Optimal Location of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vertiport Using a Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Related Works
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework
- (Stage 1) Suitability Analysis—Identifying high-potential areas by selecting grids with the top 10% suitability scores, incorporating factors such as population density, land use diversity, and transportation connectivity.
- (Stage 2) Regulation Analysis—Filtering out locations that do not comply with vertiport construction laws, aviation regulations, and land-use policies, ensuring feasibility within legal constraints.
- (Stage 3) Allocation Analysis—Strategically distributing UAM vertiports based on urban master plans, optimizing site selection to maximize accessibility, efficiency, and integration with existing infrastructure.
3.3. Stage 1: Suitability Analysis
3.3.1. Analysis Process
3.3.2. Factors and Data
3.4. Stage 2: Regulation Analysis
3.4.1. Analysis Process
3.4.2. Factors and Data
3.5. Stage 2: Location Allocation Analysis
3.5.1. Analysis Process
3.5.2. Factors and Data
4. Results
4.1. Jeju
4.1.1. Suitability Analysis Result
4.1.2. Regulation Analysis Result
4.1.3. Location Allocation Analysis Result
4.2. Busan
4.2.1. Suitability Analysis Result
4.2.2. Regulation Analysis Result
4.2.3. Location Allocation Analysis Result
5. Discussion
5.1. Policy and Planning Implicatios
5.1.1. Strategic Integration of UAM in Transportation Systems
5.1.2. Addressing Equity in Advanced Air Mobility Infrastructure
5.2. Methodological Reflections and Comparative Evaluation
5.2.1. Contributions to Geospatial Decision-Making for UAM
5.2.2. Comparative Evaluation of the Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
5.3.1. Limitations of This Study
5.3.2. Directions for Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cokorilo, O. Urban Air Mobility: Safety Challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, A.P.; Shaheen, S.A.; Farrar, E.M. Urban Air Mobility: History, Ecosystem, Market Potential, and Challenges. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 22, 6074–6087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrow, L.A.; German, B.J.; Leonard, C.E. Urban Air Mobility: A Comprehensive Review and Comparative Analysis with Autonomous and Electric Ground Transportation for Informing Future Research. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2021, 132, 103377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Haddad, C.; Chaniotakis, E.; Straubinger, A.; Plötner, K.; Antoniou, C. Factors Affecting the Adoption and Use of Urban Air Mobility. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 696–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauranov, A.; Rakas, J. Designing Airspace for Urban Air Mobility: A Review of Concepts and Approaches. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2021, 125, 100726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, K. Optimal Vertiport Airspace and Approach Control Strategy for Urban Air Mobility (UAM). Sustainability 2023, 15, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biehle, T. Social Sustainable Urban Air Mobility in Europe. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellermann, R.; Biehle, T.; Fischer, L. Drones for Parcel and Passenger Transportation: A Literature Review. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 4, 100088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maheshwari, T.; Axhausen, K.W. How Will the Technological Shift in Transportation Impact Cities? A Review of Quantitative Studies on the Impacts of New Transportation Technologies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweiger, K.; Preis, L. Urban Air Mobility: Systematic Review of Scientific Publications and Regulations for Vertiport Design and Operations. Drones 2022, 6, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straubinger, A.; Rothfeld, R.; Shamiyeh, M.; Büchter, K.-D.; Kaiser, J.; Plötner, K.O. An Overview of Current Research and Developments in Urban Air Mobility—Setting the Scene for UAM Introduction. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 87, 101852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, J.; So, M.; Hwang, H.-Y. Selection of Vertiports Using K-Means Algorithm and Noise Analyses for Urban Air Mobility (UAM) in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, M.; Yu, K.; Yoon, M. UAM Veriport Site Selection Criteria and Importance Analysis Based on ANP Model. Aviat. Manag. Soc. Korea 2021, 19, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malczewski, J.; Rinner, C. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science, 2015th ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Khahro, S.H.; Matori, A.N.; Chandio, I.A.; Talpur, M.A.H. Data Preparation for GIS Based Land Suitability Modelling: A Stepped Approach. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 101, 02001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, S.; Sahu, P.K.; Sarkar, A.K.; Mehran, B.; Sharma, S. Geo-Spatial Site Suitability Analysis for Development of Health Care Units in Rural India: Effects on Habitation Accessibility, Facility Utilization and Zonal Equity in Facility Distribution. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özkan, B.; Özceylan, E.; Sarıçiçek, İ. GIS-Based MCDM Modeling for Landfill Site Suitability Analysis: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 30711–30730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Younes, A.; Kotb, K.M.; Abu Ghazala, M.O.; Elkadeem, M.R. Spatial Suitability Analysis for Site Selection of Refugee Camps Using Hybrid GIS and Fuzzy AHP Approach: The Case of Kenya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 77, 103062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topuz, M.; Deniz, M. Application of GIS and AHP for Land Use Suitability Analysis: Case of Demirci District (Turkey). Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elboshy, B.; Alwetaishi, M.; Aly, R.M.H.; Zalhaf, A.S. A Suitability Mapping for the PV Solar Farms in Egypt Based on GIS-AHP to Optimize Multi-Criteria Feasibility. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shui, C.S.; Szeto, W.Y. A Review of Bicycle-Sharing Service Planning Problems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 117, 102648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, F.; Iqbal, A.; Ashraf, I.; Marzband, M.; Khan, I. Optimal Location of Electric Vehicle Charging Station and Its Impact on Distribution Network: A Review. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 2314–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, S.K.; Yu, V.F.; Roy, S.K.; Weber, G.W. Location–Allocation Problem for Green Efficient Two-Stage Vehicle-Based Logistics System: A Type-2 Neutrosophic Multi-Objective Modeling Approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 238, 122174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendonca, N.; Murphy, J.; Patterson, M.D.; Alexander, R.; Juarex, G.; Harper, C. Advanced Air Mobility Vertiport Considerations: A List and Overview. In Proceedings of the AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, Chicago, IL, USA, 27 June–1 July 2022; AIAA AVIATION Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.; Park, J.; Yu, J.W.; Ko, J. A Study on the Criterions Affecting UAM Vertiport Location Based on User-Oriented Perspectives. JKST 2023, 41, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadhil, D.N. A GIS-Based Analysis for Selecting Ground Infrastructure Locations for Urban Air Mobility; Technical University of Munich: München, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Villa, A. Hub Location Problem for Optimal Vertiport Selection in Urban Air Mobility-Chicago Case Study; University of Illinois Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Baldwin, M.; Fox, A.; Klondike, T.; Hovis, M.; Shear, T.; Joca, L.; Hester, M.; Cubbage, F. Geospatial Analysis and Land Suitability for “FloodWise” Practices: Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation in Eastern, Rural North Carolina. Land 2022, 11, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Study on Societal Acceptance of Urban Air Mobility in Europe; EASA: Cologne, Germany, 2021.
- European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Prototype Technical Specifications for the Design of VFR Vertiports for Operation with Manned VTOL-Capable Aircraft Certified in the Enhanced Category; EASA: Cologne, Germany, 2022.
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Mobility Innovation Roadmap; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2022.
- UAM Team Korea. K-UAM Concept of Operations 1.0; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2021.
- Jacobson, J.; Forsyth, A. Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects. J. Transp. Land Use 2008, 1, 51–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israel, E.; Frenkel, A. Social Justice and Spatial Inequality: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2017, 42, 030913251770296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R.; Kockelman, K. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Geneidy, A.; Levinson, D.; Diab, E.; Boisjoly, G.; Verbich, D.; Loong, C. The Cost of Equity: Assessing Transit Accessibility and Social Disparity Using Total Travel Cost. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 302–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golub, A.; Brown, A.; Brakewood, C.; MacArthur, J.; Lee, S.; Ziedan, A. Equity and Exclusion Issues in Cashless Fare Payment Systems for Public Transportation. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2022, 15, 100628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Im, J.; Cho, K. Understanding Spatial Inequalities and Stratification in Transportation Accessibility to Social Infrastructures in South Korea: Multi-Dimensional Planning Insights. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, J.-S.; Hwang, H.-Y. Selection of Vertiport Location, Route Setting and Operating Time Analysis of Urban Air Mobility in Metropolitan Area. J. Adv. Navig. Technol. 2020, 24, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | Busan | Jeju | |
---|---|---|---|
Population | persons | 3,295,760 | 676,375 |
Urban Area | Km2 | 717 | 1516 |
Rural Area | km2 | 53 | 333 |
Median Housing Price | 10,000 won/m2 | 435.3 | 406.2 |
Annual Average Daily Traffic | Vehicles per day | 425,268 | 106,634 |
Transportation Network | km | 3983 | 6081 |
Tourists | persons | 3,763,118 | 12,990,294 |
Variable | Description | Weight | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Built Environment | |||
Population | Population Density | 1.75 | NGII |
Mixed LU | Mixed land use index (the number of POI land-use categories) | 1.50 | NGII |
Congestion | The additional societal loss incurred due to traffic congestion on roads in 10,000 won per day | 1.25 | KOTI |
Travel Demand | |||
Car | The amount of car traffic in annual average daily traffic in vehicles per day | 1.25 | KOTI |
Bus | The amount of bus traffic in annual average daily traffic in vehicles per day | 1.25 | KOTI |
Tourist | The number of tourists in 1000 persons | 1.00 | KCTI |
Transportation Accessibility | |||
Airport | The network distance to the nearest airport in kilometers | 1.50 | GIS |
Transit | The network distance to the nearest transit station in kilometers | 1.50 | NGII |
IC | The network distance to the nearest inter change in kilometers | 1.25 | NGII |
Variable | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
Zoning | Remove parcels within military protection zones, village areas, cultural heritage protection areas, development restriction areas, management areas, agricultural and forestry areas (agricultural promotion areas), natural environment conservation areas, and greenbelt zones | MPAS |
Land Use | Exclude parcels used for roads, drains, schools and temples | NIA |
Land Area | Filter out parcels with less than 5000 square meters, which is the minimum required area of UAM vertiport | NIA |
Distance to Dangerous Facilities | Remove parcels located in proximity to hazardous facilities, such as gas supply facilities, landscaped green spaces, sewage treatment facilities, waste treatment facilities, substation facilities, power generation facilities, drainage facilities, heat transportation facilities, oil storage facilities, general hospitals, and water purification facilities | NGII |
Obstacle Limitation Surface | Exclude parcels falling under no-fly zone, flight caution areas and military operation areas | LGIC |
Digital Elevation Model | Select parcels with altitudes ranging from 450 ± 150 m, meeting the minimum UAM operating altitude | NGII |
Building Height | Select parcels with less than 300 m of building height | NIA |
Variable | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
Economic Factors | ||
Land Price | Land price of parcels | NIA |
Land Availability | Land availability of parcels, which means that parcels are vacant or used as parks and helipad | NIA |
Land Ownership | Land ownership of parcels Preferred parcels are owned by public administrations | NIA |
Potential Demand | ||
Teenager | Population density of persons aged between 10 and 17 | NGII |
Working Age | Population density of persons aged between 18 and 64 | NGII |
Elderly | Population density of persons aged more than 65 | NGII |
Stages | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Suitability Analysis | Regulation Analysis | Location Allocation Analysis | |
Purpose | Evaluate the suitability of potential UAM vertiport sites considering multiple factors | Exclude parcels that fail to adhere to the current laws and regulations regarding the construction of vertiports | Strategically position UAM vertiports across the study areas to maximize their effectiveness |
Optimization Goal | Optimize travel demand, enhance accessibility, and ensure operational efficiency | Adhere to legal requirements, thereby pre-empting potential legal obstacles for smooth integration into the urban landscape | Maximize the effectiveness, accessibility, and efficiency of UAM services within urban environments |
Unit of Analysis | 100 m × 100 m Grids | Parcels | Parcels |
Factors | Population density, mixed land use, annual average daily traffic, congestion price, transport accessibility | Building heights, digital elevation model, obstacle limitation surface, zoning, distance to restricted facilities | Master urban plan, land prices, land vacancy, population size in different age groups |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, S.; Cho, N. Optimal Location of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vertiport Using a Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework. Future Transp. 2025, 5, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5020058
Lee S, Cho N. Optimal Location of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vertiport Using a Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework. Future Transportation. 2025; 5(2):58. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5020058
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Sangwan, and Nahye Cho. 2025. "Optimal Location of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vertiport Using a Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework" Future Transportation 5, no. 2: 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5020058
APA StyleLee, S., & Cho, N. (2025). Optimal Location of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vertiport Using a Three-Stage Geospatial Analysis Framework. Future Transportation, 5(2), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5020058