Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Wei Lang
 -- 2058 2023-12-26 15:42:02 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
+ 1 word(s) 2059 2023-12-27 02:25:25 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Huang, Y.; Lang, W.; Chen, T. Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53142 (accessed on 13 May 2024).
Huang Y, Lang W, Chen T. Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53142. Accessed May 13, 2024.
Huang, Yan, Wei Lang, Tingting Chen. "Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53142 (accessed May 13, 2024).
Huang, Y., Lang, W., & Chen, T. (2023, December 26). Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53142
Huang, Yan, et al. "Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China." Encyclopedia. Web. 26 December, 2023.
Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12040753

With globalization and informatization, cross-border areas have become increasingly critical interactive spaces, experiencing rapid development and extensive changes in residents’ cross-border travel, constantly changing the spatial patterns of neighboring cities. Taking the Guangzhou-Foshan metropolitan area as a case, the research explored that a large number of cross-city trips for leisure and entertainment purposes emerged, and the one-way unbalanced flow, “Foshan to Guangzhou”, changed to two-way circulation. The spatial pattern of the Guangzhou-Foshan region from 1985 to 2020 to be on of spreading expansion, with Liwan District as the central core, connecting to several sub-centers. The cross-border area in the Guangzhou-Foshan region represented a compact, extremely integrated degree and a well-matched functional space. 

cross-border area regional integration regional coordinated development

1. Introduction

Each era of change and technological innovation is accompanied by the development of new urban functions, structures, and forms [1]. With the advancement of globalization, cities and regions have become more complex [2] and are now the basic spatial units for participation in global competition [3]. Urban connections range from “space of places” to “space of flows” [4], and urban space continues to break through administrative boundaries to form new functional areas and relationships [5]. In this process, time, space, and their relationship are redefined, and more and more countries and cities are aware of the construction of spatial order and the reshaping of urban spatial structure in the new era. At the same time, the daily activities of residents have undergone changes. “Cross-border mobility” and “twin-city life” have become increasingly frequent. Border regions have gradually transformed from “depressed areas” dominated by the economy of their administrative regions into key spaces for regional development. Western countries have produced rich theoretical research and have practical experience in this area. Herzog (1990) discussed the landmark case of the Mexican–U.S. border, arguing that the emerging cross-border urban space is a specific product in the context of globalization [6].
Since the 2000s, urban agglomerations have become the main form of China’s new urbanization. At present, China has approved a total of 19 urban agglomeration plans, and continues to insist on building a coordinated urban development pattern based on urban agglomerations and metropolitan areas. In 2008, the concept of city integration was first proposed by China and promoted as a national strategy in the Outline of the Reform and Development Plan for the Pearl River Delta Region [7]. City integration refers to two (or more) neighboring cities with conditions for integrated development in terms of economy, administration, ecological environment, culture, etc., that break administrative barriers and form an urban area with gradually increasing radiation and competitiveness [8]. At present, the integration strategy, with the theme of cross-border coordination and cooperation, has become an important choice in promoting coordinated regional development [9]. The Guangzhou-Foshan metropolitan area is one case. As modes for cross-border cooperation, the Guangzhou-Foshan metropolitan area has initiated numerous planning practices in the Pearl River Delta and completed the first global intra-city planning in China by the end of 2021. Currently, China’s city integration has developed into a deepening stage, changing from the earlier competing model supported by industries and transportation facilities, etc., and exploring a multi-dimensional integrated development model. However, in actual practice there remain problems such as divergent local interests, uneven and backward levels of joining areas, and effective links that have not yet been formed.
Overall, driven by the development of city integration, cross-regional activities are taking shape. With the promotion of globalization and regional integration, people’s cross-border travel behavior has become increasingly complex, and new features now appear in their lives, employment, recreation, and service space that may have both an active and negative impact on urban space and land use [10][11]. Residents’ cross-border travel is changing the spatial layout and functional links of closely connected cities such as Guangzhou and Foshan. In the era of promoting the co-city of Guangzhou and Foshan, it is necessary to fully understand the new spatial changes and laws caused by residents’ cross-border travel behavior.

