## 2 Methodology and Methods
### Part 1: Review of the Academic Literature  
To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the current state and potential of drone technology uses in rural and regional areas, this paper adopts a systematic review methodology guided by the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement [23]. This method offers several benefits: it allows for thematic analysis to map the current use of drones while also serving as a retrospective base for understanding their documented uses in the academic literature. Such an approach provides a structured foundation upon which practical information can later be integrated, enabling a robust synthesis of both theoretical insights and real-world uses. This method has been widely used in the discipline of built environments [24; 25; 26; 27].  
The PRISMA statement, initially published in 2009, aimed to provide transparent and clearly articulated guidelines for authors to apply when undertaking literature searches [28]. Considering technological advancements with search engines, in systematic review methodologies, and terminology over the past decade, a revision to the guidelines became essential. The PRISMA 2020 introduced updated reporting guidance that incorporates progress in the methods used to identify, select, assess, and synthesise studies [23]. The PRISMA 2020 statement features a standard three-stage flow diagram consisting of identification, screening, and inclusion (see Figure 2). For this research, Scopus and Web of Science databases were used to search for relevant literature in the identification stage. Keywords were searched in full text to find relevant studies: (drone) OR (drones) OR (unmanned aerial vehicles) OR (unmanned aircraft systems) OR (remotely piloted aircraft) AND (built environment) AND (rural areas) OR (regional areas) AND NOT (urban).  
Table 1 sets out the criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of documents in the literature review. Articles published from 2018 to 2023 and written in English were the primary document type. Given the rapid advancements in drone technology, this review focuses on studies published within the recent five years to ensure the analysis reflects current innovations and uses. The review focused on articles' subject areas in Scopus, such as environmental science, social sciences, and multidisciplinary fields, as well as business, management, accounting, arts, humanities, and agricultural and biological sciences. For Web of Science, categories included environmental sciences, environmental studies, and those pertaining to regional urban planning and urban studies. Documents such as conference papers or book chapters, publications prior to 2018, and those in languages other than English were excluded. Articles from unrelated subject areas, including mathematics, medicine, neuroscience, toxicology, immunology, and polymer science, were also omitted from the review.  
Identifying relevant studies commenced with a comprehensive search across two databases, yielding a total of 354 records--135 from Scopus and 219 from Web of Science. Prior to screening, three duplicate records were removed. This meticulous approach ensured that only the most pertinent studies were considered for inclusion in the review, streamlining the focus to those that specifically aligned with the objectives of the research and the responsibilities of local councils.  
Figure 2: Systematic literature review process.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Inclusion Criteria** & **Exclusion Criteria** \\ \hline Document types & Article & Other document types (conference papers or book chapters *) \\ \hline Year range & Recent 5 years (2018–2023) & Prior to 2018 \\ \hline Languages & English & A language other than English \\ \hline Geography & Rural or regional areas & Urban areas \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Search criteria for relevant studies.