| Literature DB >> 35010749 |
Fei Ma1, Yujie Zhu1, Kum Fai Yuen2, Qipeng Sun1, Haonan He1, Xiaobo Xu3, Zhen Shang1, Yan Xu1.
Abstract
The promotion of information flow reinforces the interactive cooperation and evolutionary process among cities. In the information age, public online search is a typical behavior of Internet society, which is the key to information flow generation and agglomeration. In this study, we attempt to explore the evolutionary characteristics of intercity networks driven by public online social behavior in the information age and construct an information flow network (IFN) from the perspective of public search attention. We also explore the evolution of the IFN in terms of the whole network, node hierarchy, and subgroup aggregation. Meanwhile, we also discuss the impact of the sustainable driving factors on the IFN. Finally, an empirical study was conducted in Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration (GPUA). Our results show that: (1) the information flow in GPUA fluctuating upward in the early study period and gradually decreasing in the later study period. However, the agglomeration degree of information flow in the urban agglomeration continues to increase. (2) The hierarchical structure of urban nodes in GPUA presents a trend of "high in the middle and low on both sides", and the formation of subgroups is closely related to geographic location. (3) The driving factors all impacting the IFN include public ecology, resource investment, information infrastructure, and economic foundation. This study provides theoretical and practical support for exploring the intercity network and promotes the sustainable urban development.Entities:
Keywords: driving factors; information flow; intercity network; public search attention; urban sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010749 PMCID: PMC8745024 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of Baidu Index and Google Trend.
| Baidu Index | Google Trend | |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Baidu search engine—the world’s largest Chinese engine | Google search engine—the world’s largest search engine |
| Indicators | Weighted sum of keyword search frequency in Baidu | Relative propensity of users to search for a topic on Google |
| Numerical Range | 0~infinity | 0~100 |
| Features | Real-time update, convenient, and fast | Fast update speed and wide-spread |
| Precision | More accurate identification of retrieval content | Relatively accurate retrieval of content |
| Application Scope | Keyword search trends, insight into interests and needs | Monitor and predict the regional popularity of hot topics |
Figure 1The research framework.
Figure 2The structure of information flow network (IFN).
The specific meaning of typical structural holes indicators.
| Indicators | Specific Meaning |
|---|---|
| Effective size | Measure node’s degree of occupying resources and whole impact in structural holes. |
| Efficiency | Measure the node’s conversion efficiency on other nodes in the network. |
| Constraint | Measure the node’s dependence degree on other nodes. |
| Hierarchy | Measure agglomeration of the node subject to the constraints of other nodes |
| Centrality | Measure the core level of nodes in the network structure. |
Figure 3The explanation of structural holes theory.
The calculated process of dominance flow analysis.
| Process | Dominance Flow Analysis to Identify the Hierarchy of Urban Nodes |
|---|---|
| 1: | Calculate the dominant flows from node 1 to node |
| 2: | For node 1: |
| 3: | sort the information flow generated by node 1: |
| 4: | first dominant flow of node 1: |
| 5: | if the |
| 6: | the |
| 7: | the |
| 8: | indicating node |
| 9: | second dominant flow of node 1: |
| 10: | delete |
| 11: | if the |
| 12: | the |
| 13: | the |
| 14: | indicating node |
| 15: | Repeat steps 2~14 to calculate each urban node |
| 16: | Then count the first dominant flow and second dominant flow received by each node |
| 17: | Identify the dominant node, subdominant node, and subordinate node |
The affiliation of urban nodes.
| Urban Affiliation | Definition |
|---|---|
| Dominant node | receives at least 50% the first dominant flow |
| Subdominant node | receives at least 50% the second dominant flow |
| Subordinate node | did not receive any dominant flow |
The sustainable driving factors of IFN.
| Driving Factors | Variable Name | Symbol | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public ecology | Population Growth Rate | PGR | % |
| Urban Population Density | UPD | households/sq.km | |
| Annual Mean Concentration of PM2.5 | CPM | ug/m3 | |
| Resource investment | Energy Consumption per unit of GDP | ECU | 10,000 households |
| Household Electricity Consumption | HEC | 10,000 yuan | |
| Information Technology Workers | ITW | % | |
| R&D Internal Outlay | RDO | 10,000 KWh | |
| Information infrastructure | Revenue from Telecommunication Services | RTS | 10,000 yuan |
| Number of Mobile Telephone Subscribers | SMT | 10,000 households | |
| Number of Internet Services Subscribers | SIS | 10,000 households | |
| Economic foundation | Per Capita GDP | GRP | yuan |
| Tertiary Industry as Percentage of GDP | TIP | % | |
| Household Saving Deposits | HSD | yuan |
Figure 4The research area.
The regions of the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration (GPUA).
|
| Qingyang | Tongchuan | Weinan | Linfen |
|
| Western | Central | Eastern | |
The information flow and C of the GPUA (2014–2020).
| 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information flow | 6,802,140 | 7,916,120 | 7,718,290 | 8,207,390 | 8,311,050 | 7,832,170 | 7,070,050 |
|
| 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
Figure 5The distribution of information flow of each urban node in GPUA (2014–2020).
The hierarchical level of the information flow.
| Level | Hierarchy | Indication |
|---|---|---|
| Level I | Weak information flow | Two cities were not very closely connected |
| Level II | Lower levels of | Two cities were closely connected |
| Level III | Medium information flow | Two cities were very closely connected |
| Level IV | Strong information flow | Two cities maintain the largest information flow |
Figure 6The hierarchical structure of IFN (2014–2020).
Figure 7The indicators of structural holes theory in GPUA (2014–2020).
Figure 8The first dominant flow and second dominant flow of GPUA.
Figure 9The subgroups of GPUA (2014–2020).
The correlation analysis of GPUA.
| Variable | Correlation Coefficient | Significance | Standard | Minimum | Maximum | Prop ≥ 0 | Prop ≤ 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PGR | 0.306 *** | 0.005 | 0.099 | −0.221 | 0.366 | 0.005 | 0.996 |
| UPD | 0.471 *** | 0.008 | 0.21 | −0.393 | 0.531 | 0.008 | 0.992 |
| CPM | 0.747 ** | 0.011 | 0.253 | −0.253 | 0.767 | 0.011 | 0.989 |
| ECU | 0.242 *** | 0.006 | 0.071 | −0.236 | 0.263 | 0.994 | 0.006 |
| HEC | 0.201 ** | 0.04 | 0.115 | −0.141 | 0.233 | 0.04 | 0.96 |
| ITW | 0.618 ** | 0.023 | 0.268 | −0.2 | 0.76 | 0.051 | 0.949 |
| RDO | 0.680 ** | 0.040 | 0.246 | −0.314 | 0.74 | 0.041 | 0.959 |
| RTS | 0.752 ** | 0.046 | 0.22 | −0.317 | 0.688 | 0.008 | 0.992 |
| SMT | 0.631 *** | 0.006 | 0.255 | −0.301 | 0.765 | 0.051 | 0.95 |
| SIS | 0.736 *** | 0.007 | 0.253 | −0.302 | 0.769 | 0.008 | 0.992 |
| GRP | 0.733 *** | 0.002 | 0.246 | −0.268 | 0.76 | 0.002 | 0.998 |
| TIP | 0.522 *** | 0.002 | 0.182 | −0.417 | 0.57 | 0.002 | 0.998 |
| HSD | 0.756 ** | 0.015 | 0.263 | −0.224 | 0.787 | 0.015 | 0.987 |
** indicates significant at the 5% confidence level; *** indicates significant at the 1% confidence level.
The regression analysis of GPUA.
| Variable | Nonstandardized | Standardized | Significance | Probability 1 | Probability 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PGR | 0.230 | 0.202 ** | 0.020 | 0.981 | 0.02 |
| UPD | 0.001 | 0.358 ** | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.96 |
| CPM | 0.195 | 0.215 *** | 0.009 | 0.992 | 0.01 |
| ECU | 0.173 | 0.189 ** | 0.029 | 0.971 | 0.03 |
| HEC | 0.000 | 1.295 | 0.343 | 0.658 | 0.34 |
| ITW | 0.359 | 0.305 | 0.291 | 0.291 | 0.71 |
| RDO | 0.460 | 0.451 *** | 0.002 | 0.998 | 0.00 |
| RTS | 0.119 | 0.131 ** | 0.075 | 0.925 | 0.08 |
| SMT | 0.122 | 3.244 ** | 0.016 | 0.985 | 0.02 |
| SIS | 0.153 | 0.168 ** | 0.029 | 0.972 | 0.03 |
| GRP | 0.405 | 0.444 *** | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.00 |
| TIP | 0.362 | 0.229 *** | 0.008 | 0.993 | 0.01 |
| HSD | 0.360 | 0.317 | 0.102 | 0.102 | 0.90 |
** indicates significant at the 5% confidence level; *** indicates significant at the 1% confidence level.
The research findings for this study.
| Dimension | Measure | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Whole network | Evolution characteristics | The information flow in GPUA fluctuates up and then down, but the degree of clustering continues to grow. |
| Hierarchical structure | Information flow showed a trend of “high in the middle and low on both sides”, while node hierarchy showed a “1 + 3 + 7” hierarchical distribution. | |
| Node hierarchy | Structural holes | Effective size, efficiency, constraints, and centrality are related to the core degree of the urban node. |
| Dominance flow | Xi’an was the only dominant city, while other 10 cities were subordinate cities. | |
| Cohesive subgroup | The | The formation of cohesive subgroups was constrained by geographical distance. |
| Driving factor | QAP analysis | The public ecology and information infrastructure became the important factor affecting IFN. |
The correlation analysis between information flow and socioeconomic statistics.
| Information Flow | GRP | TIP | HSD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation Coefficient | 1 | 0.733 *** | 0.522 *** | 0.756 ** |
| Significance Level | - | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
** indicates significant at the 5% confidence level; *** indicates significant at the 1% confidence level.