2. Regional Coordinated Development

Border areas are places where numerous interactions and divergences intersect and are intertwined [12][13]. Types of border are divided into international, provincial, and local from top to bottom, according to the regional administrative level. According to its dominant attributes in development, the border is divided into natural, administrative, and economic boundaries [14]. The study of cross-border areas in Western developed countries emerged in the Middle Ages and has gradually shifted from the early focus on border morphology to functional analysis. The European Commission considers border areas to be “the spaces that deserve the most active attention in the European integration process” [15]. Over the years, Western countries have conducted in-depth discussions on the characteristics, functions, urbanization processes, and types of border areas at different scales, between the United States and Mexico [6], Singapore and Malaysia [16], Eastern and Western Europe [17], the interior of the Luxembourg, Basel, and Geneva metropolitan areas [18], and Minneapolis and St. Paul [19], etc. They have continuously explored cross-border integration development models, which have shown an overall diversified and dynamic development trend, with a profound impact on city–region relations.
Regional integration and city integration advanced the connection and cooperation between cities in terms of function, form, and pattern [20]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Western developed countries, especially European countries, have provided a practical model for exploring cross-border integrated development [21]. The EU is actively exploring the opening of borders and functional integration within metropolitan areas and promoting the implementation of cross-border activities to achieve economic linkages, cross-border commuting, facility sharing [22], cultural integration [23][24], multi-level governance [25], and even meta-governance [26] in cross-border areas. For China, the development of cross-border regions has also become a regional theme. In the 1990s, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guangxi provinces [27] developed inter-provincial border areas in Shandong Province, as early cross-border areas in China. In the 21st century, under the wave of globalization and regional integration, with the breakup of market segmentation and trade barriers in geographic regions, cross-border regions in China developed rapidly. On an international scale, Cheng (2022) studied the three spatial evolution modes of unilateral expansion, bilateral expansion, and cross-border integration between China and neighboring countries against the background of the construction of the “One Belt and One Road” cross-border economic corridor [28]. On a regional scale, there is the economic cooperation among the Yangtze River Delta cities [29]; the industry connection and development in the border area of Gansu, Sichuan, and Qinghai [30]; the cross-border governance mechanism in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay [31]; frequent population flow in the Hong Kong-Shenzhen boundary area, etc. [32]. On the other hand, under China’s new urban pattern, the form and function of borders are re-characterized. As the degree of functional integration of urban areas increases, spatial mobility across borders is frequently enhanced, which eventually helps to form integrated regions at a new territorial scale [33].
City integration promotes the high-frequency inter-city mobility of people, and high mobility is one characteristic of urban agglomerations. The movement of people across provinces and cities is a key driver for accelerating and reshaping China’s urbanization process and changing the urban spatial pattern. Since the boundaries are no longer a barrier to spatial and temporal effects, new changes take place in the cross-border area of residents’ activities, from fixed to flexible, from urban to regional, from local to mobile, and from hierarchical to networked [34]. In the past 20 years, the research on residents’ activities in the cross-border area has become increasingly diversified [35]. Western scholars have carried out abundant research but not on cross-border travel, and there is little comprehensive research at the multi-scale. Domestic studies have mostly focused on specific spatial scales, ignoring the role of “people” in them, and there are fewer empirical studies identifying the results of cross-border travel and changes in regional spatial structure. Some existing studies have focused on the characteristics, spatial patterns, and mechanisms of urban travel behavior (cross-city commuting trips, high-frequency one-day round-trip trips, and high-frequency two-location round trips) and explored their effects on the agglomeration and diffusion of urban space [36][37][38][39]. For example, Shen (2003) found that the cross-border travel rate from Hong Kong to different cities differs significantly depending on the timing of cross-border travel, and policy, time cost, and population economy are important factors affecting cross-border travel [40]. Castells (2004) argued that cross-border travel is represented by inter-city capital investment flow, technology flow, material flow, etc. [41].
When urban integration accelerates, people’s travel trajectories and travel decisions across regions become more complex. A number of scholars have studied the characteristics, spatial patterns, and driving forces of the cross-city mobility of urban residents at the regional scale, and explored ways to implement sustainable cross-border cooperation and coordinated regional development [42][43]. Taylor et al. (2010) [44], Gan et al. (2021) [45], and Wang et al. (2017) [46] summarized the expansion law of people’s travel range and its impact on the connection between cities. Niu (2018) [47] found that different types of cross-city functional connections influence the spatial and temporal patterns of residential travel. At the urban scale, some scholars have explored the influencing factors of cross-border travel from the perspective of spatial activities. For example, Zhao et al. (2003) [48] analyzed travel from the perspective of urban allotments and urban spatial distance. Tang et al. (2018) [49] found that cross-city travel and regional activity space, through the mutual enhancement of technology, affect the flow of information and people, which in turn reshapes the urban spatial structure.
In the process of city integration in China, urban and regional spaces are facing drastic reconstruction and reorganization, with incrementally oriented, mixed land use close to work and home. Population flow in two or more cities increases flows to proximate cities within a region. Cross-border travel accelerates coordinated regional development and regional integration. However, the development of cross-border regions in China inevitably displays different characteristics, as the policy context and development stage are different from those of Western developed countries. Therefore, within the context of city integration, it is now necessary to explore the spatial patterns of cross-border regions by analyzing the spatiotemporal characteristics of residents’ cross-border travel behavior and the mechanism of its impact on spatial evolution during the urban transition period in China. 

3. Spatial Pattern of Cross-Border Area in China: A Case of the Guangzhou-Foshan Metropolitan Area

This study explored the spatial evolution of the Guangzhou-Foshan cross-border area and the driving forces behind it during 1985–2020. After detection of the spatial evolution of the Guangzhou-Foshan region, the researchers determined its development pattern to be spreading expansion, with Liwan District as the central core and connecting to several sub-centers. The cross-border area in the Guangzhou-Foshan region represented a compact, extremely integrated degree and a well-matched functional space. From the perspective of the residence and employment space in the border area of Guangzhou-Foshan, the distribution was relatively concentrated and frequently interacted. There were obvious local hotspots such as Nanhai Guicheng, Eastern New Town, Liwan District, and Tianhe District.

Second, from the analysis of the cross-city travel of residents in the border areas in 2019, instead of the previous one-way attraction pattern caused by the spread of residence, a large number of cross-city trips for leisure and entertainment purposes emerged, and the one-way unbalanced flow, “Foshan to Guangzhou”, changed to two-way circulation. The cross-city travel modes of residents in border areas were summarized into the following three types: Mode 1 signifies living and working in different cities, and having leisure activity in the neighboring city. Mode 2 indicates living in a city but working and recreating in a different city, and Mode 3 represents living and working in one city, but experiencing social life and recreation in another city. Mode 3 was predominant among border residents living in either Guangzhou or Foshan, that is, the current cross-city travel of Guangzhou-Foshan residents was mostly for leisure and entertainment purposes, which was a more significant change from the original commuter-driven cross-border behavior.

Third, the spatial analysis of the border area revealed the spatial evolution patterns of the Guangzhou-Foshan cities from 1985–2020, which transformed from a circle of independent core radiation to a contiguous compact development. The urban integration of Guangzhou and Foshan began in the 20th century, moving from non-governmental cooperation to planning-led development and then to multiple cooperation. The growth points of the two cities continued to expand toward the borderline in the direction of integrated development, while the growth axis was mainly in the direction of the city border, urban arterial roads, and subway lines. In the context of city integration, the spatial and temporal characteristics and patterns of people’s activities in the border areas are becoming increasingly complex, and the administrative boundary effects are becoming increasingly blurred.

References

  1. Glaeser, E.L. Triumph of the City; Macmillan: London, UK, 2011.
  2. Scott, A.; Storper, M. Regions, Globalization, Development. Reg. Stud. 2003, 37, 579–593.
  3. Scott, A.J. (Ed.) Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001.
  4. Castells, M. Grassrooting the space of flows. Urban Geogr. 1999, 20, 294–302.
  5. Sohn, C. The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space: A Contribution to the Cross-Border Metropolis Hypothesis: The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 1697–1711.
  6. Herzog, L.A. Where North Meets South: Cities, Space, and Politics on the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1st ed.; Center for Mexican American Studies, University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 1990.
  7. Wei, Z.; Chen, T.; Zhen, F.; Wang, B. Reconsideration on the implementation thoughts on city integration planning in China: Case of Guang-Fo integration development planning. Urban Plann. Forum 2014, 2, 80–86.
  8. Zeng, Q. A Review of Research on Regional Co-location. City Watch. 2013, 6, 85–95.
  9. Li, X.; Xie, S.Y.; Du, Z.W. From administrative division adjusement to cross-boundary planning: Transformation of regional governance in China. Urban Plann. 2016, 40, 72–77,86.
  10. Secchi, P.; Vantini, S.; Vitelli, V. Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Mobile Phone Data: A Case Study in the Metropolitan Area of Milan. Stat. Methods Appl. 2015, 24, 279–300.
  11. Li, Y.; Chen, T.T.; Li, X.; Xu, W.P.; Lang, W. Identification and patterns of employment and residential centers in a cross-border region based on mobile phone signaling data: A case study of Guangzhou and Foshan. Trop. Geogr. 2020, 40, 206–216.
  12. Donnan, H.; Hurd, M.; Leutloff-Grandits, C. Migrating Borders and Moving Times: Temporality and the Crossing of Borders in Europe; Rethinking borders; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2017.
  13. Donnan, H.; Wilson, T. Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2021.
  14. Li, T.; Jiang, H. A preliminary study on border zones and their re-creation. World Geogr. Res. 2003, 4, 38–43.
  15. Durand, F.; Decoville, A. A Multidimensional Measurement of the Integration between European Border Regions. J. Eur. Integr. 2020, 42, 163–178.
  16. Grundy-Warr, C.; Peachey, K.; Perry, M. Fragmented Integration in the Singapore-Indonesian Border Zone: Southeast Asias ‘Growth Triangle’ Against the Global Economy. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 1999, 23, 304–328.
  17. Pavlínek, P.; Smith, A. Internationalization and Embeddedness in East-Central European Transition: The Contrasting Geographies of Inward Investment in the Czech and Slovak Republics. Reg. Stud. 1998, 32, 619–638.
  18. Sohn, C.; Reitel, B.; Walther, O. Cross-border metropolitan integration in Europe: The case of Luxembourg, Basel, and Geneva. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2009, 27, 922–939.
  19. Buursink, J. Becoming Twin Cities in Minneapolis and St. Paul; A Case of Territorial Integration; Society of South African Geographers: Cape Town, South Africa, 1996.
  20. Wheeler, J.O.; Mitchelson, R.L. Information Flows among Major Metropolitan Areas in the United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1989, 79, 523–543.
  21. Johnson, C.M. Cross-Border Regions and Territorial Restructuring in Central Europe: Room for More Transboundary Space. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2009, 16, 177–191.
  22. Paasi, A.; Prokkola, E.-K. Territorial Dynamics, Cross-Border Work and Everyday Life in the Finnish–Swedish Border Area. Space Polity 2008, 12, 13–29.
  23. Berg, E.; Ehin, P. What Kind of Border Regime Is in the Making? Towards a Differentiated and Uneven Border Strategy. Coop. Confl. 2006, 41, 53–71.
  24. Durand, F. What types of cultural cooperation exist in European cross-border areas? Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2022, 104, 307–326.
  25. Schakel, A.H. Multi-level governance in a ‘Europe with the regions’. Br. J. Politics Int. Relat. 2020, 22, 767–775.
  26. Dias, R.C.; Seixas, P.C.; Lobner, N. State transformations through public, multilevel, and terri-torial governance in European Union: Towards a metagovernance paradigm. Eur. Policy Anal. 2022, 8, 467–483.
