• 通讯作者: *潘竟虎(1974— ),男,甘肃嘉峪关人,教授,博士生导师,中国地理学会会员(S110011899M),主要从事空间分析与感知研究。E-mail: [email protected]
  • 作者简介: 张蓉(1995— ),女,甘肃华池人,硕士生,主要从事空间分析与感知研究。E-mail: [email protected] 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(42071216);国家自然科学基金项目(41661025)

    摘要:

    基于多元视角下的居民城际出行网络空间结构测度可以较为全面地刻画出城市间的复杂联系特征。论文利用春运期间腾讯迁徙平台中的人口流动数据,采用复杂网络分析方法以及转变中心性和转变控制力等指标,对比分析了航空、铁路和公路3种交通方式下的中国居民城际出行网络结构特征。结果表明:3种出行方式下,航空联系的线路最少,平均出行距离最长;铁路出行人数最多,其次是公路,航空最少。最大优势流中,北京和上海在国内航空出行联系中起着最重要的控制作用,其次是成都和重庆;铁路出行中,北京和成都占据绝对优势;公路多表现为省级行政中心与周边城市的关联。根据转变中心性和转变控制力划分城市类型,在航空和铁路出行网络中,高中心性—高控制力城市较多;公路出行网络中以高中心性—低控制力城市为主。不同出行方式下的城市聚类得到的网络集群“社区”数量有一定差异,航空、铁路和公路出行依次聚类为7、8和10个“社区”。不同类型出行方式透视的城市网络特征存在较明显的差异:航空出行的城际人口流体现出以全国性枢纽城市为核心分布的核心—边缘结构;铁路表现出以国家铁路大动脉沿线城市为核心,向腹地城市逐渐递减的核心—边缘结构;公路出行的城际人口流则表现为与人口规模匹配的局域强聚集的空间格局。

    Abstract:

    Spatial structure measurement of residents' intercity trip network based on multiple perspectives can be used to comprehensively describe the complex connection between cities. Based on the data of population flow from Tencent migration platform in 2018 during the Spring Festival in China and using the complex network analysis method and taking alter-based centrality and alter-based power as indicators, the structural characteristics of Chinese intercity trip network under the three traffic modes of aviation, railway, and highway were compared and analyzed. The results show that: 1) The number of routes connected by aviation is the smallest among the three modes of travel, and the average trip distance is the longest; the number of passengers by railway is the largest, followed by highway and aviation. 2) With regard to the maximum dominant flow, Beijing and Shanghai play the most important controlling role in the domestic aviation trip connection, followed by Chengdu and Chongqing. With regard to the railway trips, Beijing and Chengdu occupy absolute advantageous positions, and the highways mostly connect provincial administrative centers and the surrounding cities. 3) There are four types of cities based on the alter-based centrality and alter-based power: high alter-based centrality-high alter-based power cities, high alter-based centrality-low alter-based power cities, low alter-based centrality-high alter-based power cities, and low alter-based centrality-low alter-based power cities. The number of high alter-based centrality-high alter-based power cities is the largest in the aviation and railway travel network. The number of high alter-based centrality-low alter-based power cities is dominant in the highway travel network. 4) There are differences in the number of urban community detection clustering structures under different travel modes. Aviation, railway, and highway were clustered into 7, 8 and 10 urban communities respectively. Under the aviation travel mode, discontinuity between "communities" is clear. Under the mode of railway travel, agglomeration appears, and an obvious block distribution appears under the mode of highway travel. From the perspective of travel modes, the characteristics of urban network are also significantly different. The intercity flow of aviation travel showed a core-periphery structure with national hub cities as the core; train travel showed a core-periphery structure with the cities along the national railway artery as the core, and gradually decreasing to the hinterland cities; and the intercity flow of highway travel indicates the spatial pattern of local strong aggregation matching the population scale. The study of spatial structure of residents' intercity trip network under different travel modes can reveal the multiple spatial characteristics of population migration, residents' trip, and urban network from different perspectives, complement the results of existing studies based on single travel modes, and enrich the regional understanding of spatial relationships of Chinese cities.

    Key words: intercity trip network, urban network structure, population flow, Spring Festival travel rush, Tencent migration platform, China

    不同出行方式下的人口流动集散层级排名前10位的城市和流动线路"

    方式 集散规模前10名城市(人数/万人) 集散人数占比 出行前10位路线(承载人数/万人) 承载人口占比
    航空 上海(7189.50)、重庆(6774.25)、北京(5769.37)、深圳(4682.73)、成都(4456.12)、广州(3540.94)、杭州(1969.88)、南京(1875.26)、西安(1566.18)、贵阳(1541.59) 总计39365.82万人,占航空集散总人数的49.72% 上海至重庆(561.97)、重庆至上海(561.79)、重庆至北京(531.66)、北京至重庆(495.89)、深圳至成都(391.39)、成都至深圳(353.64)、上海至北京(335.05)、北京至上海(330.75)、深圳至上海(326.07)、广州至上海(286.53) 总计4174.76万人,占航空承载总量的10.54%
    铁路 北京(13411.76)广州(8839.29)、上海(8239.52)、重庆(7946.69)、深圳(7470.20)、成都(6847.17)、武汉(4567.47)、西安(4170.78)、郑州(3553.10)、南京(3377.23) 总计68423.22万人,占铁路集散总人数的29.71% 上海至重庆(398.96)、重庆至上海(384.79)、佛山至广州(309.32)、广州至佛山(307.67)、重庆至北京(296.40)、长沙至北京(296.39)、北京至重庆(260.11)、武汉至北京(246.53)、北京至上海(244.27)、成都至南京(238.58) 总计2983.01万人,占铁路承载总量的2.60%
    公路 广州(4524.70)、深圳(4298.90)、重庆(3947.29)、北京(3685.43)、成都(3496.08)、东莞(3490.96)、上海(3489.91)、苏州(2917.86)、佛山(2101.89)、郑州(1858.93) 总计33811.94万人,占公路集散总人数的21.07% 深圳至东莞(377.45)、东莞至深圳(374.35)、上海至苏州(270.93)、苏州至上海(263.99)、佛山至广州(256.25)、广州至佛山(250.17)、咸阳至西安(203.18)、北京至廊坊(202.05)、西安至咸阳(201.19)、深圳至惠州(188.14) 总计2587.72万人,占公路承载总量的3.23%

    不同出行方式下转变中心性(AC)、转变控制力(AP)前10名和后10名城市"

    位序 航空 铁路 公路
    城市 AC AP 城市 AC AP 城市 AC AP
    1 重庆 1.000 0.808 北京 1.000 1.000 深圳 1.000 0.932
    2 上海 0.938 1.000 重庆 0.941 0.481 广州 0.977 0.951
    3 北京 0.656 0.778 上海 0.801 0.559 东莞 0.960 0.644
    4 深圳 0.630 0.716 广州 0.720 0.643 重庆 0.812 0.891
    5 广州 0.464 0.545 深圳 0.645 0.564 上海 0.774 0.733
    6 成都 0.443 0.741 成都 0.633 0.564 苏州 0.717 0.680
    7 杭州 0.270 0.261 武汉 0.486 0.286 北京 0.697 0.856
    8 西安 0.241 0.118 西安 0.441 0.273 成都 0.597 1.000
    9 南京 0.203 0.163 郑州 0.329 0.261 佛山 0.566 0.390
    10 咸阳 0.185 0.085 杭州 0.324 0.209 惠州 0.419 0.155
    337 淮北 <0.001 <0.001 大兴安岭 0.001 0.002 果洛 0.002 0.006
    338 郴州 <0.001 <0.001 克州 0.001 0.004 山南 0.002 0.004
    339 玉树州 <0.001 <0.001 怒江 0.001 0.001 玉树州 0.002 0.005
    340 云浮 <0.001 <0.001 和田 0.001 0.002 阿勒泰 0.002 0.011
    341 韶关 <0.001 <0.001 黄南州 0.001 0.001 琼海 0.002 0.017
    342 贺州 <0.001 <0.001 神农架 0.001 0.001 克州 0.002 0.013
    343 亳州 <0.001 <0.001 昌都 0.001 <0.001 大兴安岭 0.001 0.002
    344 神农架 <0.001 <0.001 阿勒泰 <0.001 0.001 那曲 0.001 0.003
    345 果洛 <0.001 <0.001 果洛 <0.001 0.001 日喀则 0.001 0.005
    346 梧州 <0.001 <0.001 阿里 <0.001 <0.001 阿里 <0.001 0.002
    Berry B J L. Cities as systems within systems of cities[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 1964,13(1):147-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1964.tb01283.x 陈伟. 多元客流视角下的中国城市网络格局[D]. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2015. Blondel V D, Guillaume J L, Lambiotte R, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks[J]. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008,2008(10):P10008. doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 . doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 De Haas H. Migration and development: A theoretical perspective[J]. International Migration Review, 2010,44(1):227-264. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x Lu Y M, Liu Y. Pervasive location acquisition technologies: Opportunities and challenges for geospatial studies[J]. Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 2012,36(2):105-108. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.02.002 Shaw S L, Yu H B. A GIS-based time-geographic approach of studying individual activities and interactions in a hybrid physical-virtual space[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2009,17(2):141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.11.012 薛俊菲. 基于航空网络的中国城市体系等级结构与分布格局[J]. 地理研究, 2008,27(1):23-32, 242. Li J W, Ye Q Q, Deng X K, et al. Spatial-temporal analy sis on Spring Festival travel rush in China based on multisource big data[J]. Sustainability 2016,8(11):1184. doi: 10.3390/su8111184 . doi: 10.3390/su8111184 魏冶, 修春亮, 刘志敏, 等. 春运人口流动透视的转型期中国城市网络结构[J]. 地理科学, 2016,36(11):1654-1660. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.11.007 Nystuen J D, Dacey M F. A graph theory interpretation of nodal regions[J]. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 1961,7(1):29-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1961.tb01769.x 赵梓渝, 魏冶, 庞瑞秋, 等. 基于人口省际流动的中国城市网络转变中心性与控制力研究: 兼论递归理论用于城市网络研究的条件性[J]. 地理学报, 2017,72(6):1032-1048. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201706007 Zachary N. Does world city network research need eigenvectors?[J]. Urban Studies, 2013,50(8):1648-1659. doi: 10.1177/0042098013477702 赖建波, 潘竟虎. 基于腾讯迁徙数据的中国“春运”城市间人口流动空间格局[J]. 人文地理, 2019,34(3):108-117. Neal Z. Differentiating centrality and power in the world city network[J]. Urban Studies, 2011,48(13):2733-2748. doi: 10.1177/0042098010388954 周强. 复杂网络社区发现算法研究[D]. 成都: 电子科技大学, 2020. Girvan M, Newman M E J. Community structure in social and biological networks[J]. PNAS, 2002,99(12):7821-7826. doi: 10.1073/pnas.122653799 Rosvall M, Bergstrom C T. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure[J]. PNAS, 2008,105(4):1118-1123. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706851105 Meo P D, Ferrara E, Fiumara G, et al. Generalized Louvain method for community detection in large networks [R]. The 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications. Cordoba, Spain, 2011. 杜欣儒, 路紫, 李仁杰, 董雅晴, 高伟. 中国枢纽机场时间延误成本估算与航线影响分析及中美比较 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(7): 1160-1171. 周国华, 张汝娇, 贺艳华, 戴柳燕, 张丽. 论乡村聚落优化与乡村相对贫困治理 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(6): 902-912. 谭雪兰, 蒋凌霄, 王振凯, 安悦, 陈敏, 任辉. 地理学视角下的中国乡村贫困——源起、进展与展望 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(6): 913-923. 刘小鹏, 程静, 赵小勇, 苗红, 魏静宜, 曾端, 马存霞. 中国可持续减贫的发展地理学研究 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(6): 892-901. 孙娜, 张梅青. 基于高铁流的中国城市网络结构特征演变研究 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(5): 727-737. 杜德林, 王姣娥, 王祎. 中国三大航空公司市场竞争格局及演化研究 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(3): 367-376. 周美君, 李飞, 邵佳琪, 杨海娟. 气候变化背景下中国玉米生产潜力变化特征 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(3): 443-453. 孙才志, 阎晓东. 基于MRIO的中国省区和产业灰水足迹测算及转移分析 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(2): 207-218.
  •