| 摘要: |
| 低空经济是我国高质量发展背景下
的重要发展方向，低空基础设施作为低空经
济发展的关键支撑，其规划布局具有重要的
研究意义。论文旨在对低空基础设施规划进
行系统性研究梳理，为后续研究与实践提供
支撑。基于文献研读归纳了低空基础设施的
分类框架与研究重点，明确低空基础设施的
概念内涵；梳理了国内外的规划研究进展，
总结了五类不同国家与地区的低空基础设施
层级划分方法，归纳了目标驱动型与需求驱
动型两类低空基础设施网络布局规划思路，
以及利用机场、火车站、屋顶等空间进行低
空基础设施规划的相关案例。现有规划研究
虽然在指标体系、技术方法等方面取得一定
进展，但是仍存在概念认知不一、空间区域
失衡、应用场景局限、建模过于理想与缺少
实证研究五个方面的问题。为此，论文最后
探讨了低空基础设施规划纳入规划体系的两
种路径选择，并提出了低空基础设施规划的
未来展望。 |
| 关键词: 低空基础设施 低空经济 城市空
中交通 通用航空 垂直起降场 空间布局 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20250406001 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家重点研发计划项目（2022YFC3800601） |
|
| Progress and prospect of low-altitude infrastructure planning research |
|
DANG Anrong,ZHANG Chaoyang,WANG Feifei,WENG Yang,LI Xiangyu,QIU Shi
|
| Abstract: |
| The low-altitude economy is rapidly emerging as a focal point in China’s pursuit of highquality
development. As the foundational support system, low-altitude infrastructure plays a critical
role in enabling low-altitude flight activities, underscoring the importance of its spatial planning.
Despite increasing attention from policymakers and researchers, there remains a lack of consensus on
the conceptual scope, classification frameworks, and optimal planning methodologies for low-altitude
infrastructure. A comprehensive review of relevant domestic and international research on lowaltitude
infrastructure planning is conducted, aiming to identify key trends and reveal existing gaps.To
build a robust analytical basis, the study conducted targeted literature searches using China National
Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science (WOS), covering publications from January
2010 to December 2024. Keywords used in both Chinese and English included “low-altitude
economy” “UAM” “AAM” “infrastructure” “vertiport” and “general aviation,” yielding a final
selection of 158 Chinese-language and 66 English-language peer-reviewed papers. This core
literature set was further enriched by 8 authoritative research reports and 18 regulatory documents
from agencies including the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The
literature analysis reveals the ambiguity regarding the definition of low-altitude infrastructure.
Drawing insights from transport geography, aviation engineering, and urban studies, this study
comprehensively defines low-altitude infrastructure as an integrated system of physical assets and
information networks that collectively enable secure, reliable, and efficient low-altitude flight
operations. Within this broad conceptualization, the most frequently referenced facility categories
include landing and take-off infrastructure, air-traffic management systems, communication,
navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment, and energy supply stations. Notably, overlapping
terminologies across studies—such as multiple designations for charging and refueling stations—
underscore the need for standardization. Further analysis identifies five prominent classification
approaches in existing scholarship, including distinctions between new and legacy infrastructure,
hard versus soft infrastructure, spatial positioning, facility functionality, and hierarchical network
scales. Although individually insightful, these classification systems have seldom been synthesized
or systematically reconciled, which may impede cumulative knowledge development and effective
comparative research. Policy-oriented practices reveal clearer hierarchical categorization patterns,
which are particularly instructive for practical planning applications. Comparative analysis of
regulatory frameworks adopted by CAAC, FAA, NASA, the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), and the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) illustrates varied yet structured multitier
approaches. For example, NASA’s three-tier structure (vertihubs, vertiports, vertistops) provides
differentiated guidance tailored to urban cores, suburban zones, and rural peripheries, which isparticularly instructive for application in the spatial context of Chinese cities. The literature also identifies two distinct but complementary methodological
paradigms in infrastructure planning goal-driven and demand-driven approaches. Goal-driven planning employs normative policy targets—such as
accessibility, regional economic equity, or emergency responsiveness—as a basis for initial expert-guided site identification, subsequently refined through
quantitative modeling and simulation techniques. Conversely, demand-driven planning methods prioritize spatial data on population density, commuting
patterns, logistical flows, and socioeconomic variables, employing clustering algorithms or network optimization techniques to determine infrastructure
placement. Despite methodological divergences, combining these approaches may achieve a more balanced integration of strategic objectives with empirical
market conditions, a synthesis seldom explored comprehensively in existing studies. |
| Key words: low-altitude infrastructure low-altitude economy urban air mobility general aviation vertiport spatial layout |
