30 9 Vol.30 No. 9 2010 9 ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY Sep. 2010 :1000-8462(2010)09-1449 - 07 1 1 2 1. 050035 2. 100101 2008 GDP F29 TU98 A 1988 2003 9 CERNET [11] 209 [12] [13] [14-15] [16] [17] 3 3 Wheeler [1] O Kelly 1997 2000 2009 [2] Grubesic http://www.telegeography.com/ [3] Graham 2008 [4] Zook 46 79 78 160 1Gbps [5] Townsend [6] Moss [7] Huh [8] Hargittai 1 [9] 1.1 Barnett [10] 2010-04 - 16; 2010-09 - 10 40635026
1450 30 C ij (m) i m j G X ij E C ij (m) = ΣC V il (m-1)x ij 2mn l=1 2 3 v 5 l [18-19] C ij (m) V X ij 1.1.1 β i j μ n β = E / V 1 μ = E - V + G 2 6 β T [0 3] μ μ n n T ij = ΣC ij (m) =C ij (1)+C ij (2)+ +C ij (n)=x ij + ΣC ij (m) 6 m = 1 1.1.2 α T ij i γ α = E-V+G / 2V-5G 3 t i = ΣT ij j=1 2 3 v 7 γ = E/ 3 V-2G 4 D α v D ij i j [0 1] α 1-α 1 0 γ D γ ij i 1.2 1 2008 d i = ΣD ij j=1 2 3 v 8 2001, β 1.42 t i d i [15] 2.03 μ 11 82 t i d i 1 2001 2008 Tab.1 The characters of cities network in the global T i = t i Σt j v j=1 2 3 v 9 internet in 2001 and 2008 E V G β μ α 1-α γ D i = d i Σd j v j=1 2 3 v 10 2001 34 24 1 1.42 11 0.26 0.74 0.52 2008 160 79 1 2.03 82 0.54 0.46 0.69 t i 2001 3 ;2008 2 2.1, O Kelly [2] D i m = 2
9 1451 10 D 0.90 0.999 22 37 D 1 2.2 2 1 78 T 1 T 0.11 0.1111 T 0.055 0.0557-0.613-0.681 p<0.001 21 T 0.0001 0.0004 18 T 0.0001 32 2 2008 D Fig.2 The distribution of D- matrix scores for network 0.635 0.516 p< cities in 2008 0.001 3 1 2008 T Fig.1 The distribution of T- matrix scores for network cities in 2008 2 2 78 [8] 2 0.60 0.699 D 0.70 0.799 7 D 3 0.80 0.899 3.1 3.1.1 2008
1452 30 2 2008 4 Tab.2 The data and ranking of 4 indicators for 78 network cities in 2008 T D Gbps 3.1.2 2001 2001 0.1110291874 3 0.745012695 6 1 470(6) 13(5) 0.1109486927 4 0.777760506 8 1 805(4) 9(6) 0.1109485721 5 0.773667029 7 1 215(8) 8(9) 38.7199857769 1 0.646769263 1 2 455(1) 15(4) 38.5041072737 2 0.708171408 3 2 452.5(2) 19(1) [20] 2001 0.1107921066 6 0.695890979 2 1 562.5(5) 9(6) 0.1103153788 7 0.884190891 17 110(32) 2(37) 0.0556297829 8 0.929219131 25 80(43) 5(18) 0.0555495200 9 1.006995181 42 352.5(16) 3(29) 0.0555495147 10 0.871910462 14 7.5(67) 3(29) 0.0554713945 11 0.978340847 32 12.5(59) 4(21) 0.0554711779 12 0.880097414 16 207.5(23) 4(21) 0.0554707197 13 0.982434323 34 10(61) 2(37) 0.0553927209 14 0.790040935 9 190(27) 8(9) 4 21 4 0.0553907987 15 1.01927561 44 7.5(67) 2(37) 0.0553907987 15 1.01927561 44 7.5(67) 2(37) 0.0553207085 17 0.847349604 12 302.5(20) 4(21) 0.0553125681 18 0.994714752 39 12.5(59) 2(37) 0.0553125681 18 0.994714752 39 7.5(67) 2(37) 0.0553121144 20 1.023369086 46 2.5(76) 1(59) 0.0553121144 20 1.023369086 46 2.5(76) 1(59) T 20 3.2 GaWC Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network GAWC Alpha Beta Gamma alpha++ alpha+ alpha alpha- Beta 2000 2008 2001 2008 3 2001 21 2000 8 7 3 2008 Tab.3 The network cities hierarchy in the global internet in 2008 4 5 2 4 10 6 3 10 4 30 4 30 12 3 30 4 40 4 50 21 3 40 37 4 2001 Tab.4 The network cities hierarchy in the global internet in 2001 >150G >2 2 25G< 150G 1 5 5G< 25G 1 4 1G< 5G 1 6 1G 1 4 TeleGeography, Inc., Packet Geography 2002
9 1453 6 2008 17 18 3 Malecki 20 23 84 Alpha [21] 29 3 2001 2008 GAWC Fig.3 The hierarchical comparison of network cities and world cities in 2001 and 2008 :2000 2008 http://www.lboro.ac. uk/gawc/gawcworlds.html 4 2008 2000 68 2004 64 Alpha Beta Alpha GAWC 4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 2000 52 26 16 10 2004 49 24 14 11 2009 The Global Financial Centres Index 5 [22] 35 4 1GAWC 4 2 D 0.456 P<0.01 T 0.58 0.64 0.576 P<0.0001 4 73 4 P<0.0001
1454 30 4.2 3.3.3 2008 2000 2004 2008 2007 100 20 2006 30 28 21 2 4 6 6 2006 30 4.3 30 22 IPv4 2 4 7 7 Choi 82 [23] 3.3.4 GDP [24] GDP 3 GDP 4 73 T D 0.231-0.265 P<0.05 IPv6 0.28 P<0.02 T D GDP 60 0.511-0.472 0.598 0.597 P<0.0001 T 73 51(3) 327-339. 0.492 0.658 0.55 P<0.0001 D -0.386 B GDP [3] Grubesic T H 4 [1] Wheeler D C O'Kelly M E.Network topology and city accessibility of the commercial Internet[J]. Professional Geographer 1999 [2] O Kelly M E Grubesic T H.Backbone topology access and the commercial Internet 1997 2000[J]. Environment and Planning Planning and Design 2002 29(4) 533-552. O Kelly M E Murray A T.A geographic perspective on commercial Internet survivability[j]. Telematics and Informatics 2003 20(1) 51-69. [4] Graham S. Global grids of glass on global cities telecommunications and planetary urban networks [J]. Urban Studies 1999 36 the golbal geography of the Internet content market[j]. American Behavi- 4.1 (5/6) 929-949. [5] Zook M A.Old hierarchies or new networks of centrality oral Scientist 2001 44(10) 1 679-1 696. T 1969 1999 [J]. Environment and Planning B 2001 58. [7] Moss M L 8 can metropolis[j]. The Information Society Journal [6] Townsend A M. The Internet and the rise of the new network cities 28 (1) 39 - Townsend A M.The Internet backbone and the Ameri- 2000 16(1)
9 1455 35-47. [8] Hub W Kim H. Information flows on the Internet of Korea[J]. Journal of Urban Technology 2003 10(1) 61-87. [9] Hargittai E. Weaving the western web explaining differences in Internet connectivity among OECD countries[j]. Telecommunications Policy 1999 23(10/11) 701-718. [10] Barnett G A Chon B Rosen D. The structure of the Internet flows in cyberspace[j]. Netcom 2001 15(1/2) 61-80. [11]. geography.com/ee/supplemental_files/pdf.php?pdf_file=pg02_ ex [J]. 1997 ec_sum.pdf&pub_code=free_resources 2008-07 - 01. 17(5) 11-17. [21] Malecki E. The economic geography of the Internet s infrastructure[j]. Economic Geography 2002 78(4) 399 - [12]. [J]. 424. 2002 21(3) 347-355. [13] [J]. 2003 23(4) 398-406. [14] [J]. 2004 59(3) 446-454. [15]. [J]. 2006 25(2). Index 5[R/OL]. http //www.zyen.com/activities/on-line%20surv. [23] Choi H Barnett G Chon B. Comparing world city networks a network analysis of Internet backbone and air transport intercity 193-203. [16]. [J]. 2004 28(8) 26-32. [17]. [J]. 2009 24(4) 43-49. [18]. [M]. 1997 200-204. [19]. [J]. 1998 53(6) 481-491. [20] Telegeography. Packet Geography 2002[R/OL]. http //www.tele [22] Mark Y Jeremy H Nick D et al. The Global Financial Centres eys/gfci.htm 2009-03 - 28. linkages[j]. Global Networks 2006 6(1) 81-99. [24]. (2007 2008)[M]. 2008 1-4. THE ACCESSIBILITY AND HIERARCHY OF NETWORK CITIES IN THE GLOBAL INTERNET SUN Zhong - wei 1,HE Jun - liang 1,JUN Feng - jun 2 (1.Department of Resource & Environment,Shijiazhuang College,Shijiazhuang 050035,Hebei,China; 2. Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100101,China) Abstract: According to the global Internet map of 2008, we measured the total accessibility matrix (T) and the shimble distance matrix (D) of 79 network nodes using network analysis methods, and established 78 network cities hierarchy on the basis of total accessibility matrix, shimble distance matrix, total bandwidth and connectivity data of city itself. This paper indicated that world cities had the advantage of original selection of Internet international export, and the role of geographic location was still very important. The total accessibility matrix of every network city has significant location bias of the United States and Europe, in which New York, London, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and Washington are the keys. The top eight cities in the network cities hierarchy are the keys of every city's shimble distance matrix. The network cities hierarchy in the global Internet is a kind of new hierarchy based on the old world city hierarchies. Every city's ranking in the network cities hierarch has a strong correlation with the role in the global Internet, global financial centre index, international air traffic, GDP and synthesized competitiveness of city itself. Key words: network city; cities network;accessibility;urban hierarchy;global Internet 1978 E-mail sunzhongwei@126.com