Survey analysis of public engagement reveals trust impacts adoption of AI-enabled drone delivery systems in the UAE.
Introduction Secure artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled drone delivery systems are emerging as transformative solutions for public service delivery, particularly in smart governance contexts such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While promising, the adoption of these systems requires a nuanced understanding of factors influencing public acceptance, including AI-security assurances, perceived risks, costs, and social influence. Methods This study uses a survey of 410 UAE residents, analyzed through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), to explore the drivers of public acceptance of AI-enabled drone systems. The study integrates these factors into a structural acceptance model, focusing on the roles of perceived benefits, risks, costs, and social influence. Results The findings demonstrate that both perceived benefits ( β = 0.386 , p < 0.001 ) and social influence ( β = 0.386 , p < 0.001 ) are strong and significant drivers of positive attitudes towards AI-enabled drone delivery systems. In contrast, perceived risks negatively impact acceptance ( β = − 0.146 , p = 0.002 ) . Interestingly, perceived cost does not significantly affect attitudes ( β = − 0.057 , p = 0.445 ) but is positively associated with risk perceptions, indicating a layered barrier effect. Discussion The study contributes to technology acceptance models by revealing the interdependencies between barrier constructs. It suggests that in the UAE context, public engagement and security assurances are more crucial for fostering trust and adoption than cost-related incentives. Limitations of the study include nonrandom sampling, a cross-sectional design, and weaker loadings for certain indicators, which may limit generalizability but provide valuable exploratory insights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almuraqab et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: