IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020 - 77

representative of emerging technologies being used
for humanitarian purposes [5]. Examples of successful drone use in this setting include the 2010 Haiti
earthquake (damage inspection), 2012 Hurricane
Sandy in the U.S.A. (epidemic prevention), 2013
Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (rescue logistics),
the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (medical
equipment delivery), and the 2015 Nepal earthquake -
the site of this case study - when Nepal was stricken
by one of the most devastating natural disasters in
history, leaving the country with heavy burdens of
immediate emergency relief and long-term postdisaster reconstruction [6]-[8].
Several authors have suggested that the use of novel
technologies in the aid sector may challenge the principle of humanity, and the related humanitarian principles, such as "Do No Harm" [9]-[11]. The noticeable turn
to technology in humanitarian action raises issues related to humanitarianism, sovereignty, as well as equality
and access for at-risk populations in disaster zones or
remote areas lacking sufficient healthcare services [11],
[12]. On a technical level, practical challenges include
heightened risks of data safety and security, and the
potential malicious use of technology. On a societal
level, humanitarian innovation may disrupt relations
between different stakeholders, may widen inequality
between those with access and those without, and may
threaten privacy, disproportionately affecting the vulnerable population.
This paper constitutes one element of a research
project that examines technological innovation in the
aid sector and how it intersects with moral values,
norms, and commitments. As part a series of field studies of different uses of drones by humanitarian organizations, we conducted an in-depth case study following
the 2015 Nepal earthquake. An earlier paper presented
a detailed narrative account of the case study, in which
drones were used to map a landslide area in rural Nepal
[13]. The current paper draws upon the empirical findings to develop a normative analysis with the goal of
identifying contextualized ethical considerations, and
illuminating the wider debate about how ethical technological innovation in the aid sector should be operationalized. The paper comprises two parts: 1) a short
summary of the case study of drone mapping in a landslide area in rural Nepal, where the livelihood of the
local community was threatened by the 2015 earthquake, and a humanitarian organization, assisted by the
use of drones, attempted to find a solution to restore
safety; and 2) an in-depth analysis of the ethical challenges that emerged in the context of the case study,
relating to five thematic categories: community, technology, data, regulation, and stakeholders. In conclusion,
on the normative level, a prudent attitude in adopting
SEPTEMBER 2020

∕

novel technology in the aid sector is required; while on
the operational level, it is argued that proposals for
actionable ethical standards to guide and safeguard
sector-wide innovation practices are needed.

Case Study
Drone Mapping Project
On April 25, 2015, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake hit
Nepal with a maximum intensity of VIII. Amidst the
post-disaster chaos, many humanitarian organizations
drew upon technologies to assist their relief work on the
ground, opening a gateway for new and emerging technologies to enter the humanitarian space [4]-[6]. This
situation was illustrated in an earlier paper, in which a
case study of using mapping drones in a landslide area
in rural Nepal was described in great detail [13]. In this
case study, a humanitarian organization X needed to
assess safety for reconstruction work in the landslide
area but faced challenging geological conditions, and
opted for using drones to capture high-resolution aerial
images of the area for further hazard analysis as part of
its risk-reduction assessment [13]. To handle the technicalities of the project, X collaborated with an NGO (Partner A), which was actively involved in previous crisis
drone-mapping in the Philippines; and a university spinoff (Partner B), specializing in geological risk assessment software engineering [13]. To receive government
and community permissions, X obtained a total of six
approvals to use drones, from four government authorities at national level and two at district level, taking a
total of three months [13]. X also worked actively to gain
community consent, whereby information sessions with
community members and meetings with community
leaders were organized [13]. Eventually, a high-resolution map using the drone images was created, following
which Partner A developed a 3D model, and Partner B
studied the susceptibility of the landslide to further erosion and submitted a technical report to X [13]. The
main conclusion was that, to gain a thorough understanding of the risks, more research and data were
needed [13]. Although X was the official owner of the
datasets, data ownership was in principle shared by the
three project partners, alongside the national government [13]. The community's expectations that the drone
data could be used to enable the management of the
landslide were not met, while X had to end the project
due to the lack of continued funds, among other reasons [13]. There was a general perception within the
community that, while the project created value with
respect to evidence and awareness-raising, it was inconclusive; and that to make substantial impacts on the
local community's livelihood, more efforts would be
needed [13].

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

77
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2020
