Measurement of Polycentric County-Level Areas in a Rapid Urbanization Region from a Public Service Perspective

Abstract

Despite various studies regarding polycentric development at metropolis or even larger spatial scales, there is little systematic analysis regarding the rapid urbanization area at the county-level scale. Therefore, this study explored polycentric development in 52 county-level administrative units in Zhejiang Province, China, from a public service perspective. Based on point-of-interest data, our analysis detected the intra-county urban centers and measured their polycentric characteristics. According to the number, scale, and equilibrium value of intra-county polycentricity, the 52 county-level units were classified into three types using a two-step cluster algorithm method. The empirical results suggest that polycentric characteristics vary in the rapid urbanization area, and the spatial distribution of typological units is characterized by agglomeration. Topographical condition, fixed assets investment, public transportation, and residential consumption ability are highly associated with the classification of polycentric urban areas. The conclusion of this study would help local governments initiate better urban development policies and provide potential research directions for further studies about the relationship of inter-county urban centers.

Shaping a Polycentric Metropolis: A Case Study of the Intra-city Polycentricity of the Yangtze River Delta

“…Meijers et al (2007) suggest that polycentrism would be a solution to maintain a separate economic cluster but also be interdependent at the same time. Zhang et al (2020)state that, unlike the concentric ring model and multi-centre model, polycentric urban regions emphasise urban agglomeration in inter-city and intra-city scales. While much literature has discussed polycentrism at an inter-city level, this paper will focus on the intra-city level.…”

“…Many have argued that the drastic urbanisation of a single city would lead to the uneven development of other cities in the area. One may notice that a number of megalopolises have emerged to avoid this situation, whereas other metropolitan areas, such as Greater London, Frankfurt Rhine Maine, and Tokyo, have formed urban agglomerations through transportation and other policies to break the geographical boundaries of each city (Zhang et al, 2020). Meijers et al (2007) suggest that polycentrism would be a solution to maintain a separate economic cluster but also be interdependent at the same time.…”

“…He suggests that if an urban system is too concentrated, it may result in diseconomies. Moreover, polycentrism was adopted by 18 countries which participated in the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) project as the primary policy in their national planning (Zhang et al, 2020). However, Meijers (2008) also points out that polycentrism may lead to other difficulties in transportation and a possible decline in sports and cultural amenities.…”

“…Through the use of transportation networks, geographically close-by cities of different sizes and types have created urban agglomerations throughout Western Europe and North America. The alteration of the urban spatial structure must therefore accommodate a far wider and more varied region (Zhang et al, 2020). Thus, a better urban agglomeration is needed to obfuscate the distinctions between individual regions.…”

“…Although the YRD appears to be a gigantic modern economic centre in the far east, which contributes around 23.61% of the total GDP of China, the YRD still faces multiple challenges in the balance of development of different cities, social and economic transfer, market integration, etc. Followed by the "New Form of Urbanisation Strategy", the polycentric urban system started to manifest its place in national urbanisation plans (Zhang et al, 2020). Multiple cities started to build satellite cities to ease the overconcentration of the traditional city centre.…”