A Comparative Analysis of Pilot Practices in Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area, Yangtze River Delta and Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle
Authors: BUCKHOUSE Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., BUCKHOUSE Research Institute for Low‑Altitude Economy, BUCKHOUSE Global Low‑Altitude Economy Industrial Network, BUCKHOUSE China Low‑Altitude Economy Industrial Network, BUCKHOUSE International Low‑Altitude Economy Cooperation Network, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Manufacturing Platform, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Flight Platform, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Support Platform, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Platform, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Industry Supporting Platform, BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude Cross‑border Integration Platform
Abstract
As a core track of new‑quality productive forces, the low‑altitude economy represents a composite industry integrating spatial economy, low‑altitude airspace governance, advanced manufacturing and digital economy. Urban agglomerations serve as the core carriers for pilot implementation, institutional innovation, industrial clustering and large‑scale scenario application of China’s low‑altitude economy. At present, common challenges prevail across the domestic low‑altitude economy, including homogeneous layout, mechanical replication of development paths, over‑emphasis on construction while neglecting operation, and mismatches between airspace governance and industrial development. Subject to differences in regional endowments, industrial foundations, airspace resources, administrative systems and market structures, the Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area, the Yangtze River Delta and the Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle have evolved into three distinct development paradigms for low‑altitude‑economy pilots.
Moving beyond superficial comparative studies limited to policy review and scenario enumeration, this report deconstructs the underlying logics of the three major urban‑agglomeration pilots from eight innovative dimensions: strategic‑position divergence, resource‑endowment constraints, industrial‑organization patterns, airspace‑governance paradigms, commercial‑driving mechanisms, regional‑collaboration logics, model replicability and long‑term iterative risks. The research identifies three paradigms: the market‑driven industrial‑closed‑loop commercial‑oriented paradigm of the Greater Bay Area; the S&T‑driven gradient‑division standard‑leading collaborative‑innovation paradigm of the Yangtze River Delta; and the institution‑first scenario‑empowered public‑service‑driven airspace‑reform paradigm of Chengdu‑Chongqing.
This report further analyzes the formation mechanisms, core strengths, structural weaknesses and adaptive scenarios of the three paradigms, identifies development laws for high‑density eastern urban agglomerations, cross‑administrative‑region collaborative urban clusters and western mountainous urban agglomerations, and puts forward a systematic optimization framework for staggered‑layout, gradient‑development, hierarchical‑institution and scenario‑classified low‑altitude‑economy development across China. It provides theoretical support and practical references for national and local authorities in low‑altitude‑economy planning, industrial investment promotion, airspace reform and scenario deployment. The full text totals approximately 10,000 words.
Keywords: Low‑Altitude Economy; Urban Agglomeration Layout; Differentiated Paradigms; Airspace Governance; Industrial Division of Labor; New‑Quality Productive Forces; Pilot Iteration
Chapter 1 Introduction: Underlying Development Logics of Low‑Altitude Economy in Urban Agglomerations in the New Era
1.1 Research Background and Propositional Significance
With comprehensive deepening‑up of China’s low‑altitude‑sector reforms, low‑altitude airspace is transforming from traditional controlled airspace into strategic economic space. Far more than an extension of general‑aviation industry, the low‑altitude economy has grown into a trillion‑dollar strategic emerging industry covering R&D and manufacturing of aircraft, air‑traffic‑control operation‑maintenance, infrastructure, scenario‑based application, digital services and cross‑sector integration. Distinct from traditional industrial economy, the low‑altitude economy features six intrinsic attributes: spatial dependency, air‑space constraints, natural cross‑administrative‑boundary nature, strong scenario adaptability, rapid technological iteration and high safety sensitivity. These characteristics determine that a uniform development model cannot be replicated nationwide.
