Preamble

Decoding U.S. Low-Altitude Economic Policies: Text Mining Based on the TIE Framework

Wang Chuanlei, Li Lin
Business School of Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China

Abstract:
[Objective] The low-altitude economy represents a strategic frontier driving the new round of global industrial transformation. This study aims to deeply decode the strategic intent, internal structure, and effectiveness of U.S. low-altitude economy policies, providing intelligence support and decision-making references for China to seize the strategic high ground and build an independently controllable policy system. [Methods] This study constructs a three-dimensional analytical framework of "Theme-Instrument-Effectiveness" (TIE), collects 33 U.S. policy texts, and conducts multi-dimensional, mixed-methods policy intelligence analysis using the BERTopic deep learning topic model, policy instrument coding, and the PMC index model. [Conclusions] U.S. low-altitude economy policy themes exhibit typical "technology-driven" characteristics, with policy instrument configurations displaying a structure of "strong hard-environment regulation, robust supply-side promotion, weak demand-side stimulation, and limited innovation empowerment." Overall policy effectiveness is favorable but with individual shortcomings. Based on these findings, we propose the following insights: The government should make multi-dimensional efforts to guide breakthroughs in core technological bottlenecks and deepen innovation system synergy and ecosystem development; optimize the dynamic combination of policy instruments to form a balanced implementation and adjustment mechanism integrating rigidity and flexibility; construct a multi-level systematic policy framework to improve multi-dimensional governance systems; and proactively lead international standard cooperation to enhance global discourse power in low-altitude economy rule-making through multiple pathways.

Keywords: Low-Altitude Economy; Text mining; BERT topic model; Policy tools; PMC index model; the United States

The low-altitude economy, as an emerging and dynamic field, has become a frontier for economic growth and sustainable social development, driven by innovations in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) technology, and airspace management reform. China's 2024 Government Work Report proposed "actively developing new growth engines such as bio-manufacturing, commercial aerospace, and the low-altitude economy," while the 2025 report emphasized "promoting the safe and healthy development of emerging industries including commercial aerospace, low-altitude economy, and deep-sea technology." The low-altitude economy is defined as a comprehensive economic form centered on various manned and unmanned aircraft, driven by low-altitude flight activities, and radiating to drive integrated development in related fields \cite{1}. As a typical representative of new quality productive forces, the development of the low-altitude economy requires forward-looking and systematic policy support to create a harmonious ecosystem, stimulate investment vitality, accelerate technology research and development, expand scenario applications, and create social value.

The United States, as a developed country, has long introduced numerous policies to promote low-altitude economic development, including laws, regulations, plans, visions, strategies, white papers, and guidelines, such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Federal Aviation Regulations, the U.S. Congress's Airport, Terminal Safety and Capacity Expansion Act, and the General Aviation Revitalization Act. In recent years, China has successively issued the National Comprehensive Three-Dimensional Transportation Network Planning Outline, Unmanned Aircraft Flight Management Regulations, and General Aviation Equipment Innovation and Application Implementation Plan (2024-2030), and established the General Aviation and Low-Altitude Economy Work Leading Group in 2025. However, compared with the United States, China's low-altitude economy started relatively late and remains in the exploratory stage regarding regulatory systems, airspace management, and technology application policies. In practice, significant gaps exist in infrastructure network layout, independent and controllable industrial chains, professional talent reserves, and commercialization models. An overall low-altitude policy system has yet to be formed, requiring comprehensive breakthroughs and improvements.

This study collects U.S. low-altitude economic policy texts to decode their core content, extract valuable experiences, adopt their strengths and discard their weaknesses, and provide insights for China's policy development, new quality productive forces cultivation, and high-quality low-altitude economy development.

Literature Review

Current academic research on low-altitude economy policies exhibits multi-dimensional characteristics. From an international perspective, research focuses on Urban Air Mobility (UAM) as the core carrier of the low-altitude economy, with policy discussions covering three dimensions: intelligent technology, system solutions, and application scenarios. Specifically, while intelligent technology serves as a key driver for UAM, it faces technical bottlenecks such as battery degradation, noise pollution, and privacy security \cite{2,3}. System solutions emphasize the collaborative mechanism between eVTOL and digital air traffic management systems, with Hamburg Airport in Germany having completed feasibility verification \cite{4}. Airspace hierarchical management or infrastructure transformation is considered a solution path \cite{5,6}. Application scenarios range from public medical transport to private logistics, with vertiport location layout receiving significant academic attention \cite{7,8}, though systematic policy analysis remains to be deepened.

Domestic research mainly includes two categories: introduction of foreign policies and analysis of local policies. Regarding foreign policy studies, Xu Shilin pointed out that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration undertakes the functions of standard and regulation formulation and implementation \cite{9}, while Liao Huijiao explored the U.S. UAV regulatory system \cite{10}, though the breadth and methodological depth of overall policy analysis need expansion. Local policy research is further refined into four areas: First, cross-domain policy coordination mechanisms. Hu Yang used AHP to explore how local policies and air traffic management systems synergistically support low-altitude economic development \cite{11}. Kong Dejian and Yuan Ze proposed coordination paths at the policy and legal levels \cite{12}. Zhang Yujie constructed a legal guarantee framework from a legal policy perspective \cite{13}. Chen Yong et al. focused on UAV communication spectrum management policies \cite{14}, Meng Xianmin et al. analyzed industrial support policies \cite{15}, and Wang Yanping et al. explored the enabling effects of fiscal policies \cite{16}. Second, regional practice and text quantitative research. At the regional level, Huang Qiaolong et al. discussed Fujian's industrial policies \cite{17}, Chen Yu et al. conducted comparative analysis of key provinces and cities \cite{18}, Wei Yongtao proposed suggestions for low-altitude logistics policies in border areas \cite{19}, Wang Shitai et al. analyzed AI empowerment paths based on Guangdong and Jiangsu policy texts \cite{20}, Liang Lizhi et al. analyzed low-altitude economy policy texts using a "goal-instrument-subject" three-dimensional framework \cite{21}, Shao Peng et al. revealed policy text characteristics of mega-cities and their driving effects on scenario innovation \cite{22}, Zhang Xin \cite{23}, Wang Chengcheng et al. \cite{24}, and Xu Pengfei et al. \cite{25} respectively used the PMC index model to analyze policy samples, while Zhang Cuiyun \cite{26} and Lin Yanli et al. \cite{27} proposed specific provincial policy optimization suggestions for Hebei and Liaoning. Third, specific domain application research. He Yong et al. discussed the adaptability of low-altitude economy policies and technologies in agricultural and rural scenarios \cite{28}, while Zhang Hui introduced narrative policy frameworks to optimize social cognition of the low-altitude economy \cite{29}. Fourth, sustainable development-oriented research. Mao Lei \cite{30} and Jiang Hui and Zhang Huiheng \cite{31} respectively proposed policy optimization paths from the perspectives of industrial sustainability and overall development.

