, which is quite intuitive. A
new technology, irrespective of the demand for it and its commercial viability, is not feasible unless
there are government regulations supporting it. For example, many companies such as Tesla, Google,
and Renault are testing autonomous cars. However, the commercialisation of autonomous cars may
never be feasible without supportive government regulations. A product that hampers the privacy
and security of users may never be successful in the market. Both regulations (R) and privacy and
security concerns (Th) help in moulding the public perception (P) about the product or service. A
key insight for managers here is to look for regulations favouring the use of drones before investing
heavily into drone logistics. It must always be insured that privacy and security of users is guaran-
teed. Other factors such as environmental issues (En), technical issues (Te), and economic aspects (Ec)
are also important but mostly in the later stages of implementation.
This study is highly significant and beneficial for logistics and e-commerce companies interested
in using drones for last-mile delivery.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 15

7. Conclusion and future work

Drone delivery has the potential to change the traditional last-mile delivery process using trucks. We
analyse the barriers of drone logistics implementation and group them into appropriate categories.
We chose the AHP technique to analyse the barriers as it helps to obtain the critical barriers. AHP
works well when limited information is available, which is the case with drone logistics as the tech-
nology is new and no past data is available.
This study reveals that regulations (R) and threat to privacy and security (Th) are the most critical
barriers for the implementation of drones in logistics sector. Other important barriers are public per-
ception (P), environmental issues (En), technical aspects (Te), and economic aspects (Ec), in decreas-
ing order of their criticality. For future research, the same analysis may be performed with additional
barriers that are identified with the growth in drone technology and its commercialisation.

8. Study limitations
Drone logistics is still a new technology and the proposed model provides a reference standard for
interested companies. However, the model has geographic limitations as the study is conducted in
the United States. The same methodology may be applied to several other countries, and the differ-
ences in results may be then compared. In addition, other methods such as fuzzy technique for order
preference by similarity to ideal solution, fuzzy data envelopment analysis, and fuzzy analytic net-
work process can be used to compare the results. This model is based on opinions from industrial
managers and academicians; however, their judgments are subject to personal bias. For future
studies, this model can be validated with some statistical analysis.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Agatz, N., P. Bouman, and M. Schmidt. 2018. “Optimization Approaches for the Traveling Salesman Problem with
Drone.” Transportation Science 52 (4): 965–981.
Akram, R. N., K. Markantonakis, K. Mayes, O. Habachi, D. Sauveron, A. Steyven, and S. Chaumette. 2017. “Security,
Privacy and Safety Evaluation of Dynamic and Static Fleets of Drones.” In Digital Avionics Systems Conference
(DASC), 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th, pp. 1–12. IEEE.
Anbarŏglu, B. 2017. “Parcel Delivery in an Urban Environment Using Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Vision Paper.”
ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 4, 73.
Avellar, G., G. Pereira, L. Pimenta, and P. Iscold. 2015. “Multi-UAV Routing for Area Coverage and Remote Sensing
with Minimum Time.” Sensors 15 (11): 27783–27803.
Babel, L. 2017. “Curvature-constrained Traveling Salesman Tours for Aerial Surveillance in Scenarios with Obstacles.”
European Journal of Operational Research 262 (1): 335–346.
Bae, J., and S. Rathinam. 2015. “Approximation Algorithm for a Heterogeneous Vehicle Routing Problem.”
International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 12 (8): 113.
Balampanis, F., I. Maza, and A. Ollero. 2017. “Area Partition for Coastal Regions with Multiple UAS.” Journal of
Intelligent & Robotic Systems 88 (2-4): 751–766.
Barrientos, A., J. Colorado, J. d. Cerro, A. Martinez, C. Rossi, D. Sanz, and J. Valente. 2011. “Aerial Remote Sensing in
Agriculture: A Practical Approach to Area Coverage and Path Planning for Fleets of Mini Aerial Robots.” Journal of
Field Robotics 28 (5): 667–689.
Biswas, B., and R. Gupta. 2019. “Analysis of Barriers to Implement Blockchain in Industry and Service Sectors.”
Computers & Industrial Engineering 136: 225–241.
Bogue, R. 2018. “What are the Prospects for Robots in the Construction Industry?” Industrial Robot: An International
Journal 45 (1): 1–6.
Boucher, P. 2016. “You Would not Have Your Granny Using Them: Drawing Boundaries Between Acceptable and
Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones.” Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (5): 1391–1418.
16 B. SAH ET AL.

Boyer, K. K., A. M. Prud’homme, and W. Chung. 2009. “The Last Mile Challenge: Evaluating the Effects of Customer
Density and Delivery Window Patterns.” Journal of Business Logistics 30 (1): 185–201.
Bracken, C., R. D. Lyon, M. J. Mansour, A. Molnar, A. Saulnier, S. Thompson, G. Adams, M. Masoodi, and J. Sharpe.
2014. “Surveillance Drones: Privacy Implications of the Spread of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Canada.”
Surveillance Studies Centre: Queens University, Kingston, UK 30.
Bueno, S., and J. L. Salmeron. 2008. “Fuzzy Modeling Enterprise Resource Planning Tool Selection.” Computer
Standards & Interfaces 30 (3): 137–147.
Burgess, M. 2016. DHL’s Delivery Drone Can Make Drops Quicker than a Car. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dhl-
drone-delivery-germany.
Calandrillo, S., J. Oh, and A. Webb. 2020. “Deadly Drones: Why FAA Regulations Miss the Mark on Drone Safety.”
Stan. Tech. L. Rev 23: 182.
Carlsson, J. G., and S. Song. 2018. “Coordinated Logistics with a Truck and a Drone.” Management Science 64 (9):
4052–4069.
Casella, E., A. Collin, D. Harris, S. Ferse, S. Bejarano, V. Parravicini, J. L. Hench, and A. Rovere. 2017. “Mapping Coral
Reefs Using Consumer-Grade Drones and Structure From Motion Photogrammetry Techniques.” Coral Reefs 36
(1): 269–275.
Chang, V., P. Chundury, and M. Chetty. 2017. “Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security.”
In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6765–6776. ACM.
Chappelle, W. L., K. D. McDonald, L. Prince, T. Goodman, B. N. Ray-Sannerud, and W. Thompson. 2014. “Symptoms
of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in United States air Force Drone Operators.” Military
Medicine 179 (suppl 8): 63–70.
Chen, Y.-C. 2002. “An Application of Fuzzy set Theory to the External Performance Evaluation of Distribution Centers
in Logistics.” Soft Computing 6 (1): 64–70.
Chen, C.-T., C.-T. Lin, and S.-F. Huang. 2006. “A Fuzzy Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Supply
Chain Management.” International Journal of Production Economics 102 (2): 289–301.
Clarke, R. 2014. “Understanding the Drone Epidemic.” Computer Law & Security Review 30 (3): 230–246.
Clarke, R., and L. B. Moses. 2014. “The Regulation of Civilian Drones’ Impacts on Public Safety.” Computer Law &
Security Review 30 (3): 263–285.
Clothier, R. A., D. A. Greer, D. G. Greer, and A. M. Mehta. 2015. “Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of
Drones.” Risk Analysis 35 (6): 1167–1183.
Coeckelbergh, M. 2013. “Drones, Information Technology, and Distance: Mapping the Moral Epistemology of Remote
Fighting.” Ethics and Information Technology 15 (2): 87–98.
Coelho, B. N., V. N. Coelho, I. M. Coelho, L. S. Ochi, D. Zuidema, M. S. Lima, A. R. da Costa, et al. 2017. “A Multi-
Objective Green UAV Routing Problem.” Computers & Operations Research 88: 306–315.
Dalamagkidis, K., K. P. Valavanis, and L. A. Piegl. 2008. “On Unmanned Aircraft Systems Issues, Challenges and
Operational Restrictions Preventing Integration Into the National Airspace System.” Progress in Aerospace
Sciences 44 (7-8): 503–519.
Dalkey, N., and O. Helmer. 1963. “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the use of Experts.”
Management Science 9 (3): 458–467.
Dille, M., and S. Singh. 2013. “Efficient Aerial Coverage Search in Road Networks.” In AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control (GNC) Conference, pp. 5094.
Dorling, K., J. Heinrichs, G. G. Messier, and S. Magierowski. 2017. “Vehicle Routing Problems for Drone Delivery.
IEEE Transactions on Systems.” Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 47 (1): 70–85.
Duffy, R. 2015. Understanding the Public Perception of Drones. https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/public-perception-of-
drones/.
Emery, J. R. 2016. “The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Humanitarian Drones.” Ethics & International Affairs 30 (2): 153–
165.
Ferrandez, S. M., T. Harbison, T. Weber, R. Sturges, and R. Rich. 2016. “Optimization of a Truckdrone in Tandem
Delivery Network Using k-Means and Genetic Algorithm.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 9
(2): 374.
Finn, R. L., and D. Wright. 2012. “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Surveillance, Ethics and Privacy in Civil Applications.”
Computer Law & Security Review 28 (2): 184–194.
Francisco, M. 2016. “Organ Delivery by 1,000 Drones.” Nat. Biotechnol 34 (7): 684–684.
Gonźalez-Jorge, H., J. Mart´ınez-Śanchez, M. Bueno, et al. 2017. “Unmanned Aerial Systems for Civil Applications: A
Review.” Drones 1 (1): 2.
Goodchild, A., and J. Toy. 2018. “Delivery by Drone: An Evaluation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology in
Reducing co2 Emissions in the Delivery Service Industry.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment 61: 58–67.
Govindan, K., and M. Shankar. 2016. “Evaluating the Essential Barrier to off-Shore Wind Energy–an Indian
Perspective.” International Journal of Energy Sector Management 10 (2): 266–282.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 17

Gupta, S. G., M. M. Ghonge, and P. Jawandhiya. 2013. “Review of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).” International
Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET 2 (4): 1646–1658.
Gupta, L., R. Jain, and G. Vaszkun. 2016. “Survey of Important Issues in uav Communication Networks.” IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials 18 (2): 1123–1152.
Ha, Q. M., Y. Deville, Q. D. Pham, and M. H. Ha. 2015. “Heuristic Methods for the Traveling Salesman Problem with
Drone.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.08764.
Hallermann, N., and G. Morgenthal. 2013. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for the Assessment of Existing
Structures.” In IABSE Symposium Report, Volume 101, pp. 1–8. International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering.
Ham, Y., K. K. Han, J. J. Lin, and M. Golparvar-Fard. 2016. “Visual Monitoring of Civil Infrastruc-Ture Systems via
Camera-Equipped Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): A Review of Related Works.” Visualization in Engineering 4
(1): 1.
Haq, A., and G. Kannan. 2006. “Design of an Integrated Supplier Selection and Multi-Echelon Distribution Inventory
Model in a Built-to-Order Supply Chain Environment.” International Journal of Production Research 44 (10): 1963–
1985.
Hayhurst, K. J., J. M. Maddalon, P. S. Miner, M. P. DeWalt, and G. F. McCormick. 2006. “Unmanned Aircraft Hazards
and their Implications for Regulation.” In 2006 IEEE/AIAA 25TH Digital Avionics Systems Conference, pp. 1–12.
IEEE.
Heutger, M., and M. Kuckelhaus. 2014. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Logistics: A DHL Perspective on Implications
and Use Cases for the Logistics Industry.” DHL Customer Solutions & Innovation, Troisdorf, Germany.
Ho, H.-M., and J. Ouaknine. 2015. “The Cyclic-Routing UAV Problem is Pspace-Complete.” In International
Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, 328–342. Springer.
Hsu, Y.-L., C.-H. Lee, and V. B. Kreng. 2010. “The Application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in Lubricant
Regenerative Technology Selection.” Expert Systems with Applications 37 (1): 419–425.
Ishikawa, A., M. Amagasa, T. Shiga, G. Tomizawa, R. Tatsuta, and H. Mieno. 1993. “The max-min Delphi Method and
Fuzzy Delphi Method via Fuzzy Integration.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 55 (3): 241–253.
Janssen, M., P. Stuart, et al. 2010. “Drivers and Barriers for Implementation of the Biorefinery.” Pulp & Paper Canada
111 (3): 13–17.
Johnson, L. 2017. “9 Things You Need To Know About the Amazon Prime Air Drone Delivery Service.” http://www.
digitalspy.com/tech/feature/a820748/amazon-prime-air-drone-delivery-service/.
Kannan, D., A. B. L. de Sousa Jabbour, and C. J. C. Jabbour. 2014. “Selecting Green Suppliers Based on GSCM
Practices: Using Fuzzy Topsis Applied to a Brazilian Electronics Company.” European Journal of Operational
Research 233 (2): 432–447.
Kastrenakes, J. 2017. “UPS has a Delivery Truck that Can Launch A Drone.” The Verge, Feb, 21. https://www.theverge.
com/2017/2/21/14691062/ups-drone-delivery-truck-test-completed-video.
Kianmehr, H., N. Sabounchi, and L. Begdache. 2018. “The Role of Big Data Analytics in Developing System Dynamic
Models.” Preprints 2018. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201811.0074/v1.
Kim, Y. C., Y. H. Lee, S.-Y. Cho, and S. Hur. 2016. Strategy and Further Researches for Operation of Drone Logistics
System, 2376–2387.
Kim, S. J., G. J. Lim, J. Cho, and M. J. Ĉot´e. 2017. “Drone-aided Healthcare Services for Patients with Chronic Diseases
in Rural Areas.” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 88 (1): 163–180.
Kumar, A., B. Sah, A. R. Singh, Y. Deng, X. He, P. Kumar, and R. Bansal. 2017. “A Review of Multi Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) Towards Sustainable Renewable Energy Development.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 69: 596–609.
Kwon, H., J. Kim, and Y. Park. 2017. “Applying LSA Text Mining Technique in Envisioning Social Impacts of
Emerging Technologies: The Case of Drone Technology.” Technovation 60: 15–28.
Lai, V. S., R. P. Trueblood, and B. K. Wong. 1999. “Software Selection: A Case Study of the Application of the
Analytical Hierarchical Process to the Selection of a Multimedia Authoring System.” Information &
Management 36 (4): 221–232.
Lanillos, P., S. K. Gan, E. Besada-Portas, G. Pajares, and S. Sukkarieh. 2014. “Multi-UAV Target Search Using
Decentralized Gradient-Based Negotiation with Expected Observation.” Information Sciences 282: 92–110.
Lee, S., and Y. Choi. 2016. “Reviews of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Technology Trends and its Applications in
the Mining Industry.” Geosystem Engineering 19 (4): 197–204.
Levin, A. 2019. “Google Spinoffs Drone Delivery Business First to get FAA Approval.” https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2019-04-23/alphabet-s-drone-deliverybusiness-cleared-for-takeoff-by-faa.
Li, C. J., and H. Ling. 2015, July. “Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging Using a Small Consumer Drone.” In 2015 IEEE
international symposium on antennas and propagation & USNC/URSI national radio science meeting (pp. 685-
686). IEEE.
Lidynia, C., R. Philipsen, and M. Ziefle. 2017. “Droning on About Drone’s Acceptance of and Perceived Barriers to
Drones in Civil Usage Contexts.” In Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, 317–329.
Springer.
18 B. SAH ET AL.

Lin, C.-Y., and A. H. Lee. 2011. “New Product Development for Green and Low-Carbon Products-A Case Study Of
Taiwan’s TFT-LCD Manufacturer.” In AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1368, pp. 189–192. AIP.
Lin, P.-C., and L.-S. Wu. 2011. “How Supermarket Chains in Taiwan Select Suppliers of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables via
Direct Purchasing.” The Service Industries Journal 31 (8): 1237–1255.
Liu, H.-T., and W.-K. Wang. 2009. “An Integrated Fuzzy Approach for Provider Evaluation and Selection in Third-
Party Logistics.” Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3): 4387–4398.
Lords, H. O. “Civilian Use of Drones in the EU. HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 7th Report of
Session 2014-15”.
Luehrs, A. 2015. “How Drones Could Disrupt the Trucking Industry.” https://www.trucks.com/2015/09/05/how-
drones-could-disrupt-the-trucking-industry/.
Luppicini, R., and A. So. 2016. “A Techno-Ethical Review of Commercial Drone use in the Context of Governance,
Ethics, and Privacy.” Technology in Society 46: 109–119.
Ma, Z., C. Shao, S. Ma, and Z. Ye. 2011. “Constructing road safety performance indicators using fuzzy delphi method
and grey delphi method.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (3): 1509–1514.
Maharana, S. 2017. “Commercial Drones.” International Journal of Management and Applied Science (IJMAS 5 (1):
96–101.
Malveaux, C., S. G. Hall, and R. Price. 2014. “Using Drones in Agriculture: Unmanned Aerial Systems for Agricultural
Remote Sensing Applications.” In 2014 Montreal, Quebec Canada July 13–July 16,2014, pp. 1. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Marin, L. 2016. “The Humanitarian Drone and the Borders: Unveiling the Rationales Underlying the Deployment of
Drones in Border Surveillance.” In The Future of Drone Use, edited by Bart Custers, 115–132. Springer.
Marris, E. 2013. “Drones in Science: Fly and Bring me Data.” Nature News 498 (7453): 156.
McNeil, B., and C. Snow. 2016. “The Truth About Drones in Mapping and Surveying.” Skylogic Res 200: 1–6.
Miller, R. H., and I. Sim. 2004. “Physicians use of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers and Solutions.” Health Affairs
23 (2): 116–126.
Mourelo Ferrandez, S., T. Harbison, T. Webwer, R. Sturges, and R. Rich. 2016. “Optimization of a Truck-Drone in
Tandem Delivery Network Using K-Means and Genetic Algorithm.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management 9 (2): 374–388.
Murray, C. C., and A. G. Chu. 2015. “The Flying Sidekick Traveling Salesman Problem: Optimization of Drone-
Assisted Parcel Delivery.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 54: 86–109.
Nex, F., and F. Remondino. 2014. “UAV for 3D Mapping Applications: A Review.” Applied Geomatics 6 (1): 1–15.