As hubs for population, industry, capital and technology, urban agglomerations are core units for large‑scale industrialization and commercialization of low‑altitude‑economy businesses. By 2026, national low‑altitude‑economy pilots present a landscape featured by extensive roll‑out, bipolar divergence and homogeneous internal competition. Developed regions rush into eVTOL complete‑machine manufacturing and heavy‑asset vertiport construction, while central‑western regions simply copy commercial scenarios of eastern cities. Many projects face structural dilemmas: completed facilities left unused, pilot operations without commercial returns, and manufactured products without viable sales channels.
Representing three typical forms of Chinese regional clusters — the coastal market‑oriented industrial cluster, the eastern cross‑regional S&T‑manufacturing cluster, and the western mountainous airspace‑reform cluster — the Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area, the Yangtze River Delta and the Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle witness differentiated evolution of low‑altitude‑economy pilot models shaped jointly by resource endowments, institutional environments, market structures and spatial patterns. In‑depth deconstruction of their differentiated development logics is critical to mitigating homogeneous competition, building a nationally staggered‑development pattern and achieving high‑quality industrial iteration.
1.2 Gaps in Existing Research and Innovations of This Report
Current domestic studies on low‑altitude economy mostly focus on policy interpretation, scenario sorting, single‑region planning and technological‑application analysis. Most existing literature carries out superficial comparisons of policies, infrastructure volumes and scenario quantities, while failing to explain why regional models diverge, which model fits which type of region, as well as long‑term bottlenecks and iterative directions for each model.
This report delivers innovations in three aspects. First, it deconstructs differentiated models from the perspective of root causes rather than superficial phenomena. Second, it establishes a six‑dimensional analytical framework covering endowment‑institution‑industry‑airspace‑commerce‑collaboration to interpret the evolution of the three paradigms. Third, it emphasizes model adaptability boundaries, replicability and iterative risks, and proposes hierarchical and classified national‑level layout schemes with enhanced practical guiding value.
1.3 Research Approach and Analytical Framework
This report first defines endowment constraints and strategic positioning for low‑altitude‑economy development in the three urban agglomerations. It then deconstructs core features and formation mechanisms of the three pilot paradigms, followed by comparative analysis of divergences in industrial organization, airspace governance, commercial logics and collaboration mechanisms. Afterwards, structural weaknesses and development risks of each paradigm are identified. Finally, targeted pathways for differentiated, gradient‑based and institutionalized development of low‑altitude economy across national urban agglomerations are proposed.
Chapter 2 Endowment Constraints and Divergent Strategic Positioning for Low‑Altitude‑Economy Development in Three Urban Agglomerations
Regional low‑altitude‑economy development models are jointly determined by innate resource‑endowment constraints and acquired strategic choices. Divergent spatial patterns, industrial foundations, airspace conditions and market‑oriented levels directly shape disparate top‑level strategic orientations.
2.1 Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area: High‑Density Metropolitan Circle with Complete Industrial Foundations, Positioned as a Global Benchmark for Low‑Altitude‑Economy Commercialization
The Greater Bay Area is characterized by highly‑dense built‑up urban areas, closed‑loop electronic‑information industrial chains, nationwide leading market‑orientation, unique cross‑border geographical advantages, vibrant consumer markets and high‑complexity air‑space regulation. Lacking large‑scale test‑flight airspace, it boasts China’s sole complete UAV industrial ecosystem, supporting minute‑level component matching covering chips, sensors, flight controllers, motors, complete‑machine assembly and operational services, with far‑faster technological iteration than other domestic regions.
Given such endowments, the Greater Bay Area is not suited for development paths featuring large‑area test‑flights or public‑service priority. Instead, it adopts a core strategic orientation of commercial‑scenario‑driven development, closed‑loop industrial iteration, cross‑border institutional innovation and priority deployment of urban air mobility. Its core development logic lies in validating products via high‑density‑urban commercial scenarios, forcing technological iteration through market competition, cutting manufacturing costs by leveraging industrial clusters, and breaking institutional barriers with cross‑border regulatory sandboxes, so as to build a global highland for low‑altitude consumption and commercial industries.
Accordingly, policies, infrastructure construction, airspace opening‑up and project implementation in the Greater Bay Area are oriented toward commercial viability, profitability and scalability. It represents China’s sole low‑altitude‑economy development paradigm driven primarily by market returns.
2.2 Yangtze River Delta: Cross‑Regional S&T‑Manufacturing Cluster, Positioned as National Hub for Low‑Altitude‑Industry Standards and Manufacturing
The Yangtze River Delta features complete industrial gradients across its three provinces and one municipality, abundant high‑end S&T resources, profound aeronautical‑manufacturing heritage, concentrated capital and mature inter‑governmental coordination capacity, together with geographically‑stratified land resources. Shanghai hosts top‑tier S&T resources and standard‑setting capabilities nationwide; Jiangsu delivers sophisticated‑manufacturing and component‑support capacities; Zhejiang boasts strengths in digital‑economy and digital air‑traffic‑management; Anhui provides expansive test‑flight airspace and land resources, laying natural foundations for cross‑regional division of labor covering R&D‑manufacturing‑digital‑governance‑verification.
Beyond competition among individual cities, the Yangtze River Delta defines its strategic positioning around S&T‑driven innovation, gradient‑based labor division, standard export, high‑end manufacturing and test‑validation. Unlike the market‑priority logic of the Greater Bay Area, it prioritizes technological moat building, high‑end industrial upgrading, rule‑making discourse power and industrial‑chain security, striving to build national centers for R&D, standard‑setting, high‑end‑component manufacturing and airworthiness verification within the low‑altitude‑economy sector.
Its core logic avoids isolated competition by single cities. Instead, cross‑regional complementary collaboration is adopted to construct China’s most comprehensive high‑end low‑altitude‑industry innovation system and seize upstream technological and standard‑setting high ground.
2.3 Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle: Western Mountainous Hub for Airspace Reform, Positioned as National Demonstration Base for Low‑Altitude Governance and Distinctive Scenarios
The Chengdu‑Chongqing region is dominated by mountains and hills. It possesses abundant airspace resources and huge population scale, yet suffers from insufficient high‑end‑industrial supporting capacity, limited commercial‑scenario market demand, strong public‑safety requirements and institutional dividends from national‑level airspace‑reform pilots. Without eastern‑style electronic‑information and precision‑manufacturing foundations to support large‑scale complete‑machine industrial clusters, it enjoys unique complex‑terrain airspace resources and cross‑provincial‑reform pilot policies.
Constrained by local endowments, Chengdu‑Chongqing abandons eastern‑style manufacturing‑driven or consumption‑driven paths. It establishes a strategic orientation centered on institutional innovation in airspace governance, public‑service‑driven scenario deployment, mountain‑featured application and cross‑provincial collaborative governance. Its core logic uses breakthroughs in airspace‑management institutions to offset industrial weaknesses, fosters industrial ecosystems via mountain‑oriented scenarios including emergency response, forest‑fire prevention, low‑altitude cultural tourism and mountain‑region logistics, and builds governance benchmarks through China’s first formal cross‑provincial low‑altitude‑collaboration mechanism to form differentiated competitive advantages.
Representing a typical “institution‑first, scenario‑nurtured‑industry” model, its logic reverses the eastern‑style “industry creates scenarios, market nurtures industries” pathway.
Chapter 3 In‑Depth Deconstruction of Core Mechanisms for Three Low‑Altitude‑Economy Pilot Paradigms
3.1 Divergent Industrial‑Organization Patterns: Closed‑Loop Concentration, Gradient Division of Labor, Scenario‑Oriented Adaptation
Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area: Closed‑Loop Concentrated Industrial Organization. Characterized by high agglomeration and self‑sustained closed‑loop operation with rapid iteration, the Greater Bay Area sees Shenzhen leading consumer‑grade and industrial‑grade UAV complete‑machines and core systems; Guangzhou focusing on R&D and manufacturing of manned eVTOL; Zhuhai specializing in general‑aviation equipment; Dongguan and Foshan providing full‑chain supporting services; while Hong Kong and Macao deliver service‑supply and institutional‑innovation capacity. The whole industrial chain can accomplish R&D, production, testing, operation and iteration without heavy external reliance, generating strong industrial siphon effects and competitive moats. Downsides include risks of overlapping tracks among internal cities, high‑end‑resource congestion and scarcity of land‑airspace resources after excessive industrial concentration.
Yangtze River Delta: Cross‑Regional Gradient‑Division Industrial Organization. Breaking administrative barriers, the Yangtze River Delta forms a vertically‑stratified industrial‑organization structure. Shanghai undertakes top‑tier R&D, headquarters‑economy development, standard export and airworthiness certification; Jiangsu focuses on mass production of precision components, power systems and navigation sensors; Zhejiang develops digital low‑altitude governance, air‑traffic‑control platforms and intelligent‑internet‑of‑things systems; Anhui conducts pilot‑production, test‑flights, verification and scenario demonstration. Provinces and municipalities pursue differentiated layout and mutual support, targeting regional holistic closed‑loop rather than closed‑loop capacity for individual cities, forming China’s most‑collaborative low‑altitude‑industry cluster. Drawbacks include multiple administrative entities leading to long coordination chains and lower market‑oriented decision‑making efficiency compared with the Greater Bay Area.
Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle: Scenario‑Adapted Industrial Organization. Devoid of complete high‑end‑manufacturing chains, Chengdu‑Chongqing centers its industrial organization on application‑services, forming an industrial pattern of “manufactured in the East, deployed in the West, serviced locally”. Local enterprises focus on special heavy‑lift UAVs, mountain‑region operation‑maintenance, low‑altitude inspection, cultural‑tourism operation and air‑space‑service tracks. Instead of competing with eastern regions for complete‑machine manufacturing, it builds differentiated track moats leveraging scenario advantages.
3.2 Divergent Airspace‑Governance Paradigms: Refined Control, Stratified Regulation, Institutional Deregulation
Greater Bay Area: Refined Airspace Governance for High‑Density Urban Settings. Constrained by narrow, dense and complex air‑space conditions, its core governance philosophy combines strict control with refined management plus opening‑up of key air routes. Grid‑based airspace zoning and dynamic airspace adjustment are deployed alongside dense low‑altitude perception networks to enable safe‑controlled low‑altitude commercial flights amid high‑rise‑building‑intensive urban areas. The governance objective is to maximize commercial‑flight frequency and economic benefits within limited airspace.
Yangtze River Delta: Stratified‑Classified Differentiated Airspace Governance. It implements stratified regulation based on urban density, industrial demands and flight types: strict control within core metropolitan zones, moderate opening‑up in suburban areas, full opening‑up of remote‑suburb airspace and exclusive control for test‑flight zones. Governance balances multi‑dimensional demands for safety, test‑flight activities, commercial‑operation and scientific research to satisfy diversified requirements of R&D‑verification and industrial innovation.
Chengdu‑Chongqing: Institutional‑Deregulation‑Oriented Airspace Governance. Empowered by national‑level airspace‑reform pilot mandates, it substantially simplifies flight‑approval workflows, implements file‑based‑flight notification, one‑stop online processing and cross‑provincial mutual recognition of approvals. Institutional innovations reduce flight‑thresholds. Instead of serving manufacturing industries, its governance goal is to maximize airspace‑resource value and activate characteristic‑scenario applications. It represents China’s most‑efficient and institution‑innovative region for low‑altitude‑airspace governance.
3.3 Divergent Commercial‑Driving Mechanisms: Market‑Profit Driven, S&T‑Capital Empowered, Policy‑Oriented
Greater Bay Area: Purely Market‑Profit‑Driven Model. As China’s sole region realizing large‑scale two‑way profitability for both C‑end and B‑end low‑altitude‑economy businesses, it generates stable cash flow from UAV delivery, aerial cultural‑tourism, commercial inspection and cross‑sea logistics. Market returns feed technological iteration and industrial upgrading, forming a positive cycle: scenario profitability → industrial investment → technological upgrading → expanded scenario deployment.
Yangtze River Delta: Dual‑Driven by Science‑Technology and Capital. Commercialization remains in the incubation phase. Most test‑flight scenarios and industrial‑application scenarios are not fully profitable. Industrial development is driven primarily by S&T investment, industrial funds, corporate R&D expenditure and procurement by large industrial clients. Following the “technology‑first, commercial‑application‑postponed” pattern, it boasts great long‑term profit potential yet relatively slow near‑term commercialization.
Chengdu‑Chongqing: Dual‑Driven by Public‑Services and Cultural‑Tourism Consumption. Limited viable market‑oriented commercial scenarios exist. Industrial development is underpinned by governmental procurement of public‑services, emergency‑response projects, forestry‑inspection services and low‑altitude cultural‑tourism consumption. Following the “policy underpinning, scenario‑driven‑market cultivation” model, it delivers prominent public value yet relatively weak commercial capacity.
3.4 Divergent Regional‑Collaboration Logics: Multi‑Pole Competition, Alliance‑Based Coordination, Institutional‑Driven Coordination
The Greater Bay Area adopts multi‑pole differentiated‑competition plus Hong Kong‑Macao sandbox pilots, relying on spontaneous market‑based labor division with relatively weak administrative coordination. The Yangtze River Delta applies industrial‑alliance mechanisms, contractual consensus and resource‑sharing, combining administrative consultation with market forces. Chengdu‑Chongqing formalizes cross‑provincial collaboration via provincial‑level institutional documents, unified service platforms and regular joint‑conference mechanisms.
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of Structural Advantages and Inherent Weaknesses of Three Pilot Paradigms
4.1 Market‑Oriented Industrial Paradigm of the Greater Bay Area: Outstanding Advantages Coupled with Prominent Weaknesses
Core strengths: Globally leading closed‑loop industrial capacity, nation‑leading commercial‑implementation speed, high market‑iteration efficiency, robust industrial‑chain resilience and strong leading‑enterprise spillover effects. New technologies and new aircraft models can rapidly achieve scenario‑verification and large‑scale deployment. Well‑suited for urban air mobility, instant low‑altitude logistics and commercial low‑altitude services.
Inherent weaknesses: Scarce airspace resources, high urban‑safety risks, short‑term‑hard‑to‑break cross‑border institutional barriers, saturation risks for heavy‑asset infrastructure, intensified internal‑industrial competition and insufficient high‑end‑testing resources. Long‑term development is constrained by dual bottlenecks of land‑space and air‑space, imposing ceilings on industrial upward breakthroughs.
4.2 S&T‑Collaboration Paradigm of the Yangtze River Delta: High‑End Leadership with Relatively Slow Implementation
Core strengths: Nation‑leading R&D capacity, most‑scientific industrial division of labor, strong standard‑setting discourse power, abundant capital and talent pools, high‑end industrial‑structure and robust risk‑resistance capacity. It serves as China’s core carrier for low‑altitude‑economy technological innovation, high‑end manufacturing and airworthiness verification, with maximum long‑term‑growth potential.
Inherent weaknesses: Relatively slow commercial‑implementation pace, insufficient cross‑regional enforcement efficiency, homogeneous investment promotion across jurisdictions, prominent “construction‑prior‑to‑operation” problems and fragmented policy coordination. Abundant high‑end‑R&D outputs contrast with limited large‑scale profitable projects; industrial value remains under‑released.
4.3 Airspace‑Reform Paradigm of Chengdu‑Chongqing: Institutional Leadership with Underdeveloped Industrial Capacity
Core strengths: National benchmark for airspace‑institutional innovation, mature cross‑provincial‑collaboration mechanisms, one‑of‑a‑kind mountain‑characteristic scenarios, low flight costs and prominent public‑service value. Large‑scale regular flight operations can be rapidly implemented, matching low‑altitude‑application demands under complex western‑region terrain conditions.
Inherent weaknesses: Deficient high‑end‑industrial chains, insufficient talent reserves, weak commercial‑capacity, low industrial added‑value, great challenges for mountain‑region‑flight‑safety management and insufficient industrial self‑sustaining capacity. Long‑term dependence on policy and public‑sector projects weakens industrial‑upgrading momentum.
Chapter 5 Adaptability Boundaries, Replicability and Industrial‑Risk Assessment of Three Paradigms
5.1 Analysis of Model‑Adaptability Boundaries
The Greater Bay Area model only applies to coastal high‑density super‑metropolitan regions with complete industrial foundations and high market‑orientation. Small‑and‑medium‑sized cities and central‑western regions cannot replicate it; blind adoption without industries, markets or consumer‑scenarios inevitably triggers resource idleness.
The Yangtze River Delta model suits cross‑provincial urban agglomerations in eastern and central China with solid S&T‑and‑manufacturing foundations. It is optimal for deploying high‑end R&D, component manufacturing, test‑verification and industrial‑application scenarios, serving as a template for national high‑end low‑altitude‑industry development.
The Chengdu‑Chongqing model fits western mountainous regions with abundant airspace yet underdeveloped industries. It prioritizes airspace‑reform, public‑services, distinctive cultural‑tourism and special‑operation scenarios, constituting a core reference for low‑altitude‑economy development in central‑western cities.
5.2 Common National‑Level Development Risks
First, risk of model mismatch: numerous regions blindly copy the commercial‑oriented Greater Bay Area model or high‑end‑manufacturing Yangtze‑River‑Delta model regardless of local endowments, triggering severe resource waste. Second, industrial‑involution risk: widespread investment in eVTOL complete‑machine manufacturing may lead to structural overcapacity in future. Third, air‑traffic‑control mismatch risk: airspace‑reform progress lags behind industrial iteration speed. Fourth, safety‑system risk: low‑altitude perception, early‑warning, countermeasure and emergency‑response systems are generally under‑developed. Fifth, standard‑fragmentation risk: inconsistent regional standards for infrastructure, data interfaces and flight‑operations hinder formation of a unified national low‑altitude market.
Chapter 6 High‑Quality Differentiated‑Development Pathways for Low‑Altitude Economy in National Urban Agglomerations
6.1 Stratified Positioning: Building a Pattern of Dislocated‑Development for Three Categories of Urban Agglomerations
Super‑coastal metropolitan circles (Greater Bay Area, West‑Strait‑of‑Fujian, Shandong‑Peninsula etc.): Adopt market‑oriented, commercial‑and‑industrial‑development pathways, focusing on urban air mobility, low‑altitude logistics and commercial‑services to build industrial highlands.
Eastern‑central cross‑regional urban agglomerations (Yangtze River Delta, Middle‑Yangtze‑River, Central‑Plains Urban Agglomerations): Pursue S&T‑driven‑collaboration, high‑end‑manufacturing and standard‑leadership pathways, focusing on R&D‑innovation, component‑supporting industries, test‑verification and industrial‑applications.
Western mountainous urban agglomerations (Chengdu‑Chongqing, Yunnan‑Guizhou, Northwest Urban Agglomerations): Implement airspace‑reform, distinctive‑scenario and public‑service‑oriented pathways, specializing in mountain‑region emergency‑response, forest‑fire prevention, mineral‑resource exploration, low‑altitude cultural‑tourism and special‑purpose logistics.
6.2 Targeted Policy Implementation to Mitigate Homogeneous‑Involution Development
Prohibit blind deployment of complete‑machine‑manufacturing projects in regions lacking industrial foundations. Guide local governments to develop segmented‑track industries leveraging comparative advantages. Formulate national‑level industrial‑guidance catalogues for low‑altitude economy, clarifying priority tracks, supporting tracks and restricted tracks for different regions. Promote hierarchical authorization for airspace‑reform: refined‑control priority for eastern regions and institutional‑deregulation priority for western regions. Establish cross‑regional resource‑sharing mechanisms to realize nationwide mutual‑access for test‑flight sites, inspection‑verification platforms and low‑altitude‑flight routes.
6.3 Mechanism Optimization: Perfecting National‑Level Collaborative‑Governance System for Low‑Altitude Economy
Unify national fundamental standards for low‑altitude‑economy infrastructure, data interfaces and flight‑operations. Establish regular joint‑conference‑based collaboration mechanisms for urban‑agglomeration low‑altitude‑economy governance. Build an industrial‑circulation pattern of “manufactured in the East, applied in the West, interoperable nationwide”. Improve full‑chain institutional systems covering airworthiness certification, flight‑regulation, safety‑emergency‑response and commercial‑operation.
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Industrial Outlook
Pilot‑model divergences among the Guangdong‑Hong Kong‑Macao Greater Bay Area, Yangtze River Delta and Chengdu‑Chongqing Twin‑City Economic Circle are more than simple differences in policies and scenarios. They represent optimal‑path selections constrained by regional endowments. The Greater Bay Area embodies the market‑driven industrial‑commercialization paradigm; the Yangtze River Delta represents the S&T‑driven high‑end‑industrial‑collaboration paradigm; Chengdu‑Chongqing stands for the institution‑driven distinctive‑scenario governance paradigm. No paradigm is inherently superior or inferior; each applies to specific scenarios.
For future high‑quality development of China’s low‑altitude economy, it is critical to break the misconception of “uniform‑model replication across all cities”. A nationwide development framework featuring localized policy‑making, stratified layout, dislocated‑competition and complementary collaboration shall be constructed. Eastern regions continuously strengthen high‑end‑manufacturing and commercial‑scenarios; central regions undertake industrial‑supporting businesses and industrial‑application deployment; western regions deepen airspace‑reform and distinctive public‑service‑scenarios. Ultimately, an integrated high‑quality‑development system for China’s national low‑altitude economy will take shape, fully unlocking new‑quality‑productive‑forces value of the low‑altitude economy.
Data‑Source Statement
1. Primary‑survey data: Special‑investigation data, in‑depth enterprise‑interview materials, project‑implementation ledgers and scenario‑operation measured data collected by BUCKHOUSE Research Institute for Low‑Altitude Economy from 2024 to 2026 covering key national low‑altitude‑economy pilot urban agglomerations.
2. Official authoritative documents: Top‑level low‑altitude‑economy policy documents released by National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Civil Aviation Administration of China and air‑traffic‑control authorities; provincial‑level low‑altitude‑economy development plans, implementation schemes and annual work reports from Guangdong, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Sichuan and Chongqing.
3. Authoritative industrial reports: Annual Report on China’s Low‑Altitude‑Economy Development, White Paper on Urban‑Agglomeration Low‑Altitude Governance, Blue Book on eVTOL‑Industry Development, National UAV‑Industry Development Report.
4. Public statistical data: Industrial statistics, project announcements and airspace‑reform pilot‑achievement reports published by provincial‑municipal‑level statistical bureaus, civil‑aviation‑regulatory administrations and general‑aviation associations.
5. Industrial‑think‑tank data: BUCKHOUSE Low‑Altitude‑Industry Database, domestic low‑altitude‑economy‑industry monitoring platform, public research outputs released by Urban‑Agglomeration Low‑Altitude‑Collaboration Alliance.
Disclaimer
Compiled jointly by all signed BUCKHOUSE‑affiliated institutions, this report is generated based on public policies, industrial data, field investigations and professional analysis. It serves solely for industrial‑research and academic reference purposes and does not represent the stance of any governmental‑regulatory authority. Subject to rapid‑industrial iteration, policy adjustments and statistical‑caliber discrepancies, industrial‑scale figures, development projections and model‑analysis contents within this report are for reference in industrial‑research, planning‑formulation and subject‑study only. It shall not constitute any investment advice, commercial‑decision‑making basis or legal opinion.
Copyright of this report belongs collectively to all signed institutions. Unauthorized tampering, reproduction, commercial‑utilization or secondary adaptation is prohibited. For legitimate citation, the report title and all author entities shall be fully marked. Any unauthorized‑use shall trigger corresponding legal liabilities.
..............................................................