In summary, existing research provides useful perspectives for understanding low-altitude economy policies, but still has obvious limitations: First, most content focuses on local issues or internal national policies, with few cross-dimensional decodings of powerful nations' low-altitude economy policies. Second, methods mostly adopt content analysis or quantitative statistics, with few applying deep text mining methods, making it difficult to support strategic-level intelligence insight generation. Therefore, this study collects texts and applies text mining to analyze U.S. low-altitude economy policies from the dimensions of policy themes, policy instruments, and policy effectiveness, aiming to provide references for China's low-altitude economy policy formulation and improvement.

Methodology

3.1 Research Methods and Basic Approach

The research follows the logic of "data collection → multi-dimensional analysis → conclusions and implications." First, manual segmentation ensures each English text data entry contains ≤512 tokens, and the NLTK tokenization library is used for word segmentation with stop words removed to eliminate invalid information. Second, the BERT deep learning model is employed following the path of "text high-dimensional vectorization → UMAP algorithm dimensionality reduction → K-means algorithm clustering → TF-IDF algorithm keyword extraction" to obtain text topics, keywords, and visualization results for policy theme analysis. Third, the NVivo15 qualitative research tool is used to encode and statistically analyze policy instrument usage in text content for policy instrument analysis. Then, the PMC index model is applied to analyze the effectiveness of U.S. low-altitude economy policy texts. Finally, based on the characteristics of U.S. low-altitude economy policies, recommendations for China's low-altitude policy formulation and optimization are proposed. The research framework is shown in Figure 1 [FIGURE:1].

3.2 Data Sources and Preprocessing

The research sample consists of 33 U.S. policy texts listed in Table 1 [TABLE:1], including major legislation such as the Federal Aviation Regulations, Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Airport and Terminal Safety and Capacity Expansion Act, General Aviation Revitalization Act, and Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, as well as key policy documents like Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM): Enabling Low Altitude Airspace and UAS Operations, Small UAS Flight Plan 2016-2036, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Vision, and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Implementation Plan. These documents span from foundational legislation in 1958 establishing the Federal Aviation Administration to recent strategic initiatives in 2023, covering agencies including the FAA, NASA, Department of Transportation, and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Analysis

4.1 Policy Theme Analysis

Policy themes are crucial for understanding national strategic intent. Using Visual Studio Code (Version: 1.96.3), we generated 384-dimensional word vectors through the SentenceTransformer all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sub-model, applied UMAP algorithm for dimensionality reduction, and used K-means clustering with 15 preset topics to obtain visualization results including a topic distance map (Figure 2a [FIGURE:2]), topic heatmap (Figure 2b), and topic clustering diagram (Figure 3a [FIGURE:3]), enabling thematic analysis of U.S. low-altitude economy policy texts.

The topic distance map displays topic distribution in two-dimensional space through dimensionality reduction, where circle size indicates relative topic importance and smaller inter-topic distances indicate higher semantic similarity. The topic heatmap shows pairwise topic similarity relationships, with darker colors indicating stronger semantic correlation and lighter colors indicating weaker correlation. As shown in Figures 2a and 2b, topic nodes are compactly distributed with small spacing, indicating high inter-topic correlation and internal logical consistency, with color blocks corresponding to topic relationships. Both visualization results jointly validate the scientific validity of topic clustering.

To excavate key policy content and building on existing research by Xu Pengfei et al. \cite{25}, we generated a word cloud (Figure 3b [FIGURE:3]) based on word frequency statistics and selected the top 100 keywords, as shown in Table 2 [TABLE:2]. The data reveal that U.S. low-altitude economy policies exhibit significant technology-driven characteristics, aiming to consolidate and strengthen U.S. dominance in global low-altitude economy technology. The policy system is structurally divided into three core dimensions:

First, U.S. low-altitude economy policies follow a safety-first underlying logic. High-frequency keywords such as "safety," "requirement," "limitation," "control," and "compliance" reflect a strict governance framework centered on risk prevention and compliance requirements. This system relies on regulatory tools like "rule" and "regulation" to construct a closed-loop regulatory chain throughout the industrial chain, clarifying legal responsibilities and behavioral red lines for government, enterprises, and participants to ensure technological applications and industrial development do not breach safety baselines.

Second, U.S. low-altitude economy policies focus on technology R&D and innovation ecosystem cultivation. High-frequency terms such as "uas," "unmanned," "remote," "identification," "engine," "design," and "data" reflect comprehensive U.S. deployment in key technology areas including unmanned aerial systems, power plants, intelligent identification, and data governance. Policies drive overall leaps in hardware innovation, system integration, and information control capabilities through mechanisms that directly support R&D or indirectly guide market demand, strengthening the international competitiveness of its industrial ecosystem.

Third, U.S. low-altitude economy policies embody a vertical collaborative governance mechanism of "federal coordination with local adaptation." Institutional vocabulary such as "faa," "federal," and "agency," along with hierarchical terms like "government," "local," and "community," indicate that policy implementation emphasizes federal-level framework legislation and bottom-line constraints while granting local governments and communities certain adaptation authority. This mechanism, through dynamic revision and multi-party participation, avoids policy rigidity while preventing "fragmentation" in policy execution, stimulating regional innovation enthusiasm while ensuring national airspace security.

In summary, U.S. low-altitude economy policies construct an institutional system supporting sustainable low-altitude industry development through three pillars—safety regulation, technology promotion, and collaborative governance—demonstrating significant strategic orientation and technological hegemony characteristics in global low-altitude economy competition.

4.2 Policy Instrument Analysis

Policy instruments are key means for governments to translate policy objectives into practice \cite{33}. Synergistic policy instrument combinations can effectively promote goal achievement, and systematic analysis of policy instrument composition and linkage mechanisms can provide a basis for optimizing policy systems. Scholars have proposed various classification methods for policy instruments. Given that the low-altitude economy is an emerging economic form and the General Aviation Equipment Innovation and Application Implementation Plan (2024-2030) emphasizes innovative products and service models, this study builds upon Rothwell and Zegveld's policy instrument theory \cite{34}, combined with text mining and research by scholars such as Mao Zijun et al. \cite{35-40}. Based on supply-side, environmental, and demand-side policy instruments, we specifically add innovative policy instruments and, following the logic of "from micro products to macro industry," divide innovative policy instruments into four types: product innovation, service innovation, model innovation, and format innovation, forming 19 specific low-altitude economy policy instruments as shown in Table 3 [TABLE:3].

The policy instrument classification includes: (1) Supply-side instruments: infrastructure construction (building general airports, airspace management systems, landing points, and supporting software and communication networks), R&D support (establishing special research programs encouraging industry-academia-research collaboration), financial support (direct fiscal appropriations and special funds for enterprise startup, R&D, and operation phases), talent cultivation and introduction (systematic education and external recruitment of high-quality professionals), and public services (providing low-altitude traffic data sharing platforms, technical standard consultation, and industry information release). (2) Environmental instruments: laws and regulations (formulating or revising low-altitude flight legal norms clarifying airspace usage rights, flight approval processes, and accident liability), standards and specifications (establishing unified and forward-looking national standards for aircraft design, manufacturing, operation, quality testing, and safety operations), supervision and management (ensuring legal and compliant low-altitude operations through real-time monitoring, regular inspections, and violation penalties), financial tax incentives (reducing enterprise operating costs through tax reductions and low-interest loans), and communication and collaboration (building cross-department information sharing platforms and collaborative mechanisms). (3) Demand-side instruments: government procurement (prioritizing purchases of inspection drones and emergency rescue flights), demonstration projects (constructing leading low-altitude economy projects like general airports and air traffic demonstration routes), market cultivation (stimulating market demand through consumption subsidies and industry promotion activities), scenario promotion (excavating "low-altitude+" scenarios such as tourism, logistics, and emergency rescue), and international cooperation (promoting cross-border technology exchange and project cooperation). (4) Innovative instruments: product innovation (encouraging R&D of products with new performance and uses), service innovation (optimizing service processes and expanding quality to provide personalized services), model innovation (supporting enterprises in reconstructing business models and optimizing operational processes), and format innovation (breaking traditional industry boundaries to form new industrial organization forms).

For policy text coding, we used NVivo15 to sequentially read and encode the content of 33 low-altitude economy policy texts, counting each policy instrument only once per policy and recording it as "policy number-chapter number-clause number." Partial coding examples are shown in Table 4 [TABLE:4].

The coding results yielded 198 policy instrument reference points, as shown in Figure 4 [FIGURE:4]. Supply-side policy instruments account for 30.81%, environmental instruments for 45.96%, demand-side instruments for 16.16%, and innovative instruments for 7.07%. Environmental policy instruments approach half of the total, supply-side instruments rank second, demand-side instruments account for less than half of environmental instruments, and innovative instruments show the lowest frequency, presenting an overall distribution pattern of "hard environmental regulation, strong supply promotion, weak demand stimulation, and limited innovation empowerment." This aligns with theme analysis results, focusing on building a safe and healthy development environment and technical supply support while considering demand and innovation.

Regarding supply-side instruments, the U.S. has constructed a hardware support system centered on vertiports. Engineering Brief 105 for Vertiport Design explicitly specifies technical standards for eVTOL-dedicated landing sites, including Touch Down and Lift Off Area (TLOF), Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO), dimensional specifications for safety areas, and requirements for supporting infrastructure such as Charging and Electric Infrastructure (CEI) and Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). The federal government also established a special pilot program through the Advanced Aviation Infrastructure Modernization Act, allocating a $5 billion budget for Vertiport network construction in cities like Dallas-Fort Worth, focusing on supporting charging facility integration and low-altitude traffic management system upgrades. For R&D support, NASA collaborates with Joby Aviation to advance eVTOL system development in areas like Distributed Electric Propulsion, Autonomous Flight Technology, and Modular Architecture. Financial support includes direct fiscal budget allocations, with enterprises enjoying a 150% R&D expense super-deduction, directly reducing innovation costs. For talent cultivation, institutions like Caltech have established "low-altitude mobility special programs" to cultivate interdisciplinary talent in UAV management and eVTOL operations, forming a direct supply chain of "R&D-infrastructure-talent." Public services include optimizing Wi-Fi and GPS infrastructure to create "a more consumer-friendly and digitally connected airport experience" as mentioned in the FAA Reauthorization Act (2018).

Environmental policy instruments feature a federal-state-industry three-level legislative system, with federal-led systematic legislation clarifying airport development and safety supervision while allowing states to adapt measures to local conditions and combine industry self-discipline to form collaborative governance. The FAA Reauthorization Act (2018) explicitly stipulates airport planning, development, fund usage, and safety supervision. Standard specifications establish unified and technologically forward-looking national standards from aircraft design to airport services, covering safety, environmental protection, and emerging fields like UAVs. The "FAA SAFETY CERTIFICATION REFORM" section formulates standards for aircraft certification and flight standards, while "Airport Noise and Environmental Streamlining" and "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" sections detail airport noise, environmental issues, UAV operation norms, and safety standards. Supervision and management provisions clarify regulatory boundaries, compliance assessments, and penalty mechanisms, providing a controllable environment for low-altitude economy development. Financial tax incentives include tax exemption policies for specific emergency medical transport in the Airport and Terminal Safety and Capacity Expansion Act and aviation fuel tax extensions through trust fund mechanisms in the FAA Reauthorization Act (2018). Communication and collaboration emphasize unified standard formulation and inter-departmental communication, with Section 383 requiring FAA cooperation with the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to detect and mitigate potential UAV risks to airport operations, ensuring top-level consistency and coordination while avoiding functional overlap or conflict.

Demand-side instruments show limited government procurement, indicating federal policy preference for free competition over direct purchase. Demonstration projects include the UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) mentioned in the Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System Roadmap and the eVTOL Integration Pilot Program (eIPP) in Unleashing American Drone Dominance as an extension of the BEYOND program. Market cultivation is mentioned in the National Aeronautics Science & Technology Priorities white paper, which states the federal government is actively opening AAM development pathways to provide fresh and exciting community travel options. The FAA has approved multiple commercial enterprises for UAV delivery operations, issuing type certificates based on gradually improved certification standards, while the U.S. Postal Service has explored UAV possibilities for package and mail delivery. Scenario promotion includes cargo delivery, infrastructure monitoring, agriculture, and medical applications in Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management, while the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2019-2023) covers emergency medical services, agricultural fertilization, forest firefighting, and aerial observation of pipelines and electrical grid infrastructure. International cooperation includes establishing the "North American Low-Altitude Corridor" with Canada and Mexico to simplify cross-border approval processes and cooperation with ICAO to develop cost-effective international standards.

Innovative policy instruments allow enterprises to pilot disruptive business models, such as Joby Aviation's "membership-based commuting service" with monthly flight packages and Airmap's real-time airspace planning platform integrating meteorological data and flight approval systems, forming a hardware-software fusion ecosystem. Product innovation includes federal funding for eVTOL R&D projects like Lilium Aviation's seven-seat eVTOL achieving 300km range. Service innovation includes UAM service providers offering personalized route planning, traffic conflict resolution, and information services, though overall policy coverage remains limited. Model innovation explores "aerial sharing economy" through blockchain technology enabling private eVTOL shared access, with flight credit points redeemable for ground transportation services, showing promising prospects but limited current adoption. Planning for Advanced Air Mobility mentions distributed operations powered by electricity and intelligent scheduling through NASA's AAM-CIP digital platform, while "Mobility as a Service (MaaS)" platforms integrate ticketing and baggage services for "one-click" travel. Format innovation includes the emergence of low-altitude data service industries driven by UAV technology, intelligent sensors, and AI, breaking traditional aviation industry boundaries. However, overall innovative policy instrument usage remains low.

4.3 Policy Effectiveness Analysis

Policy effectiveness refers to the inherent potential of policy texts to achieve policy objectives through instrument design, goal setting, and implementation mechanisms. This study employs Ruiz Estrada's PMC index model \cite{41} for policy effectiveness evaluation to comprehensively, systematically, and objectively quantify various policy aspects, achieving unified judgment of policy consistency and reduced evaluation subjectivity \cite{42}, and enabling multi-dimensional comparison of policy focus areas and weak links \cite{43}.

The evaluation index system construction involves: (1) Indicator selection and parameter setting. Using BERTopic can improve PMC index model precision in quantitative policy evaluation \cite{44}, so based on text mining and policy theme analysis, combined with research by Zhang Yong'an and Qie Haituo \cite{45} and Zhang Xi et al. \cite{46}, we selected 9 primary variables (divided into policy content and policy process dimensions) and 37 secondary variables for the low-altitude economy policy effectiveness evaluation system (see Table 5 [TABLE:5]). A binary approach assigns value 1 when policy text content involves secondary variables and 0 otherwise, ensuring consistent secondary variable weights. For X4 Policy Subject, independence (whether issued independently by authoritative bodies) counts as 1, and joint issuance (by two or more agencies) counts as 1. For X6 Effectiveness Level, given that low-altitude economy requires strong regulation for safety, we adopted a progressive decreasing assignment method based on Zhu Xiaofeng et al. \cite{44} and Zhang Xi et al. \cite{46}. Specifically, "laws and administrative regulations" (statutes, mandatory orders) are assigned 1.0, "departmental rules" (provisions, rules, regulations) 0.75, "normative documents" (strategies, plans, guidelines, schemes, programs, engineering briefs, white papers) 0.50, and "industry regulations" (visions, roadmaps, blueprints) 0.25.

The PMC index calculation follows established research \cite{43-46}. Steps include: First, construct a multi-input-output table covering primary and secondary variables. Second, assign values to secondary variables using formulas 1 and 2, where i represents primary variables and j represents secondary variables. Third, calculate each primary variable score using formula 3, where n represents the number of secondary variables under each primary variable. Finally, calculate each policy's PMC value using formula 4 and evaluate corresponding low-altitude economy policies based on numerical ratings, with rating standards shown in Table 6 [TABLE:6].

Following these steps, we obtained policy scores, ratings, and rankings as shown in Table 7 [TABLE:7]. PMC surface charts were constructed based on PMC index results to visually display indicator scores. Using Python 3.12.10 (Pycharm 2025.1.2) and formula 5, we generated PMC surface charts for 33 low-altitude economy policies, with examples shown in Figure 5 [FIGURE:5].

The overall dimensional analysis reveals that among 33 U.S. low-altitude economy policies, all rating levels are represented: 1 poor-rated policy, 6 acceptable-rated policies, 9 good-rated policies, 13 excellent-rated policies, and only 4 perfect-rated policies. Overall, policies rated good or above account for over 70%, indicating relatively comprehensive consideration of various indicators and high rationality and completeness. The mean score of 6.83 reaches the good rating standard, demonstrating U.S. emphasis on and active promotion of low-altitude domain economic development.

Policy dimension analysis includes both content and process dimensions, with results generated using Python 3.12.10 (Pycharm 2025.1.2) shown in Figure 6 [FIGURE:6]. In the content dimension, most policies score high on policy nature (X1), focusing on supervision, description, guidance, and support, with less emphasis on prediction and suggestion, indicating U.S. LEA policy formulation prioritizes overall stability, pragmatism, and interest balance. This provides trial space for industry while facilitating systemic risk response, though lacking forward-looking vision. Effectiveness level (X6) scores relatively high, with X6.1 laws and administrative regulations accounting for 14 items, X6.2 departmental rules for 3 items, X6.3 normative documents for 14 items, and X6.4 industry regulations for 2 items, showing U.S. low-altitude economy policies are dominated by federal laws and administrative regulations, supplemented by numerous normative documents for detailed implementation, while departmental rules and industry regulations occupy smaller shares. Although the federal government centrally controls and rapidly responds to technical needs through flexible administrative means, industry autonomy and systematic legislation still require strengthening. Policy objectives (X7) score high, indicating strong U.S. emphasis on low-altitude technology innovation, industrial development, safety management, and commercial markets. Policy themes (X8) also score high, showing U.S. policy formulation balances risk prevention, growth drivers, and governance effectiveness, striving to achieve a triangular balance of safety baselines, industrial momentum, and institutional guarantees.

In the process dimension, policy timeliness (X2) scores high, indicating most U.S. low-altitude economy policies integrate short-term plans with long-term actions, enabling timely response and strategic thinking with strong coherence. Policy objects (X5) also score high, with an average of 0.76, indicating professional decision-making mechanisms, efficient cross-departmental coordination, and multi-stakeholder collaborative capabilities. Policy evaluation (X9) scores highest, showing strong policy scientificity, alignment with reality, and large implementation space.

