Advertisement

Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 820–833 | Cite as

Transport Accessibility and Spatial Connections of Cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

  • Xiaoshu CaoEmail author
  • Shishu Ouyang
  • Wenyue Yang
  • Yi Luo
  • Baochao Li
  • Dan Liu
Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Based on geographic information system (GIS) spatial analysis technology, the spatial pattern of raster grid transport accessibility for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area was studied and the states of spatial connectedness were simulated using highway passenger transport, railway passenger transport, port passenger transport and aviation passenger transport data. The result shows that transport accessibility within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area costs ‘one hour’ and the spatial distribution of accessibility in the area presents clear ‘core-periphery’ spatial characteristics, with Guangzhou, Foshan, Shenzhen constituting the core. The transport accessibility of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao is high. Average accessibility of urban nodes as measured by travel time is 0.99 h, and the areas accessible within 1.42 h occupy 79.14% of the total area. Most of the areas with the lowest accessibility are found in the peripheral area, with the worst accessibility being 4.73 h. Compared with the west-side cities, the economically developed east-side cities of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area have higher connectivity with roads, railways, ports, and aviation transport. Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhuhai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Macao are closely linked. The higher the accessibility, the closer the intercity connectedness.

Keywords

transport accessibility urban spatial connection Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area China 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlström A, Pilesjö P, Lindberg J, 2011. Improved accessibility modeling and its relation to poverty–a case study in southern sri lanka. Habitat International, 35(2), 316–326. doi: 10.1016/ j.habitatint.2010.11.002Google Scholar
  2. Cao X S, Li L N, Wei H, 2017. Investigating intercity rail transit scope with social economy accessibility: case study of the Pearl River Delta region in China. Urban Rail Transit, 3(1): 61–71. doi: 10.1007/s40864-017-0058-0Google Scholar
  3. Cascetta E, 2009. Transportation Systems Analysis: Models and Applications (Vol. 29). Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75857-2Google Scholar
  4. Chang J S, Lee J H, 2008. Accessibility analysis of Korean high-speed rail: a case study of the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Transport Reviews, 28(1): 87–103. doi: 10.1080/ 01441640701421495Google Scholar
  5. Cheng G, Zeng X K, Duan L et al., 2016. Spatial difference analysis for accessibility to high level hospitals based on travel time in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 53: 485–494. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.12.023Google Scholar
  6. Cheng Y H, Chen S Y, 2015. Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public transportation systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77: 386–403. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.003Google Scholar
  7. Curtis C, Scheurer J., 2010. Planning for sustainable accessibility: developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 74(2): 53–106. doi: 10.1016/j.progress. 2010.05.001Google Scholar
  8. Deng Zhixin, 2017. Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao Bay Area: the New Engine of the Pearl River delta. Guangdong Economy, (9): 32–35. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Duran-Fernandez R, Santos G A, 2014. A regional model of road accessibility in Mexico: accessibility surfaces and robustness analysis. Research in Transportation Economics, 46: 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.005Google Scholar
  10. El-Geneidy A, Levinson D, Diab E et al., 2016. The cost of equity: assessing transit accessibility and social disparity using total travel cost. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 91: 302–316. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.07.003Google Scholar
  11. Fischer M M, Wang J F, 2011. Spatial Data Analysis: Models, Methods and Techniques (SpringerBriefs in Regional Science). London: Springer Publishing Company, 47–59. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21720-3Google Scholar
  12. Ford A C, Barr S L, Dawson R J et al., 2015. Transport accessibility analysis using GIS: assessing sustainable transport in London. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(1): 124–149. doi: 10.3390/ijgi4010124Google Scholar
  13. GaWC, 2016. The world according to GaWC 2016. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html. Cited 19 March 2018.Google Scholar
  14. Geertman S C M, Ritsema Van Eck J R, 1995. GIS and models of accessibility potential: an application in planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9(1): 67–80. doi: 10.1080/02693799508902025Google Scholar
  15. Getis A, Ord J K, 1996. Local spatial statistics: an overview. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds). Spatial Analysis Modelling in A Gis Environment. Cambridge: GeoInformation International, 14: 261–277.Google Scholar
  16. Geurs K T, Van Wee B, 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2): 127–140. doi: 10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2003.10.005Google Scholar