  27. Ni, T. Research on Urban Development in Remote Areas: Takes Xingyi City, Guizhou Province as an example. Geogr. Res. 1989, 1, 100–101.
  28. Cheng, Y.; Liu, H.; Chen, D. Human activity intensity and its spatial-temporal evolution in China’s border areas. Land 2022, 11, 1089.
  29. Li, X.; Xu, X.X. On the temporo-spatial variations of the border effects: Approach and empirics. Geogr. Res. 2006, 05, 792–802.
  30. Shi, P. Study on the regional type of ethnic economy and its regional development mode. Econ. Geogr. 2000, 4, 20–25.
  31. Wu, J.; Ye, Y.; Chen, J.P. Cross-Border Governance Mechanism in the City Integration Areas of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area from the Perspective of Rescaling: A Case Study of Guangzhou-Foshan City Integration Area. Trop. Geogr. 2021, 41, 723–733.
  32. Wei, Y. Takes the integration of Guangzhou and Foshan with Shenzhen and Hong Kong as an example. In Proceedings of the 2021 China Urban Planning Annual Conference (14 Regional Planning and City Municipal Economy), Chengdu, China, 25–27 September 2021; pp. 533–544.
  33. KüBLER, D. Citizenship in the fragmented metropolis: An individual-level analysis from Switzerland. J. Urban Aff. 2016.
  34. Tang, J.; Zhen, F.; Cao, J.; Mokhtarian, P.L. How Do Passengers Use Travel Time? A Case Study of Shanghai–Nanjing High Speed Rail. Transportation 2018, 45, 451–477.
  35. Ben-Elia, E.; Alexander, B.; Hubers, C.; Ettema, D. Activity Fragmentation, ICT and Travel: An Exploratory Path Analysis of Spatiotemporal Interrelationships. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 68, 56–74.
  36. Wang, S.F.; Zhao, M.X. Spatial analysis of cross-city activities of Guangzhou and Foshan citizens in the metro. Urban Plan 2012, 3, 23–29.
  37. Garmendia, M.; Ribalaygua, C.; Ureña, J.M. High Speed Rail: Implication for Cities. Cities 2012, 29, S26–S31.
  38. Wang, D.; Guo, J. Study on the spatial characteristics and dynamic changes of one-day communication circle in Beijing. Mod. Urban Stud. 2008, 23, 8.
  39. Gerber, P.; Thériault, M.; Enaux, C.l. Links between attitudes, mode choice, and travel satisfaction: A cross-border long-commute case study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9203.
  40. Shen, J. Cross-border Connection between Hong Kong and Mainland China under ‘Two Systems’ before and beyond 1997. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2003, 85, 1–17.
  41. Castells, M. The Network Society; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2004.
  42. Vulevic, A.; Castanho, R.A.; Naranjo Gomez, J.M. Accessibility dynamics and regional cross-border cooperation (CBC) perspectives in the Portuguese—Spanish borderland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1978.
  43. Khmeleva, G.A.; Kurnikova, M.V.; Nedelka, E. Determinants of Sustainable Cross-Border Cooperation: A Structural Model for the Hungarian Context Using the PLS-SEM Methodology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 893.
  44. Taylor, P.J.; Hoyler, M.; Verbruggen, R. External Urban Relational Process: Introducing Central Flow Theory to Complement Central Place Theory. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 2803–2818.
  45. Gan, C.; Voda, M.; Wang, K.; Chen, L.; Ye, J. Spatial Network Structure of the Tourism Economy in Urban Agglomeration: A Social Network Analysis. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 124–133.
  46. Jiao, J.; Wang, J.; Jin, F. Impacts of High-Speed Rail Lines on the City Network in China. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 60, 257–266.
  47. Niu; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Feng, Y. Study on the spatial structure of Shanghai metropolitan area based on cross-city functional linkages. J. Urban Plan. 2018, 5, 80–87.
  48. Zhao, S.M.; Zhou, H.; Zhu, L. The application of Voronoi diagram in the study of urban network in Henan Province. J. Surv. Mapp. Inst. 2003, 3, 206–209.
  49. Tang, J.; Zhen, F.; Qin, X. Regional residential activity space in the high-speed rail corridor in the information Age—Conceptual model and research framework. Geogr. Res. 2018, 37, 1789–1801.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Urban Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Yan Huang
,
Wei Lang
,
Tingting Chen
View Times: 148
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 27 Dec 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback