Research on Vertiport Planning‑Construction, Land Constraints and Commercial Operation Models

Research on Vertiport Planning‑Construction, Land Constraints and Commercial Operation Models

Authors: Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute, Buckhouse Global Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse China Low‑Altitude Economy Industry 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‑Boundary Integration Platform

Abstract

As a core implementation carrier of the low‑altitude economy, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) relies on vertiports as core ground‑based infrastructure for the commercial operation of electric vertical take‑off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft in scenarios including passenger commuting, logistics distribution, emergency support and cultural‑tourism sightseeing. Vertiports undertake multiple functions: aircraft take‑off and landing, energy refuelling, operation & maintenance, passenger handling, air‑space scheduling and safety management. Globally and domestically, the vertiport industry is in a critical transition phase from demonstration‑oriented pilot projects to large‑scale deployment. Vertiport construction is far more than building simple landing pads; it represents a complex systematic engineering integrating territorial‑spatial planning, air‑space administration, engineering construction, digital dispatching and commercial operation.

This report conducts systematic research covering vertiport planning logic, implementation pathways, land‑resource constraints, approval bottlenecks, domestic‑overseas typical operation models, investment‑return calculation, risk identification and countermeasures. It sorts out differentiated construction logics for hub‑type, regional‑type and community‑micro vertiports, analyses practical constraints including land ownership, land‑use nature, obstacle‑clearance control and stock‑space revitalization. Four commercial models are compared: government‑led investment, government‑enterprise cooperation, independent market‑oriented investment and industrial‑consortium co‑construction. The classic “chicken‑or‑egg” dilemma among aircraft supply, vertiport deployment and passenger flow is analysed. Planning‑construction pathways, land‑revitalization strategies and sustainable commercial‑operation solutions adapted to China’s territorial‑spatial governance system are proposed. The findings provide theoretical references and practical foundations for local‑government planning compilation, investor project delivery and industrial‑institution project evaluation.

Keywords: Vertiport; Urban Air Mobility; Low‑Altitude Economy; Territorial‑Spatial Planning; Land Constraints; Commercial Operation; eVTOL

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background

The global urban air‑mobility industry is undergoing rapid iteration. Continuous breakthroughs in eVTOL airworthiness certification have pushed aircraft products from prototype‑phase testing toward commercial delivery. Infrastructure shortfalls have become a core bottleneck restricting large‑scale industrial implementation. As new‑type low‑altitude‑economy infrastructure, vertiports differ from conventional helicopter landing pads. They are composite facilities integrating landing pads, charging/battery‑swap or hydrogen refuelling, operation‑and‑maintenance workshops, passenger‑service facilities, low‑altitude digital dispatching platforms, security‑firefighting systems and meteorological sensing equipment. Network‑based vertiport deployment is essential to unlock the transport value of eVTOL.

Domestically, Circular No. Guobanfa〔2024〕52 issued by the General Office of the State Council accelerates the layout of low‑altitude infrastructure. The Three‑Year Action Plan for Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Construction (2026‑2028) prioritizes vertiport development. The revised Civil Aviation Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026) and Standards for Civil Unmanned‑Aerial‑Vehicle Landing‑Site Construction (Revised 2026) form the foundational regulatory framework for domestic vertiport development. Twelve national refined‑air‑space‑reform pilot cities have launched vertiport demonstration projects. Special‑purpose bonds and policy‑oriented financial instruments support low‑altitude‑infrastructure investment, creating a favourable policy window. Cities including Shenzhen, Shanghai, Suzhou, Hefei and Guangzhou have released low‑altitude‑infrastructure layout plans, with some cities planning hundreds of landing points and driving rapid market‑scale expansion.

Nevertheless, prominent industrial pain points persist. Numerous pilot projects face challenges including difficult site selection, high land‑acquisition costs, lengthy multi‑department approval chains, ambiguous policy support for rooftop and under‑viaduct‑space utilization, insufficient post‑construction traffic volume and poor profitability for individual vertiports. Some regions hastily construct large‑scale hub vertiports mismatched with local industrial demand, resulting in idle assets. Certain projects focus merely on civil‑engineering works while neglecting pre‑planning for digital dispatching systems and commercial‑operation mechanisms, leading to the “heavy‑construction‑light‑operation” phenomenon. Land constraints constitute the biggest practical barrier to domestic vertiport delivery. Scarce land resources in urban core areas overlap with constraints over land‑use conversion, ownership confirmation, obstacle‑clearance requirements and planning compatibility. Many projects stall at land‑approval procedures.

Overseas, North America, Europe and the Middle East keep advancing vertiport pilots. As of Q3‑2026, 123 vertiports under construction or operational have been tracked across 27 countries. Overseas markets see deep partnerships between real‑estate property owners and eVTOL manufacturers, who widely revitalize existing building rooftops and parking‑lot rooftops to reduce land‑purchase costs. However, shared challenges remain including urban‑planning barriers, community noise disputes and long investment‑return cycles. Most overseas projects remain at demonstration‑operation stages without large‑scale profitability. The global vertiport market reached USD 948 million in 2026 and is projected to hit USD 8.12 billion by 2034, representing a compound annual growth rate of 30.8%. The Asia‑Pacific region will register the fastest growth worldwide.

1.2 Research Significance

Theoretically, existing domestic vertiport research concentrates largely on engineering‑technical standards. Systematic studies covering land‑system constraints and full‑lifecycle commercial operations remain limited. This report integrates territorial‑spatial‑planning regimes, land‑administration policies with vertiport planning‑construction and economic‑operation evaluation. It supplements theoretical dimensions for domestic vertiport‑industry research and clarifies root contradictions between vertiport‑network development and urban land resources.

Practically, for local governments, this report supports the compilation of special low‑altitude‑infrastructure plans, facilitates multi‑department coordination among territorial‑spatial authorities, civil‑aviation administrations and transport bureaus, and informs land‑support‑policy formulation. For investors and constructors, it sorts out land‑acquisition pathways for different vertiport categories, compares pros‑and‑cons across business models, defines boundaries for investment‑return evaluation, helps mitigate land‑compliance risks and prevents blind investment. For industrial‑ecosystem participants, it clarifies upstream‑midstream‑downstream industrial‑chain divisions and promotes collaboration among aircraft manufacturers, planning‑and‑design institutes, real‑estate enterprises and operation‑service providers.

1.3 Research Objects and Scope

This report targets vertiports serving manned eVTOL transportation and cargo logistics. Per current domestic standards, vertiports are categorized into hub‑type, regional‑type and community‑micro vertiports. Conventional helicopter landing pads and simple drone‑operation landing points are excluded from this research.

‑ Hub‑type Vertiport: Annual take‑off‑and‑landing movements ≥10,000; minimum land area 1,500 ㎡. Fully equipped with multiple landing pads, charging‑battery‑swap facilities, maintenance workshops, passenger terminals, security‑firefighting installations and low‑altitude dispatching platforms. Designed for inter‑city travel and large‑volume passenger‑cargo transfer.
‑ Regional‑type Vertiport: Annual movements ranging from 3,000 to 10,000; minimum land area 800 ㎡. Equipped with landing zones, energy‑supply facilities and basic maintenance capacities. Deployed for industrial parks, transport hubs and cultural‑tourism scenic spots.
‑ Community‑micro Vertiport: Annual movements below 3,000; minimum land area 300 ㎡. Primarily providing landing and energy‑replenishment functions. Deployed on commercial‑building rooftops and terminal transport nodes.

The research scope covers site‑selection planning, engineering construction, land‑element constraints, approval workflows, diversified investment‑operation modes, economic‑benefit evaluation and risk response strategies. It addresses China’s institutional reality while referencing international project practices.

1.4 Research Methodology

Multiple research approaches are adopted: policy‑document analysis, comparative case study, industrial‑field investigation and economic‑modelling evaluation. National‑and‑provincial policies for low‑altitude‑economy, territorial‑spatial planning and civil‑aviation administration are reviewed. Global implemented vertiport‑demonstration cases are collected. Interviews are conducted with industrial‑planning institutes, construction enterprises and operation agencies. Cost‑benefit evaluation frameworks for different vertiport types are built to identify profitability boundary conditions.

Chapter 2 Industrial and Technical Fundamentals of Vertiports

2.1 Vertiport Industrial‑Chain Structure

The complete vertiport industrial chain consists of upstream planning‑design & equipment supply, mid‑stream construction‑integration & operation management, and downstream application‑scenario services.

‑ Upstream: Urban‑planning institutes and aviation‑engineering consultants deliver site planning, obstacle‑clearance simulation and architectural design. Hardware includes landing‑platform structural components, aviation‑grade charging‑battery‑swap equipment, hydrogen refuelling facilities, 5G‑A communication‑navigation‑surveillance hardware, fire‑security and meteorological‑sensing devices. Software products include low‑altitude digital‑twin platforms, intelligent‑aircraft dispatching systems, air‑space‑coordination management systems and vertiport‑operation‑management systems.
‑ Mid‑stream: EPC contractors undertake civil‑engineering construction and equipment integration. Investors include local SOEs, industrial capital funds, eVTOL manufacturers and infrastructure‑investment institutions. Professional‑operation service providers deliver daily‑site maintenance, safety governance, customer services and commercial‑resource operation, serving as core chain‑link participants.
‑ Downstream: Connecting eVTOL‑operating enterprises across manned commuting, inter‑city travel, cargo logistics, medical transfer, cultural‑tourism sightseeing and emergency inspection scenarios. Derivative value‑added services cover advertising, retail, exhibition and real‑estate supporting businesses.

A prominent industrial‑chain feature lies in its strong network dependency. Isolated single vertiports deliver limited commercial value. Network‑connected multi‑node deployment is required to dilute unit‑operation costs and realize overall economic benefits. The industry faces a two‑way constraint paradox: insufficient aircraft supply yields low vertiport utilization; imperfect vertiport networks hinder large‑scale eVTOL commercialization. Vertical‑integration trends emerge: some overseas eVTOL OEMs extend downstream into vertiport investment, construction and operation; domestic aircraft enterprises also participate in joint‑vertiport demonstrations.

2.2 Core Technical System and Construction Requirements

Vertiport construction must satisfy three sets of specifications: building‑engineering codes, civil‑aviation‑safety standards and low‑altitude‑operation‑management requirements.

1. Obstacle‑Clearance Safety System: Landing zones shall satisfy obstacle‑free clearance requirements. Hub‑vertiport landing zones require minimum obstacle‑clearance height of 30 metres with no obstacles within a 50‑metre obstacle‑free radius. Rooftop vertiports need structural‑load verification for building roofs to withstand landing‑impact loads; wind‑environment simulation is required to mitigate building‑induced wind‑disturbance risks for aircraft.

2. Energy‑Replenishment System: High‑power aviation‑grade fast‑charging represents the mainstream technical solution; battery‑swap solutions are gradually promoted. Reserved interfaces for hydrogen refuelling are required for long‑term development. Photovoltaic‑storage‑charging integrated systems are widely deployed to deliver green‑energy supply and reduce operational power‑consumption costs.

3. Digital‑Governance System: Vertiports shall deploy digital‑twin monitoring platforms interfaced with local low‑altitude‑flight‑service platforms to realize aircraft‑landing‑take‑off dispatching, real‑time meteorological monitoring, security‑alarm processing and flight‑track surveillance. Multi‑aircraft‑model compatibility shall be supported for multi‑operator‑aircraft access.

4. Safety‑Guarantee System: Aviation‑fire‑fighting installations, emergency‑rescue passages and electronic fences shall be equipped. Physical‑safety‑isolation zones for personnel and complete emergency‑response plans shall be established.

Modular‑iterative design principles shall be adopted in planning‑and‑design phases. General‑purpose multi‑model‑compatible design shall reserve technical‑upgrade space to avoid rapid facility obsolescence driven by aircraft‑technical iteration and improve full‑lifecycle value.

2.3 Domestic and Overseas Industrial‑Development Status

Overseas Markets: The United States, United Arab Emirates and Japan carry out extensive demonstration projects. US OEMs including Joby and Archer establish deep cooperation with real‑estate‑property enterprises. Rooftop resources of parking lots and existing buildings are widely revitalized to avoid new‑land acquisition. Concession‑operation and long‑term‑property‑lease models are adopted for vertiport delivery. Europe prioritizes downtown‑area and transport‑hub‑based vertiport pilots. The Middle East builds hub‑vertiports targeting high‑end‑urban‑mobility scenarios. Nevertheless, overseas projects are confronted with high land costs, community‑noise complaints and lengthy investment‑return cycles. Most projects remain at demonstration‑operation stages without large‑scale profitability.

Domestic Market: China’s industry stays in the demonstration‑pilot‑construction phase. Shenzhen, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Suzhou and Hefei have released special‑industry plans. Multiple low‑altitude‑infrastructure special‑bond quotas have been implemented, and several demonstration vertiports have been completed for test‑operation. While domestic‑equipment localization improves continuously, land‑resource bottlenecks, complicated‑approval workflows and commercial‑operation challenges outweigh engineering‑technical obstacles. Some cities prioritize hardware construction while neglecting network‑planning and operation‑system development. Several newly‑built vertiports lack definite flight scenarios, resulting in low utilization and hindering sustainable development.

Chapter 3 Planning‑Construction Logic and Implementation Pathways for Vertiports

3.1 General Planning Principles

1. Territorial‑Spatial‑Coordination Principle: Vertiport planning shall be incorporated into municipal territorial‑spatial master plans, aligned with comprehensive‑transport‑system planning and comply with three‑zone‑three‑line governance requirements. Vertiport sites shall realize interconnection with rail transit, high‑speed‑rail stations, airports and harbours to build multi‑modal‑transport transfer systems.

2. Network‑Hierarchical‑Layout Principle: Adopt hub‑regional‑community three‑tier hierarchical layout. Prioritize core‑transport‑nodes, industrial clusters, cultural‑tourism resources and key emergency‑response sites. Revitalize stock‑space resources and prudently control large‑scale new‑construction‑land occupation.

3. Scenario‑Driven‑Planning Principle: Scenario demands shall be analysed in advance. Vertiport‑scale planning shall follow local low‑altitude‑application requirements (commuting, logistics, emergency response, cultural‑tourism). Blind construction of oversized hub‑vertiports decoupled from practical demands shall be avoided.

4. Flexible‑Reserve Principle: Vertiports shall adopt modular‑design schemes reserving future expansion of landing bays, energy‑supply capacity and dispatching capabilities to accommodate aircraft‑model iteration and business‑volume growth.

3.2 Hierarchical Site‑Selection Essentials

‑ Hub‑type Vertiport: Prioritize sites adjacent to comprehensive external‑transport hubs balancing inter‑city and intra‑urban flight demands. Evaluate land costs, air‑space conditions, noise‑sensitive‑area avoidance and ground‑transport‑transfer performance. Prefer stock‑industrial land and transport‑support land in suburban zones. Constructing hub‑vertiports in city‑core zones incurs extremely high land costs and requires strict input‑output assessment.
‑ Regional‑type Vertiport: Deployed within industrial parks, logistics bases, large‑scale scenic spots and new‑district centres. Both ground‑level sites and large‑building rooftops are acceptable for high‑frequency regional‑service demands.
‑ Community‑micro Vertiport: Deployed on downtown‑commercial‑district rooftops, office‑building rooftops, major‑transport‑station rooftops and large‑community rooftops. Rooftop spaces and under‑viaduct idle land are preferred to realize terminal‑network coverage without large‑scale land occupation.

Multi‑dimensional assessments must be completed during site‑selection: air‑space feasibility simulation, obstacle‑clearance simulation, building‑structure‑load evaluation, noise‑environmental‑impact assessment, ground‑transport‑transfer evaluation and land‑ownership‑land‑use‑nature analysis. Assessment outcomes serve as preconditions for site feasibility.

3.3 Complete Construction‑Implementation Workflow

1. Planning Compilation Phase: Incorporate vertiport sites into municipal low‑altitude‑infrastructure special plans, align with territorial‑spatial planning, conduct preliminary‑site screening and carry out simulation‑and‑environmental‑impact assessment.

2. Land‑Use and Approval Phase: Complete land‑use pre‑review and ownership verification, confirm land‑acquisition pathways; obtain obstacle‑clearance examination opinions, civil‑aviation‑authority comments, and fulfil fire‑safety, security and meteorological approval formalities.

3. Engineering‑Design Phase: Conduct integrated design for building structures, landing platforms, energy‑supply systems and digital‑dispatching systems complying with national‑construction standards and multi‑model‑compatibility requirements.

4. Engineering‑Construction‑Integration Phase: Complete civil‑engineering works, equipment procurement‑installation, software‑hardware‑system debugging and supporting fire‑security‑emergency‑facility construction.

5. Testing‑and‑Acceptance Phase: Complete project‑completion acceptance, conduct vertiport‑operation testing, realize interconnection with regional low‑altitude‑flight‑management platforms and prepare operational‑licence documentation.

6. Demonstration‑Operation Phase: Cooperate with eVTOL‑operating enterprises to launch pilot air‑routes, implement commercial trial‑operation and iteratively optimize dispatching systems and operation‑management mechanisms.

Chapter 4 In‑Depth Analysis of Land Constraints for Vertiports

Land‑resource bottlenecks constitute the most critical practical barrier restricting domestic vertiport delivery. Unlike ordinary engineering projects, vertiport land constraints represent composite contradictions superimposed by institutional regimes covering land‑use classification, land ownership, stock‑space utilization, planning governance and cost limitations.

4.1 Constraints from Construction‑Land‑Use Classification

China’s territorial‑spatial‑land‑classification system contains no dedicated land‑use category for vertiports. Projects must match existing land‑use classifications, forming core institutional‑level contradictions.

1. Airport‑Aviation Land: Suited for large‑scale hub‑vertiports. Limited land‑quota supply and high‑acquisition costs restrict large‑scale deployment within urban core zones.

2. Industrial Land: Regional‑type vertiports may be permitted on industrial land subject to local‑natural‑resource‑bureau confirmation, mainly serving internal‑park business scenarios.

3. Commercial‑Service Land: Rooftop vertiports attached to commercial buildings occupy no additional land and represent the most feasible downtown‑area solution. Nevertheless, only community‑micro‑type vertiports are feasible; large‑scale hub‑vertiports cannot be supported.

4. Transport‑Terminal Land: Vertiports may be deployed at high‑speed‑rail stations, harbours and comprehensive‑transport hubs for transport‑transfer‑oriented functions.

Practical difficulties: Vertiports belong to composite infrastructure featuring both transport‑infrastructure attributes and industrial‑service attributes. No directly corresponding land‑use category exists under current classification frameworks. Natural‑resource authorities across different cities adopt inconsistent implementation standards, generating approval uncertainty for projects.

4.2 Land‑Ownership and Stock‑Space‑Utilization Constraints

Two major delivery pathways exist for vertiports: new‑construction‑land development and stock‑space revitalization.

‑ New‑construction‑land development: Requires land expropriation and land‑transfer procedures with long‑cycle implementation. Extremely high land‑transfer costs in first‑and‑second‑tier cities restrict this approach almost exclusively to suburban hub‑vertiport projects. Large‑scale adoption delivers poor economic feasibility.

‑ Stock‑space revitalization: Represents the mainstream downtown‑delivery pathway. Available resources include existing‑building rooftops, industrial‑park idle rooftops, under‑viaduct idle land, idle‑factory‑building land and idle‑parking‑lot rooftops. Nevertheless, stock‑space utilization faces multiple practical obstacles:

1. Complex rooftop‑building ownership: Split‑property‑rights commercial buildings with multiple‑property‑owners render unified‑consensus‑building difficult. Rooftops of state‑owned buildings require formal state‑owned‑asset‑utilization approval procedures.

2. Inherent‑building‑structure limitations: Many ageing‑building rooftops fail to satisfy landing‑impact‑load requirements; retrofitting‑reinforcement incurs substantial costs.

3. Idle under‑viaduct land and fragmented urban plots are owned by transport bureaus, urban‑construction investment groups and state‑owned enterprises under strict‑land‑use control. Many plots prohibit aviation‑facility construction. Short‑term‑lease terms conflict with vertiports’ capital‑intensive nature requiring long‑operation cycles for investment recovery, discouraging investor willingness.

Overseas markets widely adopt long‑term‑property‑lease models for rooftop‑parking‑lot facilities without land purchase to reduce upfront capital expenditure. This model delivers reference value for China, yet fragmented‑property‑rights and unstable‑lease‑term challenges remain to be resolved.

4.3 Obstacle‑Clearance, Planning and Environmental Constraints

Even after resolving land‑ownership issues, sites must satisfy obstacle‑clearance requirements. High‑rise buildings, communication towers and transmission towers compress available‑site resources. Many downtown zones fall within airport‑obstacle‑clearance‑protection zones imposing strict restrictions on building heights and aerial‑activities, eliminating numerous potential vertiport sites.

Noise‑environmental constraints indirectly limit land‑utilization options. Noise‑control requirements for surrounding residential zones may disqualify geographically‑qualified candidate sites due to eVTOL‑take‑off‑and‑landing‑noise risks, shrinking the pool of available land resources.

4.4 Economic Constraints Driven by Land Costs

Land‑related expenditures include land‑transfer fees, property‑rental expenses and building‑retrofit‑reinforcement costs, accounting for a high proportion of total‑project‑investment within urban core zones. Adopting new‑land‑acquisition for hub‑vertiports in downtown areas sharply raises total‑investment costs, prolonging return‑on‑investment cycles and weakening commercial feasibility. Industrial consensus confirms that direct‑land‑purchase for downtown hub‑vertiports delivers poor economic returns. Rooftop‑stock‑space‑leasing is preferred to minimize land‑related expenditure.

4.5 Mitigation Pathways for Land Constraints

1. Planning‑advance mechanism: Embed vertiport‑site requirements into low‑altitude‑infrastructure special‑plans and territorial‑spatial‑planning transmission mechanisms to establish planning‑compliance foundations and reduce approval uncertainty.

2. Prioritize stock‑space revitalization and constrain new‑construction‑land expansion: Encourage retrofitting of rooftops, under‑viaduct idle land and idle‑industrial‑properties. Promote long‑term‑lease and property‑cooperation mechanisms; avoid large‑scale‑land‑transfer acquisition in downtown zones.