  17. Grengs J, Levine J, Shen Q et al., 2010. Intermetropolitan comparison of transportation accessibility: sorting out mobility and proximity in San Francisco and Washington, DC. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(4), 427–443. doi:10. 1177/0739456x10363278Google Scholar
  18. Gómez J N, Loures L, Castanho R et al., 2018. Assessing the feasibility of GIS multimethod approach to ascertain territorial accessibility to hemodynamics rooms in Spain mainland. Habitat International, 71: 22–28. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint. 2017.11.001Google Scholar
  19. National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017. China Statistics Abstract. Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gutiérrez J, González R, Gómez G, 1996. The European high-speed train network: predicted effects on accessibility patterns. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(4): 227–238. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6923(96)00033-6Google Scholar
  21. Gutiérrez J, Urbano P, 1996. Accessibility in the European Union: the impact of the trans-european road network. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(1): 15–25. doi: 10.1016/0966-6923(95)00042-9Google Scholar
  22. Guzman L A, Oviedo D, Rivera C, 2017. Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: the Bogotá region. Journal of Transport Geography, 58: 236–246. doi: 10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2016.12.016Google Scholar
  23. Wixey S, Jones P, Lucas K et al., 2005. Measuring accessibility as experienced by different socially disadvantaged groups. London, Transit Studies Group, University of Westminster.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen W G, 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2): 73–76. doi: 10. 1080/01944365908978307Google Scholar
  25. Hawas Y E, Hassan M N, Abulibdeh A, 2016. A multi-criteria approach of assessing public transport accessibility at a strategic level. Journal of Transport Geography, 57: 19–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.09.011Google Scholar
  26. Hou Q, Li S M, 2011. Transport infrastructure development and changing spatial accessibility in the Greater Pearl River Delta, China, 1990–2020. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6): 1350–1360. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.003Google Scholar
  27. Jiang H N, Xu W, Zhang W Z, 2018. Transportation accessibility and location choice of Japanese-Funded electronic information manufacturing firms in Shanghai. Sustainability, 10(2): 390. doi: 10.3390/su10020390Google Scholar
  28. Jiao Jingjuan, Wang Jiaoe, Jin Fengjun et al., 2016. Understanding relationship between accessibility and economic growth: a case study from China (1990–2010). Chinese Geographical Science, 26(6): 803–816. doi: 10.1007/s11769-016-0831-0Google Scholar
  29. Johnson D, Ercolani M, Mackie P, 2017. Econometric analysis of the link between public transport accessibility and employment. Transport Policy, 60: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2017. 08.001Google Scholar
  30. Kim H M, Kwan M P, 2003. Space-time accessibility measures: a geocomputational algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1): 71–91. doi: 10.1007/s101090300104Google Scholar
  31. Kim K S, 2000. High-speed rail developments and spatial restructuring: a case study of the capital region in South Korea. Cities, 17(4): 251–262. doi: 10.1016/S0264-2751(00)00021-4Google Scholar
  32. Koenig J G, 1980. Indicators of urban accessibility: theory and application. Transportation, 9(2): 145–172. doi: 10.1007/ BF00167128Google Scholar
  33. Kwan M P, Janelle D G, Goodchild M F, 2003a. Accessibility in space and time: a theme in spatially integrated social science. Journal of Geographical System, 5(1): 1–3. doi: 10.1007/ s101090300100Google Scholar
  34. Kwan M P, Murray A T, O’Kelly M E et al., 2003b. Recent advances in accessibility research: representation, methodology and applications. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1): 129–138. doi: 10.1007/s101090300107Google Scholar
  35. Lau J C Y, Chiu C C H, 2004. Accessibility of workers in a compact city: the case of Hong Kong. Habitat International, 28(1): 89–102. doi: 10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00015-8Google Scholar
  36. Lau J C, 2006. Accessibility and the coping behaviour of the non-employed people in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 30: 1047–1055. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.10.007Google Scholar
  37. Li H F, Calder C A, Cressie N, 2007. Beyond Moran’s I: testing for spatial dependence based on the spatial autoregressive model. Geographical Analysis, 39(4): 357–375. doi: 10.1111/ j.1538-4632.2007.00708.xGoogle Scholar
  38. Li L B, Ren H, Zhao S S et al., 2017. Two dimensional accessibility analysis of metro stations in Xi’an, China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106: 414–426. doi: 10. 1016/j.tra.2017.10.014Google Scholar
  39. Li Lixun, 2017. Thinking on the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao greater bay area. Tropical Geography, 37(6): 757–761. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Mavoa S, Witten K, McCreanor T et al., 2012. GIS based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography, 20(1): 15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.001Google Scholar
  41. Medda F, 2012. Land value capture finance for transport accessibility: a review. Journal of Transport Geography, 25: 154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.07.013Google Scholar
  42. Moran P A P, 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika, 37(1–2): 17–23. doi: 10.1093/biomet/37.1-2.17Google Scholar
  43. National Geomatics Center of China, 2017. 1:1 M-scale Topographic Database of the National Fundamental Geographic Information System of China, 2017. Beijing: Sinomap Press.Google Scholar
  44. Páez A, Scott D M, Morency C, 2012. Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography, 25: 141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.016Google Scholar
  45. Peng Fangmei, 2017. Economic spatial connection and spatial structure of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay and the surrounding area cities—An empirical analysis based on improved gravity model and social network analysis. Economic Geography, 37(12): 57–64. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. Shen Q, 1998. Spatial technologies, accessibility, and the social construction of urban space. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(5): 447–464. doi: 10.1016/S0198-9715(98)00039-8Google Scholar
  47. Song H Y, Pan M M, Chen Y Y, 2016. Nightlife and public spaces in urban villages: a case study of the Pearl River Delta in China. Habitat International, 57: 187–204. doi: 10.1016/j. habitatint.2016.07.009Google Scholar
  48. Sun Dongqi, Lu Dadao, Wang Zhenbo, 2017. Predictive analysis of passenger and goods flow of Bohai Strait Cross-sea Channel. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(8): 1486–1507. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  49. Statistics Bureau of Guangdong Province and Guangdong Survey Office of National Bureau of Statistics, 2017. Guangdong Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tong L, Zhou X S, Miller H J, 2015. Transportation network design for maximizing space–time accessibility. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 81: 555–576. doi: 10.1016/ j.trb.2015.08.002Google Scholar
  51. Van Wee B, 2016. Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 51: 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2015.10.018Google Scholar
  52. Vandenbulcke G, Steenberghen T, Thomas I, 2009. Mapping accessibility in Belgium: a tool for land-use and transport planning? Journal of Transport Geography, 17(1): 39–53. doi: 10. 1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.008Google Scholar
  53. Velaga N R, Beecroft M, Nelson J D et al., 2012. Transport poverty meets the digital divide: accessibility and connectivity in rural communities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21: 102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.005Google Scholar
  54. Vickerman R W, 1974. Accessibility, attraction, and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A, 6(6): 675–691. doi: 10.1068/ a060675Google Scholar
  55. Wang Haijiang, Miao Changhong, Niu Haipeng et al., 2016. Highway passenger transport contact and its spatial distribution in the central cities of China. Geographical Research, 35(4): 745–756. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  56. Wang Z B, Xu G, Bao C et al., 2017. Spatial and economic effects of the Bohai Strait Cross-Sea Channel on the transportation accessibility in China. Applied Geography, 83: 86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.04.002Google Scholar
  57. Wang Zhengbo, Xu Jiangang, Fang Chuanglin et al., 2011. The study on county accessibility in China: characteristics and effects on population agglomeration. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1): 18–34. doi: 10.1007/s11442-011-0826-9Google Scholar
  58. Weibull J W, 1976. An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 6(4): 357–379. doi: 10.1016/0166-0462(76)90031-4Google Scholar
  59. Wu C Y, Wei Y D, Huang X J et al., 2017a. Economic transition, spatial development and urban land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Habitat International, 63: 67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.012Google Scholar
  60. Wu Q T, Fan J, Zhang H O et al., 2017b. The spatial impacts model of trans-strait fixed links: a case study of the Pearl River Delta, China. Journal of Transport Geography, 63: 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.07.003Google Scholar
  61. Yang Jun, Bao Yajun, Zhang Yuqing et al., 2018. Impact of accessibility on housing prices in Dalian City of China based on a geographically weighted regression model. Chinese Geographical Science, 28(3): 505–515. doi: 10.1007/s11769–018-0954-6.Google Scholar
  62. Yang W Y, Chen B Y, Cao X S et al., 2017. The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility gaps: a case study for Guangzhou, China. Journal of Transport Geography, 60: 21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.005Google Scholar
  63. Yang Yujun, Song Xiaodong, 2004. Comparing accessibility measures based on GIS. Journal of Chang’an University (Arch. & Envir. Science Edition), 21(4): 27–32. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  64. Zhang Rui, 2017. Experience and enlightenment of world bay area economy development. China National Conditions and Strength, (5): 31–34. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  65. Zhang W X, Nian P H, Lyu G W, 2016. A multimodal approach to assessing accessibility of a high-speed railway station. Journal of Transport Geography, 54: 91–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoshu Cao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shishu Ouyang
    • 1
  • Wenyue Yang
    • 2
  • Yi Luo
    • 1
  • Baochao Li
    • 1
  • Dan Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Shool of Geography and PlanningSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.College of Forestry and Landscape ArchitectureSouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations