Systematic literature review explores UAV applications for building safety diagnostics and condition assessment, suggesting improvements for lifecycle management.
Purpose This study investigates the application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in building condition assessment (BCA) and safety diagnostics, with the aim of informing future research and supporting practical implementation across the construction and operational lifecycle. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive search of Scopus and Google Scholar identified thirty-three peer-reviewed empirical and conceptual studies on UAV-enabled building assessment and safety applications. Thematic synthesis was employed to identify key research directions, while scientometric mapping was conducted using VOSviewer. Findings Research on UAV applications in building diagnostics and safety has increased significantly since 2020, indicating a transition toward autonomous, data-driven monitoring and lifecycle-oriented risk management. Five core themes were identified: (1) hazard detection and pathology assessment, (2) building monitoring and condition assessment, (3) integration with artificial intelligence, Building Information Modelling, and Digital Twins, (4) safety and technical training and (5) regulatory and ethical considerations. Practical implications The study provides practitioners, academics, and policymakers with insights to enhance building safety performance, optimize condition monitoring processes, support evidence-based decision-making and promote sustainable lifecycle management (LCM) practices. Originality/value This study is among the few to integrate scientometric analysis with a systematic literature review to examine UAV applications in building diagnostics and safety. It advances the theoretical understanding of intelligent safety and building monitoring ecosystems and identifies future research priorities in governance, ethical deployment and cross-industry knowledge transfer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adebowale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: