As a representative of new quality productive forces, the low altitude economy has emerged as a pivotal growth driver, yet its rapid expansion demands cautious scrutiny. From a macro perspective, the absence of foundational legal frameworks forces the sector to rely heavily on policy documents, undermining its legal stability. At the meso-level, the regulatory system is fragmented, with unclear authorities, overlapping jurisdictions, and insufficient inter-agency coordination, hindering effective governance. Micro-level implementation reveals systemic gaps in safeguarding data security and privacy. To address these challenges, I argue that the legal development of the low altitude economy must integrate domestic realities with international best practices, prioritizing a dual-track approach that balances safety and development. This involves establishing a government-led regulatory framework, fostering collaborative management mechanisms, and constructing a robust data “safety net” through hierarchical protections for national security and dynamic, scenario-based privacy safeguards.
The low altitude economy, encompassing activities like “low altitude + logistics” and “low altitude + tourism,” leverages airspace below 1,000 meters (extending to 3,000 meters in some cases) for economic purposes, creating new avenues for innovation and productivity. However, the current legal infrastructure, primarily anchored in the Civil Aviation Law, struggles to accommodate advancements such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) systems. This misalignment results in over-reliance on transient policies, exacerbating regional disparities. For instance, eastern provinces like Guangdong have developed comprehensive industrial chains, while western regions lag due to vague regulations and inadequate infrastructure. The equation below illustrates the growth potential of the low altitude economy, where output (O) is a function of regulatory clarity (R), technological investment (T), and infrastructure (I): $$ O = \alpha R + \beta T + \gamma I $$ Here, coefficients α, β, and γ represent the relative impact of each factor, emphasizing the need for balanced development.
At the macro level, the lack of unified norms leads to high policy dependency. The Civil Aviation Law, though foundational, fails to address niche aspects of the low altitude economy, such as UAV logistics and urban air mobility. Local regulations, such as Shenzhen’s Low Altitude Economy Industry Promotion Ordinance, offer innovative models but vary significantly across regions. This inconsistency fragments the national market and impedes economies of scale. For example, coastal areas benefit from advanced digital ecosystems, whereas inland provinces face structural bottlenecks. The table below summarizes key challenges in institutional design:
| Challenge | Impact | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Absence of specialized laws | Reliance on unstable policies | Delays in UAV flight approvals |
| Regional legislative disparities | Widened development gaps | Eastern vs. western infrastructure |
| Inadequate airspace classification | Inefficient resource allocation | Conflicts in low-altitude zones |
Transitioning to the meso-level, regulatory ambiguities stem from undefined authorities and poor coordination. Multiple entities—including civil aviation administrations, local governments, and military agencies—claim jurisdiction, creating vacuums and overlaps. For instance, flight approvals for low-altitude tourism require navigating bureaucratic labyrinths, slowing operational efficiency. The establishment of the Low Altitude Economy Development Department under the National Development and Reform Commission marks a step forward, but its mandate remains unclear. A proposed solution involves a synergistic management mechanism, leveraging digital platforms for real-time data sharing. The formula for regulatory efficiency (E) can be expressed as: $$ E = \frac{C}{D} $$ where C denotes coordination effectiveness and D represents bureaucratic delays. Enhancing E requires reducing D through centralized oversight.
Micro-level concerns revolve around data security and privacy. The low altitude economy generates vast datasets, including real-time flight paths and user locations, which, if compromised, threaten national security and individual rights. Existing laws like the Cybersecurity Law and Personal Information Protection Law provide general guidelines but lack low-altitude-specific provisions. For example, UAVs in tourism may inadvertently capture private activities, raising privacy violations. To mitigate risks, a layered protection system is essential, categorizing data into sensitive (e.g., military-related) and general types. The following table outlines a proposed data governance framework:
| Data Type | Protection Measures | Application Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitive (National Security) | Encryption, restricted access | Border surveillance |
| General (User Privacy) | Dynamic consent, anonymization | Low-altitude logistics |
| Cross-border Data | Pre-transfer assessments | International UAV operations |
The法治进路 (legal pathway) for the low altitude economy must begin with top-level design, integrating safety and development. Revisions to the Civil Aviation Law should explicitly define the low altitude economy and establish airspace management rules. Concurrently, promoting industrial integration through “low altitude +” scenarios can spur innovation, supported by fiscal incentives. The growth model for the low altitude economy can be represented as: $$ G = k \cdot I \cdot S $$ where G is growth, k is a constant, I denotes investment, and S signifies safety compliance. This underscores the interdependence of economic expansion and regulatory rigor.
At the regulatory level, clarifying governmental leadership is crucial. A three-tier system, led by central authorities with local coordination, can streamline processes. For example, Guangdong’s low-altitude economic zone demonstrates how regional pilots can inform national strategies. Additionally, inter-departmental committees and shared information platforms can bridge gaps, ensuring consistent policy enforcement. The efficiency of such a system can be modeled as: $$ \eta = \frac{R_s}{R_t} $$ where η is efficiency, R_s is shared resources, and R_t is total resources. Maximizing η requires minimizing redundancies.
For data security, a hierarchical approach involves classifying data based on sensitivity, employing encryption technologies like AES-256, and implementing cross-border controls. Privacy protection should adopt scenario-based mechanisms, where user consent is dynamically managed. For instance, in low-altitude rescue operations, data sharing might be relaxed, whereas in routine activities, strict anonymization applies. The risk of privacy breach (P_b) can be quantified as: $$ P_b = \frac{V}{A} $$ where V is vulnerability and A is mitigation efforts. Reducing P_b necessitates enhancing A through technical and legal measures.
In conclusion, the low altitude economy holds immense potential but requires a holistic legal ecosystem to thrive. By anchoring development in safety-centric regulations, fostering collaborative governance, and fortifying data protections, we can harness this emerging sector for sustainable growth. The journey toward a mature low altitude economy demands continuous adaptation, ensuring that innovation aligns with public interest and national security.