*4.3. Can UAS Respond to the Needs Expressed by Di*ff*erent Stakeholders?*

To draw conclusions on the ability of UAS data and UAS-based workflows to satisfy prioritized needs, the results of Tables 6 and 7 were categorised and integrated in a matrix which distinguishes between (a) needs where UAS data has no significant contribution toward the achievement and (b) needs that can be matched with UAS data (Figure 6). The latter category was further associated to one of the four key characteristics of UAS data: high geometric accuracy, provision of up-to-date data, high spatial and/or temporal resolution, and high level of interpretability.

**Figure 6.** Prioritized needs classified by the ability of UAS data to match stated needs with further association to key characteristics of UAS data and ranking according to the significance of the contribution.

Figure 6 reveals that UAS data can have a significant contribution to match 27 out of 41 prioritised needs. The remaining 14 needs mainly refer to access to data, information, and software. A high and medium significance of UAS data was found mostly among national-level stakeholders, both governmental (eight needs) and non-governmental (seven needs) organisations. The needs of the local government could be met with medium (one need) or low (two needs) significant contributions of UAS data. Most of the prioritised needs of the sub-national government can only partially be fulfilled by UAS data (i.e., medium or low significance). A comparison of the four different characteristics shows that the provision of up to date data and the high level of interpretability are key in contributing to matching the stated needs. However, both aspects are highly interrelated to high geometric accuracy as well as high spatial resolution–otherwise, the data would not show such high level of detail which itself leads to high interpretability and its significant contribution to derive land use and topographic information. Although the quadrants in Figure 6 feature unique characteristics, all are interrelated and are therefore considered overlapping as well.

UAS regulations were found to have considerable impact on the scale of the utilisation of UAS in the context of land administration. Especially flight height and line of sight restrictions limit one data collection to several tens of hectares. Mapping larger areas would thus require constant moving of the ground control station with an adverse impact on the mapping efficiency. Geometric accuracy, was found to be less affected by UAS regulations. In contrast, the high level of interpretability and high spatial resolutions could be an issue when it comes to privacy and ethical constraints. Even though not the case in Rwanda, some countries demand public consent for the data collection of private property. A condition that requires sound data collection preparations and might put large restrictions on the UAS missions, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas.