However, policy domain (X3) scores low, with more involvement in economic, social, environmental, and technological domains but less in political and cultural domains, reflecting U.S. policies' tendency to solve practical problems through technical standards and market mechanisms rather than political consultation and cultural integration. This may lead to neglect of governance system adaptability (such as outdated airspace management systems) and socio-cultural impacts (such as low public acceptance). Additionally, policy subject (X4) scores low, with policies primarily issued by single departments or administrative agencies and less by multiple departments, reflecting weak U.S. cross-departmental collaborative governance that is not conducive to comprehensive policy consideration.

Conclusions and Implications

5.1 Research Conclusions

Following the "Theme-Instrument-Effectiveness" framework and employing topic modeling, text mining, and index models, this study examines the structural characteristics and textual effectiveness of U.S. low-altitude economy policies, drawing the following conclusions:

First, policy themes are technology-driven with highly diversified features. U.S. policy themes are widely and densely distributed, covering key areas such as aircraft technical standards, low-altitude flight vehicle development, and operational safety assurance, with high-frequency keywords like "aircraft," "uas," and "technology." The collaborative model of federal framework setting with local autonomous adaptation provides sustained institutional guarantees for low-altitude economy and industrial development.

Second, policy instrument configuration presents a pattern of "hard environmental regulation, strong supply promotion, weak demand stimulation, and limited innovation empowerment." Environmental instruments are most abundant, followed by supply-side instruments, while demand-side and innovative instruments are insufficient. Environmental regulation constructs strict governance boundaries through laws, regulations, and standards, such as mandatory clauses in the FAA Reauthorization Act. Supply promotion balances direct and indirect support, but limited demand-pull instruments like government procurement reflect that free competition models struggle to form effective innovation incentives, potentially constraining industrial vitality and causing structural imbalance.

Third, policy effectiveness demonstrates "overall excellence with individual shortcomings." The PMC index mean reaches good rating, with a high proportion of good or above policies, outstanding performance in goal setting and timeliness management. However, structural weaknesses remain, including uneven policy domain coverage (lacking political and cultural dimensions), weak subject collaboration leading to insufficient cross-departmental coordination, federal dominance ensuring national uniformity but inhibiting industry autonomy, and few departmental rules creating risks of regulatory fragmentation that affect policy implementation.

In summary, the excellent effectiveness of U.S. low-altitude economy policies, particularly its leading position in technical standard formulation and environmental policy instrument application, lays the foundation for international cooperation and global rule-shaping. For example, through deep participation in ICAO and ITU, the U.S. promotes compatibility of core rules such as eVTOL airworthiness certification and airspace classification, leads the "North American Low-Altitude Corridor" cross-border collaboration mechanism, and relies on leading enterprises to formulate international standards, demonstrating significant "internationalization" competitive advantages.

5.2 Research Implications

(1) Multi-dimensional Efforts to Guide Core Technology Breakthroughs and Deepen Innovation System Synergy and Ecosystem Construction

The U.S. technology-driven policy highly focuses on aircraft technology R&D, operational safety assurance, and system innovation, with core layouts in key technology areas centered on "safety," "technology," and "uas," forming a collaborative governance model of federal framework setting with local flexible adaptation that has enabled breakthroughs in eVTOL R&D and low-altitude UAV logistics. China should learn from this experience in technology focus and institutional synergy, making multi-dimensional efforts in technology breakthroughs, institutional coordination, and regional experimentation.

Specifically: First, precise core technology breakthroughs. The government should establish major low-altitude economy science and technology special funds, focusing on "bottleneck" areas such as air traffic management systems, solid-state batteries, high-precision navigation, and aero engines, further refining key technologies including eVTOL distributed electric propulsion systems, UAV multi-sensor fusion perception and obstacle avoidance, low-altitude scenario 5G/6G high-reliability low-latency communication, and low-altitude traffic flow intelligent scheduling algorithms. Adopt organizational models like "open competition" and "horse race mechanism" to guide deep integration of "government-industry-academia-research-finance-application" and accelerate technology transformation and industrial chain integration. Explore high-risk, high-return technology incubation mechanisms similar to U.S. ARPA-A, establish and optimize national low-altitude technology laboratories, and form eVTOL airframes, flight control systems, and composite material innovation consortia based on national laboratories. Considering China's large regional differences and rich application scenarios, promote technology R&D combined with regional needs, such as developing wind-resistant and rainproof specialized agricultural UAVs for southern hilly regions' "UAV weeding" and "tea leaf transport" needs, and breakthrough long-endurance medical logistics UAV technology for western plateau regions' "blood sample transport" needs.

Second, full-chain innovation system coverage. Guide leading enterprises like AVIC and DJI to deeply participate in the national low-altitude technology standards committee to dynamically update standards for eVTOL airworthiness certification, low-altitude vehicle noise limits, and UAV logistics operation norms. Establish low-altitude economy intellectual property rapid protection centers to implement priority examination for core technology patents and conduct cross-regional joint investigations of infringement, protecting innovators' rights. Establish and optimize "low-altitude technology fault-tolerant trial mechanisms" to provide partial cost compensation for failed R&D projects, encouraging frontier technology exploration and avoiding risk aversion that suppresses innovation vitality.

Third, regional collaborative experimentation and verification. Layout "cross-regional low-altitude technology comprehensive test fields" in the Yangtze River Delta, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and Chengdu-Chongqing economic circle to simulate diverse scenarios including heavy rain, strong winds, dense urban buildings, and mountainous terrain for technology verification and application pilots. Build regional technology sharing platforms to complement Shanghai's low-altitude data algorithms, Shenzhen's UAV R&D, and Chengdu's aviation manufacturing foundation, avoiding duplication. Establish "test field results sharing mechanisms" where verification data from any test field can serve as reference for nationwide airworthiness certification, accelerating technology deployment.

(2) Optimize Dynamic Policy Instrument Combinations to Form a Balanced Implementation and Adjustment Mechanism Integrating Rigidity and Flexibility

The U.S. relies on "hard environmental regulation, strong supply promotion, weak demand stimulation, and limited innovation empowerment" policy instrument configurations, promoting low-altitude vehicle electrification transformation through strict regulations, but insufficient demand and innovation instruments constrain industrial vitality. China should learn from its environmental regulation and supply support experience to optimize policy instrument combinations and advance balanced rigidity-flexibility integration.

Specifically: First, precise supply-side empowerment. Establish "low-altitude infrastructure PPP models" encouraging social capital investment in vertiport and low-altitude communication base station construction, ensuring investment returns through "user fees + government subsidies" to form a government-market collaborative construction pattern. Integrate meteorological, airspace, and traffic flow data to build a "national low-altitude data sharing platform" providing free basic data interfaces to enterprises, achieving sustainable data utilization through value-added data service charges and reducing enterprise data acquisition costs. Support universities in establishing interdisciplinary programs like "low-altitude traffic engineering" and "eVTOL design and manufacturing," and add vocational directions like "low-altitude vehicle operation and maintenance" and "air traffic control assistance" in secondary and higher vocational education to fill talent gaps. Open "green channels" for overseas high-level low-altitude economy talent, providing research start-up funds and settlement subsidies to attract top international talent. Promote "enterprise apprenticeship systems" where civil aviation institutions and low-altitude economy enterprises cooperatively cultivate skilled talent in low-altitude logistics operations and vehicle maintenance.

Second, rigid constraints and flexible incentives in environmental instruments. The government should guide enterprises, industry associations, and experts to formulate and improve mandatory standards for low-altitude vehicle noise control and carbon emissions, establishing airspace usage blacklists with high fines or flight bans for violations. Simultaneously, implement flexible incentives by establishing low-altitude enterprise environmental credit evaluation systems, granting airspace priority usage rewards to enterprises meeting noise control and low carbon emission standards, and implementing "warning + rectification + punishment" gradient management for exceeding enterprises to avoid "one-size-fits-all" approaches. Open policy consultation green channels providing standard interpretation and compliance guidance services for small enterprises to reduce institutional transaction costs.

Third, demand-side market activation and scenario expansion. Implement government procurement priority catalogs (e.g., police patrol UAVs, medical emergency eVTOLs, ecological inspection UAVs). Launch "low-altitude economy consumption season" activities promoting "aerial tourism" consumption subsidies in tourist areas and "UAV delivery discounts" in e-commerce industrial parks to stimulate public and enterprise demand. Establish cross-border logistics demonstration projects promoting "Belt and Road" low-altitude corridor construction to help enterprises explore international markets.

Fourth, innovation-side inclusive trial-and-error and成果转化. Government-led establishment of "low-altitude economy sandbox regulatory zones" in pilot cities like Beijing, Shenzhen, and Hefei allows enterprises to test disruptive models like shared eVTOL and UAV air taxis, clarifying sandbox trial scopes and risk compensation mechanisms to reduce innovation trial costs. Provide subsidies and risk-sharing support for innovative low-altitude flight insurance products, and explore innovation成果复制推广 mechanisms implementing "one place innovates, multiple places reuse" policy replication in low-altitude economy demonstration zones.

(3) Construct a Multi-level Systematic Policy Framework and Improve Multi-dimensional Governance Systems

U.S. low-altitude economy policy effectiveness shows "overall excellence with individual shortcomings." While commendable in goal setting, timeliness management, and synergy effects, problems exist such as imbalanced policy domain coverage and regulatory fragmentation risks. Therefore, China should learn from these lessons to construct a multi-level systematic policy framework with top-level design, ministry coordination, local characteristics, and public participation to enhance governance effectiveness.

Specifically: First, top-level design setting direction. Led by the CPC Central Committee and State Council, organize multi-party experts to formulate the Low-Altitude Economy Development Promotion Law, clarifying principled frameworks for airspace classification management, infrastructure co-construction and sharing, and safety supervision baselines. Establish a "low-altitude economy development inter-ministerial joint meeting system" to regularly address cross-domain issues like airspace approval, cross-regional scheduling, and data security, avoiding policy fragmentation and functional overlap.

Second, ministry coordination setting standards. Ministries including the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Civil Aviation Administration, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Public Security, and National Cyberspace Administration should jointly formulate departmental regulations covering the entire chain, further refining implementation standards for airworthiness certification, data security, and operation permits. Establish dynamic regulation revision mechanisms with evaluation groups composed of industry associations, university think tanks, and technical experts conducting systematic assessments every two years to timely incorporate mature technical standards into regulations, ensuring policy applicability.

Third, local characteristics for development. Encourage local governments to formulate differentiated policies based on resource endowments, such as Henan focusing on "low-altitude + smart agriculture" supporting UAV plant protection and farmland monitoring, Hainan exploring "low-altitude cross-border tourism" pilots leveraging free trade port advantages, and Heilongjiang formulating "low-altitude + forest fire prevention" emergency plans for forest areas. Simultaneously, establish effective "mutual recognition of local policies" mechanisms and policy agents to reduce cross-regional operation costs.

Fourth, public participation strengthening supervision. The government should build a "low-altitude economy public supervision platform" with online regulatory APPs, encouraging public reporting of "black flights" and noise disturbances with rewards for valid reports to form social supervision synergy. Regularly hold "low-altitude economy public hearings" inviting residents and industry association representatives to participate in vertiport site selection and flight route planning, enhancing public sense of gain. Conduct "low-altitude economy science popularization into campuses, communities, parks, and factories" through VR flight simulation, physical exhibitions, and short video promotion to improve public and employee cognition and acceptance, creating a harmonious ecosystem.

(4) Proactively Lead International Standard Cooperation and Enhance Multi-pathway Discourse Power in Low-Altitude Economy Rule-Making

Leveraging policy advantages, the U.S. shapes global rules through deep ICAO participation and leadership of the "North American Low-Altitude Corridor," demonstrating significant "internationalization" competitive advantages. China must move beyond passive participation to adopt an integrated strategy of "taking the initiative and promoting two-way linkage," guiding standard formulation in international cooperation and deepening cooperation through standard export to enhance rule discourse power.

Specifically: First, seizing opportunities in international organizations. At core platforms like ICAO and ITU, jointly launch initiatives with emerging market countries including Russia, Brazil, and Southeast Asian nations on "low-altitude intelligent transportation system architecture," "eVTOL airworthiness certification mutual recognition," and "low-altitude data cross-border flow security," promoting the establishment of a "UAM Special Working Group" to seize rule-drafting initiative. Leverage the "Belt and Road" green development advantage to establish a "Low-Altitude Economy Technology Cooperation Center" providing policy formulation consultation and technical training services for developing countries, transforming Chinese practical experience into international consensus to enhance topic dominance.

Second, building benchmarks through regional cooperation. Deepen regional low-altitude economy cooperation, building "cross-border low-altitude logistics corridors" with Vietnam and Thailand to simplify cross-border approval processes for agricultural product UAV transport and reduce trade costs. Layout "low-altitude economy demonstration bases" in Southeast Asia and Africa where leading enterprises export eVTOL airframes, air traffic management systems, and operation models with supporting maintenance service centers and talent training schools, forming an overall output model from technology to standards to services to create de facto regional standards. Simultaneously, promote establishment of regional low-altitude economy cooperation mechanisms through platforms like the Central Asia Summit and SCO Summit to expand rule radiation scope.

Third, breaking barriers in standard domains. Promote the establishment of "airworthiness standard mutual recognition agreements" between the CAAC and European EASA and U.S. FAA to reduce repeated certification costs for Chinese eVTOL and UAV exports and lower trade barriers. Sign "low-altitude airspace management cooperation memorandums" with Belt and Road countries to mutually recognize airspace classification standards and flight permits, achieving "one approval, multi-country通行." Build an "international scenario library" using privacy-enhancing technologies like federated learning to break data cross-border flow dilemmas while safeguarding data sovereignty, exporting a trustworthy "China solution."

Fourth, supporting enterprise internationalization. Support leading enterprises to move from "product export" to "ecosystem export," providing "international certification convenience services" to assist in obtaining EASA and FAA airworthiness certifications. Establish a "low-altitude enterprise overseas rights protection mechanism" relying on Chinese embassy economic and commercial offices to support enterprises in dealing with overseas intellectual property disputes and trade barriers. Encourage enterprises to build "lighthouse factories" integrating manufacturing, operation, management, and training in Belt and Road countries, landing Chinese technical standards, operation systems, and management rules as integrated packages to form global competitive advantages and achieve leaps from technology adoption to rule mutual recognition and ultimately standard co-recognition.

References

[1] Zhu Keli. Low-Altitude Economy[M]. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House, 2024.
[2] Liu Y, Lyu C, Bai F, et al. The role of intelligent technology in the development of urban air mobility systems: A technical perspective[J]. Fundamental Research, 2024, 4(5): 1017-1024.
[3] Pak H, Asmer L, Kokus P, et al. Can Urban Air Mobility become reality? Opportunities and challenges of UAM as innovative mode of transport and DLR contribution to ongoing research[J]. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 2024, (prepublish): 1-31.
[4] Morgenthal S S, Abdellaoui R, Metz C I. Introducing digital air-traffic controllers for urban-air mobility to ensure safe and energy-efficient flight operations[J]. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 2025, 16(1): 1-14.
[5] Gordo V, Becerra I, Fransoy A, et al. A Layered Structure Approach to Assure Urban Air Mobility Safety and Efficiency[J]. Aerospace, 2023, 10(7): 1-25.
[6] Knupp J R, Ronzani M G B, Mauro C, et al. Repurposing urban air mobility infrastructure for sustainable transportation in metropolitan cities: A case study of vertiports in São Paulo, Brazil[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2023, 98: 1-10.
[7] Vittorio V D, Bartosz D, Sandra M, et al. Integrating urban air mobility into smart cities: a proposal for relevant use cases in the next decades[J]. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2025, 97(1): 2-12.
[8] Jiang Y, Li Z, Wang Y, et al. Vertiport location for eVTOL considering multidimensional demand of urban air mobility: An application in Beijing[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2025, 192: 104353-104353.
[9] Xu Shilin. Experience and Enlightenment from Foreign Low-Altitude Economy Industry Development[J]. China Development Observation, 2024(09): 69-76.
[10] Liao Huijiao. Research on UAV Regulatory System for Low-Altitude Economy Industry—Reflections Based on U.S. Experience[J]. China Circulation Economy, 2025, 39(02): 16-29.
[11] Hu Yang. Analysis on Local Policies and Air Traffic Control Synergy to Support Low-Altitude Economy Development Based on AHP—Taking Nanchang Changbei Airport as an Example[J]. Civil Aviation Management, 2022, (09): 39-43.
[12] Kong Dejian, Yuan Ze. Current Status, Experience and Prospects of Low-Altitude Economy Policy and Legal System[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Social Sciences Edition), 2024, 37(05): 85-95.
[13] Zhang Yujie. Research on Legal Guarantee of Low-Altitude Economy from the Perspective of Legal Policy Science[J]. Jiaotong Law Science, 2025, (01): 101-113.
[14] Chen Yong, Yang Jian, Zhang Yu, et al. Policy, Standards and Technology of UAV Communication Spectrum Management for Low-Altitude Economy[J]. Data Acquisition and Processing, 2025, 40(01): 2-26.
[15] Meng Xianmin, Ye Fei. Research on Fiscal and Tax Policies Supporting Low-Altitude Economy Industry Development[J]. Local Fiscal Research, 2025, (03): 102-112.
[16] Wang Yanping, Shi Yanru. Fiscal and Tax Policies Empowering Low-Altitude Economy: Logical Mechanism, Realistic Constraints and Solutions[J]. Accounting Research, 2025, (03): 3-9.
[17] Huang Qiaolong, Cai Xuexiong. Low-Altitude Economy Industry: Development Status, Problems and Policy Suggestions[J]. Development Research, 2024, 41(05): 58-64.
[18] Chen Yu, Hua Xiaofang. "Guangdong Low-Altitude Economy Takes Off First" Special Issue ①: Comparative Analysis of Low-Altitude Economy Policies in Key Provinces and Cities and Enlightenment for Guangdong[J]. Guangdong Economy, 2024, (15): 6-10.
[19] Wei Yongtao. Potential and Feasibility of Developing Low-Altitude Economy Logistics in Border Areas—Current Status, Development Strategies and Policy Suggestions[J]. National Circulation Economy, 2024, (23): 33-36.
[20] Wang Shitai, Tan Chong. AI Empowering Low-Altitude Economy Development: Multi-dimensional Representation, Application Scenarios and Support System—Based on Policy Text Analysis of Guangdong and Jiangsu Provinces[J]. Reform and Strategy, 2025, 41(02): 42-49.
[21] Liang Lizhi, Zhang Yuxing. Quantitative Research on Policies Promoting High-Quality Low-Altitude Economy Development—Based on "Goal-Instrument-Subject" Three-Dimensional Analysis Framework[J]. Journal of Urban Studies, 2025, 46(02): 18-29.
[22] Shao Peng, Zhu Yifei. Policy Text Characteristics of Mega-cities and Implications for Scenario Innovation in Low-Altitude Economy[J]. Journal of Xi'an Aeronautical Institute, 2025, 43(02): 9-17.
[23] Zhang Xin. Research on Quantitative Evaluation of China's Low-Altitude Economy Policies Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Heilongjiang Finance, 2025, (03): 77-83.
[24] Wang Chengcheng, Yin Yan. Analysis of Low-Altitude Economy Policies Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Journal of Chongqing Three Gorges University, 2025, 41(04): 68-82.
[25] Xu Pengfei, Cai Xiaoshen. Quantitative Research on Low-Altitude Economy Policy Texts Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Management Modernization, 2025, 45(02): 1-9.
[26] Zhang Cuiyun. Research on Policies for Promoting High-Quality Low-Altitude Economy Development in Hebei Province[J]. Economic Research Guide, 2025, (07): 33-37.
[27] Lin Yanli, Zhu Yuehong, Wang Xinyu. Policy Suggestions for Accelerating the Creation of New Tracks for Low-Altitude Economy Future Industries and Cultivating New Quality Productive Forces in Liaoning Province[J]. Liaoning Economy, 2025, (04): 11-16.
[28] He Yong, Wang Yueying, He Liwen, et al. Current Status and Prospects of Low-Altitude Economy Policy and Technology Applications in Agriculture and Rural Areas[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2025, 41(08): 1-16.
[29] Zhang Hui. Narrative Policy Framework Enhances Awareness and Reputation of Low-Altitude Economy[J]. International Public Relations, 2024, (19): 87-88.
[30] Mao Lei. Low-Altitude Economy Industry: Connotation Definition, Experience Reference and Policy Suggestions[J]. China Business Theory, 2024, 33(24): 143-147.
[31] Jiang Hui, Zhang Huiheng. Current Status, Dilemmas and Policy Suggestions for China's Low-Altitude Economy Development[J]. Development Research, 2025, 42(03): 42-49.
[32] Li Jinfa, Song Mengting, Zhang Ke, et al. Dynamic Evolution Analysis of User Needs and Product Segmentation Characteristics from Intergenerational Product Perspective—Based on Online Review Mining[J]. Library and Information Service, 2025, 69(14): 73-90.
[33] Wang Dandan, Wu Jin'ge. Quantitative Research on China's Health and Medical Big Data Policies—Analysis Based on "Theme-Instrument-Effectiveness" Three-Dimensional Framework[J]. Library and Information Service, 2025, 69(07): 16-27.
[34] Rothwell R, Zegveld W. Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for the 1980s and 1990s[M]. London: Frances Printer, 1981.
[35] Mao Zijun, Mei Hong. Comparative Analysis of Domestic and Foreign Artificial Intelligence Policies from the Perspective of Policy Tools[J]. Journal of Intelligence, 2020, 39(04): 74-81+59.
[36] Yuan Dan, Pan Yaguang, Wu Runhan, et al. Analysis and Optimization Strategy of China's Smart Tourism Policy Characteristics[J/OL]. Think Tank: Theory & Practice, 1-18[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/10.1413.N.20250605.1544.006.html.
[37] Huo Chaoguang, Zhang Jiahui, Li Xinru, et al. Research on the Systematic Construction of China's Archives Regulations and Policies from the Perspective of Policy Tools[J/OL]. Information Science, 1-11[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/22.1264.G2.20250120.1457.002.html.
[38] Wu Jiachun, Dong Ke, Ma Tingcan. Research on Analysis and Optimization Path of China's Data Cross-Border Flow Governance Policies—Based on "Implementation Subject-Policy Tool"[J/OL]. Journal of Intelligence, 1-20[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/22.1182.G3.20241204.1120.004.html.
[39] Jiang Xin, Hou Yuxin. Multi-dimensional Quantitative Evaluation and Enlightenment of European Open Science Policy Texts[J/OL]. Modern Information, 1-23[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/22.1182.g3.20241115.1620.002.html.
[40] Ren Yue, Li Boyong, Tan Keming. Research on China's Traditional Village Protection Policies Based on "Theme-Instrument-Effectiveness" Three-Dimensional Framework[J/OL]. Information Science, 1-31[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/22.1264.G2.20241023.1729.012.html.
[41] Estrada M A R. Policy Modeling: Definition, Classification and Evaluation[J]. Journal of Policy Modeling, 2011, 33(4): 523-536.
[42] Xiong Y, Zhang C, Qi H. How Effective is the Fire Safety Education Policy in China? A Quantitative Evaluation Based on the PMC-Index Model[J]. Safety Science, 2023, 161: 106070.
[43] Mao Taitian, Chen Zhongda, Zuo Shan, et al. Quantitative Evaluation of Provincial Data Element Market Policies Based on PMC Index Model[J/OL]. Information Science, 1-22[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/22.1264.G2.20250407.1407.006.html.
[44] Zhu Xiaofeng, Wu Jingxian, Xu Fajian. Evaluation of Domestic Government Data Governance Policies Based on Improved PMC Index: System Construction and Optimization[J]. Information Theory and Practice, 2025, 48(03): 81-91.
[45] Zhang Yong'an, Qie Haituo. Quantitative Evaluation of State Council Innovation Policies—Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2017, 34(17): 127-136.
[46] Zhang Xi, Shi Yanwen, Du Wanli, et al. Quantitative Evaluation and Optimization Path of Data Element Policies Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Management Review, 2024, 36(12): 3-14.
[47] Zou Kai, Li Yuxin, Liu Yaofei, et al. Quantitative Evaluation of Digital Rural Public Cultural Service Policies Based on PMC Index Model[J]. Information Science, 2024, 42(07): 105-115.
[48] Chen Qiang, Li Jiami, Dun Shuai. Quantitative Research on Science and Technology Evaluation Policies Based on Policy Consistency Index Model[J]. China Science and Technology Forum, 2023(6): 41-50.
[49] Huo Chaoguang, Yang Zinan, Li Xinru, et al. Research on Automatic Policy Evaluation Method Based on PMC Index Model—Taking China's Biosafety Policies as an Example[J/OL]. Science and Technology Management Research, 1-17[2025-07-17]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1762.G3.20250707.1408.002.html.
[50] Zhang Shaofeng, Li Wan, Wang Xilong, et al. Quantitative Evaluation of China's Social Governance Policies—Based on Policy Samples from 2000-2024[J]. China Public Policy Review, 2025, 27(01): 213-234.

(Corresponding author: Li Lin E-mail: 13675641417@163.com)

Author Contributions:
Wang Chuanlei: Proposed the research topic, provided direction guidance, reviewed and revised the paper;
Li Lin: Collected and processed data, wrote and revised the paper.