A method of urban airspace evaluation based on availability quantification and multi-risk assessment for UAV operations

Hao Li; Hua Wu; Yang Liu; HaiLong Dong; HuaYu Liu; Shuai Fan; Hao Li; Hua Wu; Yang Liu; HaiLong Dong; HuaYu Liu; Shuai Fan

doi:10.3934/math.2026639

AIMS Mathematics

2026, Volume 11, Issue 6: 15524-15560. doi: 10.3934/math.2026639

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A method of urban airspace evaluation based on availability quantification and multi-risk assessment for UAV operations

Hao Li ¹,
Hua Wu ^{1
,
,},
Yang Liu ^{1,2
,
,},
HaiLong Dong ¹,
HuaYu Liu ¹,
Shuai Fan ¹

1.
School of Information Science & Electrical Engineering, Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan 250357, Shandong, China
2.
Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Air-Ground Integration Vehicle and Control, Xihua University, Ministry of Education, Chengdu 610039, Sichuan, China

Received: 13 March 2026 Revised: 20 May 2026 Accepted: 21 May 2026 Published: 02 June 2026
MSC : 90B25, 90B50

The application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in urban areas enhances daily life convenience, but managing low-altitude urban airspace and mission planning remains challenging. This paper proposes a time-varying evaluation method for urban airspace management, combining airspace availability quantification and multi-risk assessment. First, a voxel-based measurement method was developed to quantify airspace availability by defining airspace coverage. Then, two risk assessment models were built: a static risk model and a dynamic risk model. The static risk model considers data transmission, collisions, indirect fatalities, and property damage; the dynamic risk model accurately quantifies direct fatalities and societal impact risks. Next, by integrating quadrant analysis with an improved Pareto ranking method, urban airspace below 40 meters was modeled and evaluated. Finally, a 3D urban airspace map with a resolution of 500 × 500 × 10 was generated, and airspace connectivity tests were conducted at 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. The results show that airspace connectivity is optimal between 28 meters and 40 meters at 10:00 P.M., improving with increased altitude.
- urban airspace evaluation,
- availability quantification,
- multi-risk assessment
Citation: Hao Li, Hua Wu, Yang Liu, HaiLong Dong, HuaYu Liu, Shuai Fan. A method of urban airspace evaluation based on availability quantification and multi-risk assessment for UAV operations[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2026, 11(6): 15524-15560. doi: 10.3934/math.2026639

Related Papers:

Abstract

The application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in urban areas enhances daily life convenience, but managing low-altitude urban airspace and mission planning remains challenging. This paper proposes a time-varying evaluation method for urban airspace management, combining airspace availability quantification and multi-risk assessment. First, a voxel-based measurement method was developed to quantify airspace availability by defining airspace coverage. Then, two risk assessment models were built: a static risk model and a dynamic risk model. The static risk model considers data transmission, collisions, indirect fatalities, and property damage; the dynamic risk model accurately quantifies direct fatalities and societal impact risks. Next, by integrating quadrant analysis with an improved Pareto ranking method, urban airspace below 40 meters was modeled and evaluated. Finally, a 3D urban airspace map with a resolution of 500 × 500 × 10 was generated, and airspace connectivity tests were conducted at 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. The results show that airspace connectivity is optimal between 28 meters and 40 meters at 10:00 P.M., improving with increased altitude.

References

[1]	R. Y. Liu, H. L. Kang, R. Bao, S. Y. Gong, Y. F. Yao, Y. Wu, An improved aphid optimization algorithm with soft thresholding, AIMS Math., 11 (2026), 3534–3559. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2026144 doi: 10.3934/math.2026144
[2]	Q. M. Li, Y. H. Yan, S. H. Lan, FCA-YOLO: a small object detection method based on feature attention fusion for UAV remote sensing images, AIMS Math., 11 (2026), 5172–5191. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2026211 doi: 10.3934/math.2026211
[3]	X. T. Sun, Y. Hu, Y. C. Qin, Y. Zhang, Risk assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle accidents based on data-driven Bayesian networks, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 248 (2024), 110185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110185 doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110185
[4]	S. Oh, Y. Yoon, Urban drone operations: a data-centric and comprehensive assessment of urban airspace with a Pareto-based approach, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 182 (2024), 104034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104034 doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104034
[5]	J. Yang, Y. J. Wang, X. Hang, D. Delahaye, A review on airspace design and risk assessment for urban air mobility, IEEE Access, 12 (2024), 157599–157611. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3481148 doi: 10.1109/access.2024.3481148
[6]	L. Davies, Y. Vagapov, V. Grout, S. Cunningham, A. Anuchin, Review of air traffic management systems for UAV integration into urban airspace, In: 2021 28th International Workshop on Electric Drives: Improving Reliability of Electric Drives (IWED), Moscow, Russia, 2021, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/iwed52055.2021.9376343
[7]	M. Doole, J. Ellerbroek, V. L. Knoop, J. M. Hoekstra, Constrained urban airspace design for large-scale drone-based delivery traffic, Aerospace, 8 (2021), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8020038 doi: 10.3390/aerospace8020038
[8]	C. C. Xu, X. H. Liao, J. M. Tan, H. P. Ye, H. Y. Lu, Recent research progress of unmanned aerial vehicle regulation policies and technologies in urban low altitude, IEEE Access, 8 (2020), 74175–74194. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2987622 doi: 10.1109/access.2020.2987622
[9]	S. Bae, H. S. Shin, A. Tsourdos, Structured urban airspace capacity analysis: four drone delivery cases, Appl. Sci., 13 (2023), 3833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063833 doi: 10.3390/app13063833
[10]	U. J. Lee, S. J. Ahn, D. Y. Choi, S. M. Chin, D. S. Jang, Airspace designs and operations for UAS traffic management at low altitude, Aerospace, 10 (2023), 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10090737 doi: 10.3390/aerospace10090737
[11]	W. Z. Zhang, H. Wu, Y. Liu, S. Y. Zhou, H. L. Dong, H. Y. Liu, Dual-metric-based assessment and topology generation of urban airspace with quadrant analysis and Pareto ranking, Aerospace, 11 (2024), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11120978 doi: 10.3390/aerospace11120978
[12]	S. Oh, Y. Yoon, Data-driven risk analysis of unmanned aircraft system operations considering spatiotemporal characteristics of population distribution, Transp. Res. Interd. Perspect., 16 (2022), 100732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100732 doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100732
[13]	Y. W. Sun, H. F. Tao, V. Stojanovic, Open-set classification method via latent representation prompt and time-frequency fusion toward unknown fault recognition, Adv. Eng. Inform., 68 (2025), 103779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2025.103779 doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2025.103779
[14]	Y. W. Sun, H. F. Tao, V. Stojanovic, Multi-domain weakly decoupled domain generalization network for fault diagnosis under unknown operating conditions, Knowl. Based Syst., 330 (2025), 114452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2025.114452 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2025.114452
[15]	C. B. Qin, X. T. Ran, D. H. Zhang, Unsupervised image stitching based on generative adversarial networks and feature frequency awareness algorithm, Appl. Soft Comput., 183 (2025), 113466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113466 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113466
[16]	C. B. Qin, X. T. Ran, Efficient unsupervised image stitching using attention mechanism with deep homography estimation, Comput. Mater. Continua, 79 (2024), 1319–1334. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2024.048850 doi: 10.32604/cmc.2024.048850
[17]	E. Aldao, F. Veiga-López, C. P. C. Chanel, Y. Watanabe, H. González-Jorge, Dynamic UAV trajectory optimisation for parcel delivery with integrated third-party risk mitigation, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 262 (2025), 111178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111178 doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2025.111178
[18]	S. Y. Zhou, Y. Liu, X. J. Zhang, H. L. Dong, W. Zhang, H. Z. Wu, et al., Risk assessment and distribution estimation for UAV operations with accurate ground feature extraction based on a multi-layer method in urban areas, Drones, 8 (2024), 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones8080399 doi: 10.3390/drones8080399
[19]	V. C. Martinez, H. S. Shin, A. Tsourdos, Risk assessment for sUAS in urban environments: a comprehensive analysis, modelling and validation for safe operations, In: AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, Orlando 0232. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-0232
[20]	A. S. Alatawi, A. A. Youssef, M. Abaza, R. Mesleh, F. S. Almehmadi, Evaluation of the feasibility of FSO/UAV communications in NEOM smart city, Results Eng., 26 (2025), 105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105256 doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105256
[21]	S. Huang, J. P. Shi, Q. Zhu, Z. H. Du, Y. X. Lyu, Z. Liu, Multiple UAVs cooperatively circumnavigating a group of non-cooperative targets in a GPS-free environment via a range-only distributed controller, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 158 (2025), 109924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2024.109924 doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2024.109924
[22]	H. Wu, H. B. Duan, Hierarchical pigeon inspired optimization based Multi-UAV obstacle avoidance control, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 159 (2025), 109963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2025.109963 doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2025.109963
[23]	H. Y. Tang, Q. Zhu, B. Qin, R. Y. Song, Z. Li, UAV path planning based on third-party risk modeling, Sci. Rep., 13 (2023), 22259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49396-4 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-49396-4
[24]	Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Potential damage assessment of a mid-air collision with a small UAV, Technical Report, 2013.
[25]	Q. Y. Li, Q. G. Wu, H. Y. Tu, J. P. Zhang, X. Zou, S. Huang, Ground risk assessment for unmanned aircraft focusing on multiple risk sources in urban environments, Processes, 11 (2023), 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020542 doi: 10.3390/pr11020542
[26]	B. Z. Pang, X. T. Hu, W. Dai, K. H. Low, UAV path optimization with an integrated cost assessment model considering third-party risks in metropolitan environments, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 222 (2022), 108399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108399 doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108399
[27]	X. T. Hu, B. Z. Pang, F. Q. Dai, K. H. Low, Risk assessment model for UAV cost-effective path planning in urban environments, IEEE Access, 8 (2020), 150162–150173. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3016118 doi: 10.1109/access.2020.3016118
[28]	C. H. Koh, K. H. Low, L. Li, Y. Zhao, C. Deng, S. K. Tan, et al., Weight threshold estimation of falling UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) based on impact energy, Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol., 93 (2018), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.04.021 doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.04.021
[29]	S. Bertrand, N. Raballand, F. Viguier, Evaluating ground risk for road networks induced by UAV operations, In: 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Dallas, 2018,168–176. https://doi.org/10.1109/icuas.2018.8453441
[30]	W. N. Alexander, J. Whelchel, Flyover noise of multi-rotor sUAS, In: Inter-Noise and Noise-Con Congress and Conference Proceedings, Madrid, 2019, 2548–2558.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2026 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)