Oh, H., S. Kim, A. Tsourdos, and B. A. White. 2014. “Coordinated Road-Network Search Route Planning by a Team of
UAVs.” International Journal of Systems Science 45 (5): 825–840.
Ong, T. 2017. “The First Autonomous Drone Delivery Network Will Fly Above Switzerland Starting Next Month.”
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/20/16325084/matternet-autonomous-dronenetwork-switzerland.
Parker, J. L., C. M. Johnson, E. O. Williams, J. P. Malik, and N. M. Foucha. 2017, September 21. “Systems and Methods
for Autonomous Drone Navigation.” US Patent App. 15/464,659.
Ponza, A. 2016. “Optimization of Drone-Assisted Parcel Delivery.” Master’s thesis, Universita Degli Studi ` Di Padova,
Padova, Italy.
Porter, J. 2019. “Google’s Wing Drones Approved To Make Public Deliveries in Australia.” https://www.theverge.com/
2019/4/9/18301782/wing-drone-delivery-googlealphabet-canberra australia-public-launch.
Rao, B., A. G. Gopi, and R. Maione. 2016. “The Societal Impact of Commercial Drones.” Technology in Society 45:
83–90.
Rathlev, F., B. Meyer, and S. Juerss. 2012. “Innovative Technologies for Aerial Survey of gas Pipes.” Gas for Energy 5: 1–5.
Ravich, T. M. 2013. “Commercial Drones and the Phantom Menace.” J. Int’l Media & Ent. L 5: 175.
Ross, P. E. 2014. “Open-source Drones for fun and Profit.” IEEE Spectrum 51 (3): 54–59.
Saaty, T. L. 1990. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process.” European Journal of Operational Research 48: 9–26.
Samad, T., J. S. Bay, and D. Godbole. 2007. “Network-centric Systems for Military Operations in Urban Terrain: The
Role of UAVs.” Proceedings of the IEEE 95 (1): 92–107.
Sandbrook, C. 2015. “The Social Implications of Using Drones for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ambio 44 (4): 636–647.
Sandvik, K. B., and K. Lohne. 2014. “The Rise of the Humanitarian Drone: Giving Content to an Emerging Concept.”
Millennium 43 (1): 145–164.
Sanjab, A., W. Saad, and T. Basar. 2017. “Prospect Theory for Enhanced Cyber-Physical Security of Drone Delivery
Systems: A Network Interdiction Game.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04240.
Scott, J., and C. Scott. 2017. “Drone Delivery Models for Healthcare.” In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international
conference on system sciences.
Shu, C. 2017. “Flytrex Launches an Autonomous On-Demand Drone Delivery Service in Iceland’s capital.” https://
techcrunch.com/2017/08/23/flytrex-launches-an-autonomous-on-demanddrone-delivery-service-in-icelands-
capital/.
Silvagni, M., A. Tonoli, E. Zenerino, and M. Chiaberge. 2017. “Multipurpose uav for Search Andrescue Operations in
Mountain Avalanche Events. Geomatics.” Natural Hazards and Risk 8 (1): 18–33.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 19

Snow, C. 2019. “Amazon’s Drone Delivery Plans: What’s Old, What’s New and When?” https://www.forbes.com/sites/
colinsnow/2019/06/17/amazons-dronedelivery-whats-old-whats-new-and-when/#6a2eadbf35f9.
Solodov, A., A. Williams, S. Al Hanaei, and B. Goddard. 2018. “Analyzing the Threat of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAV) to Nuclear Facilities.” Security Journal 31 (1): 305–324.
Springer, P. J. 2013. Military Robots and Drones: a Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ABC-CLIO.
Stehr, N. J. 2015. “Drones: The Newest Technology for Precision Agriculture.” Natural Sciences Education 44 (1):
89–91.
Stewart, J. 2018. “FAA Relaxes Drone Restrictions with 10 New Programs.” https://www.wired.com/story/faa-relaxes-
drone-restrictions-with-10-new-programs/.
Sudbury, A. W., and E. B. Hutchinson. 2016. “A Cost Analysis of Amazon Prime air (Drone Delivery).” Journal for
Economic Educators 16 (1): 1–12.
Sujit, P., and D. Ghose. 2004. “Search Using Multiple UAVs with Flight Time Constraints.” IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace and Electronic Systems 40 (2): 491–509.
Vaidya, O. S., and S. Kumar. 2006. “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications.” European Journal of
Operational Research 169 (1): 1–29.
Vattapparamban, E., İ Güvenç, Aİ Yurekli, K. Akkaya, and S. Uluağaç. 2016, September. “Drones for SMART CITIES:
Issues in Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Public Safety.” In 2016 International Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 216-221). IEEE.
Villasenor, J. 2014. “Drones and the Future of Domestic Aviation [Point of View].” Proceedings of the IEEE 102 (3):
235–238.
Watson, J. J., and M. D. Hudson. 2015. “Regional Scale Wind Farm and Solar Farm Suitability Assessment Using GIS-
Assisted Multi-Criteria Evaluation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 20–31.
Xia, Y., R. Batta, and R. Nagi. 2017. “Controlling a Fleet of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Collect Uncertain
Information in a Threat Environment.” Operations Research 65 (3): 674–692.
Yoo, W., E. Yu, and J. Jung. 2018. “Drone Delivery: Factors Affecting the Public’s Attitude and Intention to Adopt.”
Telematics and Informatics 35 (6): 1687–1700.

Appendix: Questionnaire for AHP paired comparison

How to complete the questionnaire?
Tick the most appropriate box according to your opinion based on how important one criterion is over another
when you are evaluating barriers of drone logistics implementation. If your preference is between two levels of impor-
tance, e.g. between Strong Importance and Very Strong Importance, please tick the intermediate box between them.
The intensity of influence is defined in the table A1.
Table A1. Intensity of influence.
Intensity of Influence Definition
EI Equal Importance
MI Moderate Importance for one over another
SI Strong Importance
VSI Very Strong Importance
ExI Extreme Importance

Table A2. AHP Questionnaire.

Criterion Intensity of importance Criterion
ExI VSI SI MI EI MI SI VSI ExI
Threat to privacy and Regulations
security
Public perception and
psychological
Environmental
Economic aspects
Technical issues
Regulations Public perception and
psychological
Environmental
Economic aspects
Technical issues
Environmental

(Continued)
20 B. SAH ET AL.

Table A2. Continued.

Criterion Intensity of importance Criterion
ExI VSI SI MI EI MI SI VSI ExI
Public perception and
psychological
Economic aspects
Technical issues
Environmental Economic aspects
Technical issues
Economic aspects Technical issues

View publication stats