| Literature DB >> 32545840 |
Chun Li1, Xingwu Duan1.
Abstract
In the context of "space of flow", urban interaction has become the key force impacting urban landscape evolution and urban sustainable development. Current research on urban interaction analysis is mainly conducted based on the interaction of geographical elements, the virtual flow of information in cyberspace has not been given sufficient attention, particularly the information flows with explicit geographical meaning. Considering the dramatic population migration and the explosive growth of cyberspace in China's main urban agglomerations, we constructed the information flow of migrant attention (IFMA) index to quantify the urban information interaction derived from public migrant concern in cyberspace. Under the framework coupling spatial pattern analysis and spatial network analysis, exploration spatial data analysis (ESDA) and complex network analysis (CNA) were adopted to identify the urban interaction features depicted by IFMA index in the three main urban agglomerations in China. The results demonstrated that, in the study area: (1) The IFMA index presented a reasonable performance in depicting geographical features of cities; (2) the inconformity between urban role in the network and development positioning confirmed by national planning existed; (3) in the context of New-type urbanization of China, urban interaction feature can be a beneficial reference for urban spatial reconstruction and urban life improvement. Using the cyber information flow with geographical meaning to analyze the urban interaction characteristics can extend the research angle of urban relationship exploration, and provide some suggestion for the adjustment of urban landscape planning.Entities:
Keywords: cyberspace; information flow; urban agglomeration; urban interaction; urban network
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32545840 PMCID: PMC7345870 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Locations of the study area.
Figure 2Research framework.
Figure 3The percentage of migrant population based on diverse migration reason in the study area. WT: Work and trade; AFM: Accompanying transferring of family members; R: Relocation; ST: Study and training; O: Others; M: Marriage; JRF: Join relatives and friends to find a means of living; OM: Occupation mobility; DH: Deponi of Hukou.
Selection of the search keywords.
| Migrant Reason | Keywords in Chinese | Translation in English |
|---|---|---|
| Work and trade | 招聘, 租房 | Recruitment, house renting |
| Study and training | 学校 | School |
| Relocation | 房价, 地图, 天气 | House price, map, weather |
Figure 4Rank and size of IFMA SH: Shanghai, BJ: Beijing, SZ: Shenzhen, HZ: Hangzhou, NJ: Nanjing, SZ(1): Suzhou, GZ: Guangzhou, TJ: Tianjin, ZH: Zhuhai, SJZ: Shijiazhuang, NB: Ningbo, WX: Wuxi, DG: Dongguan, CZ: Changzhou, ZS(1): Zhongshan, LF: Langfang, QHD: Qinhuangdao, FS: Foshan, BD: Baoding, TS: Tangshan, NT: Nantong, JX: Jiaxing, HZ(1): Huizhou, HD: Handan, XT: Xingtai, HS: Hengshui, ZJK: Zhangjiakou, YZ: Yangzhou, SX: Shaoxing, TZ: Taizhou, JM: Jiangmen, TZ(1): Taizhou, ZJ: Zhenjiang, ZQ: Zhaoqing, CD: Chengde, HZ(2): Huzhou, ZS: Zhoushan, CZ(1): Cangzhou.
Moran’s I of IFMA in the different urban agglomerations.
| Area | Moran’s I | E[I] | Sd | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.04 | −0.02 | 0.00 | 1.31 | 0.19 |
|
| 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.01 | 0.70 | 0.49 |
|
| 0.36 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 4.86 | 0.00 |
Note: BTH: the Beijing-Tianjin-105 Hebei metropolitan region; YRD: the Yangtze River Delta; PRD: the Pearl River Delta; Sd: standard deviation.
Figure 5The distribution pattern of IFMA in the different urban agglomerations.
Figure 6The local indicators of spatial association (LISA) of IFMA in the different urban agglomerations.
Figure 7The network of IFMA.
The network indexes of the spatial network of IFMA (nIFMA).
| Network | Node | Edge | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree | 15.111 | Number of nodes | 45 | Number of edges | 342 |
| Weighted degree | 7.556 | Average clustering coefficient | 0.497 | Average path length | 1.642 |
| Network diameter | 3 | ||||
| Graph density | 0.172 | ||||
Figure 8Spatial distribution of urban in-degree of centrality.
Figure 9The degree correlation of nIFMA.
Figure 10The sensitivity of nIFMA under different removal strategies.