# Intent to Adopt Location Sharing for Logging Safety Applications
## 4 Discussion
Undesirable outcomes, such as developing a dependence on the technology, producing distraction, or causing workers to feel monitored, were generally deemed less likely than each of the positive outcomes. Loggers may have felt that the safety benefits of LS offset these concerns (e.g., ensuring someone can be found in an emergency may overshadow wariness about being monitored). Potential risks will likely vary by application, however. For instance, in injury prevention functions, such as sending GNSS-based warning alerts to operators when ground crew enter hazardous areas, dependence on LS systems could endanger workers in the event of technological failure or reduced positioning accuracy. Conversely, in emergency response, reduced accuracy would likely have little to no detrimental effect on worker safety. Knowledge of how loggers are most likely to use LS, combined with research on device capabilities and limitations in the woods [23; 24; 25; 54], can inform recommendation of guidelines on safe and appropriate use of the technology for logging safety. Such recommendations are important for reducing the chance of inadvertent misuse or overreliance. For instance, in a survey of Finnish loggers, 45% of participants admitted to altering their behavior after wearing personal protective equipment, becoming more careless, faster, and bolder [55]. Understanding the safety needs and expectations of loggers, including desirable device features, can also help focus future development and marketing of LS specifically for logging. Consistent with themes that arose in outcome assessment, most loggers thought LS with emergency response capabilities would improve safety, particularly help (SOS) buttons to contact coworkers or emergency services. Hazardous area alerts were also a popular feature for improving safety, despite lower ratings in the attitude section of the survey. Participants might have differentiated between \"knowing when coworkers are in safe or unsafe areas\", which may imply that operators are required to actively observe worker positions (e.g., on a screen displaying real-time locations), and \"alerts when workers enter dangerous areas\", which suggests that operators are automatically warned of potentially hazardous situations. Nearly three-quarters of participants thought that automatic position updates for coworkers would improve safety. Only a minority of loggers expressed privacy concerns about sharing real-time location data with others, even though this concern was raised in the [PERSON] et al. study [26] and echoed by participants in an LS survey by [PERSON] et al. [56]. [PERSON] et al. observed, however, that individualsare more willing to relinquish some privacy if they perceive benefits to sharing location information [57]. Loggers were less comfortable with sharing real-time data with supervisors, perhaps attributing less value to this function. [PERSON] et al. noted that desired accuracy for private information, such as location data, varied by the receiver [58], but the particular situation was important when the receiver was an employer. Similarly, loggers in our study did discriminate between the safety benefits of sending supervisors help alerts (e.g., for emergency situations) and regular, positional updates. Based on our results, LS devices for logging safety should include emergency response functions and could also incorporate other features for enhancing team situational awareness, such as dangerous area alerts, automatic position updates, or messaging. The majority of loggers in this study owned a smartphone and had it with them at logging operations. Phone presence at work predicted intent to adopt LS safety practices, such that individuals who more often carry a smartphone are more likely to use PLDs. Those accustomed to regular smartphone use may be more experienced and comfortable with learning new, digital devices and thus may be more amenable to using LS technology.