4 ms·

I can see two alternatives to flying, sending a person, or a remote-control/autonomous ground based machine. The first one is not as productive, the second one

• daemin 9y ago
  If cost and fuel are major concerns then sending a person is by far the cheapest option. Not the most productive but in the areas that need reforestation (i.e. where they burn or clear cut, Asia / Amazon) the labour is not that expensive. Though there are a lot of other factors involved. These kinds of projects remind me of Juicero, where it combines a few things western (middle/upper class?) people care about with technology and expects a great result but end up a middling disappointment.
• manicdee 9y ago
  A ground based drone is orders of magnitude simpler than a multirotor. There is nothing magical about multirotors except being the latest fad for tech geeks. A ground based drone — eg a modified bulldozer — can carry far more plants as cargo, meaning planting a field of a thousand sapling might require one trip where a flying drone will require a thousand trips. The only catch is access: for a remote region with no trails of any kind it might be difficult for a large vehicle to navigate through the forest. In this case clearing a path for the planting machine might be a lower cost to the environment than the energy required to fly a thousand sorties with flying planters. A ground based drone will also be able to plant more robust saplings, since payload weight is far less of a concern.