World Regional Studies ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 491-502.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2020.03.2019022
Previous Articles Next Articles
Yi ZHANG(), Weigang HUANG, Xingwu ZHENG()
Received:
2019-01-08
Revised:
2019-04-08
Online:
2020-05-30
Published:
2020-06-12
Contact:
Xingwu ZHENG
通讯作者:
郑兴无
作者简介:
张翼(1978- ),男,博士,主要从事微观产业组织理论研究,E-mail: cinzhy@qq.com。
基金资助:
Yi ZHANG, Weigang HUANG, Xingwu ZHENG. International connectivity of China’s hub airport[J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(3): 491-502.
张翼, 黄伟刚, 郑兴无. 中国航空枢纽城市的国际连通性研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(3): 491-502.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://sjdlyj.ecnu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2020.03.2019022
类序 | 枢纽等级 | 机场城市 |
---|---|---|
一类 | 国际枢纽 | 北京、上海、广州 |
二类 | 次国际枢纽 | 成都、昆明、深圳、重庆、西安、乌鲁木齐、哈尔滨 |
三类 | 区域枢纽 | 天津、石家庄、太原、呼和浩特、大连、沈阳、长春、杭州、厦门、南京、青岛、福州、济南、南昌、温州、宁波、合肥、南宁、桂林、海口、三亚、郑州、武汉、长沙、贵阳、拉萨、兰州、西宁、银川 |
四类 | 开放机场城市 | 其他对外开放机场城市 |
Tab.1 Classification of China international hubs
类序 | 枢纽等级 | 机场城市 |
---|---|---|
一类 | 国际枢纽 | 北京、上海、广州 |
二类 | 次国际枢纽 | 成都、昆明、深圳、重庆、西安、乌鲁木齐、哈尔滨 |
三类 | 区域枢纽 | 天津、石家庄、太原、呼和浩特、大连、沈阳、长春、杭州、厦门、南京、青岛、福州、济南、南昌、温州、宁波、合肥、南宁、桂林、海口、三亚、郑州、武汉、长沙、贵阳、拉萨、兰州、西宁、银川 |
四类 | 开放机场城市 | 其他对外开放机场城市 |
地区 | HTI | HCI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | |||||||
值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | 值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | |
东部 | 85.82 | 88.21 | 148.59 | 79.7 | 11.6 | 14.33 | 88.47 | 23.83 | 82.8 | 10.7 |
中部 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 6.27 | 3.4 | 34.8 | 0.2 | 1.25 | 0.77 | 2.7 | 30.9 |
西部 | 7.92 | 8.15 | 28.03 | 15.0 | 28.8 | 1.39 | 8.57 | 3.82 | 13.3 | 22.4 |
东北 | 2.13 | 2.19 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 10.4 | 0.28 | 1.71 | 0.35 | 1.2 | 4.6 |
整体 | 97.29 | 100 | 186.39 | 100 | 13.9 | 16.19 | 100 | 28.76 | 100 | 12.2 |
Tab.2 HTI and HCI Index, percentage by region in 2012 and 2017, and annual growth rate (10,000, %)
地区 | HTI | HCI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | |||||||
值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | 值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | |
东部 | 85.82 | 88.21 | 148.59 | 79.7 | 11.6 | 14.33 | 88.47 | 23.83 | 82.8 | 10.7 |
中部 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 6.27 | 3.4 | 34.8 | 0.2 | 1.25 | 0.77 | 2.7 | 30.9 |
西部 | 7.92 | 8.15 | 28.03 | 15.0 | 28.8 | 1.39 | 8.57 | 3.82 | 13.3 | 22.4 |
东北 | 2.13 | 2.19 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 10.4 | 0.28 | 1.71 | 0.35 | 1.2 | 4.6 |
整体 | 97.29 | 100 | 186.39 | 100 | 13.9 | 16.19 | 100 | 28.76 | 100 | 12.2 |
类别 | HTI | HCI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2017 | 2012 | 2017 | |||||||
值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | 值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | |
一类 | 76.53 | 78.66 | 121.69 | 65.29 | 9.72 | 13.13 | 81.11 | 20.34 | 70.70 | 9.15 |
二类 | 10.13 | 10.41 | 32.77 | 17.58 | 26.47 | 1.65 | 10.19 | 4.44 | 15.44 | 21.89 |
三类 | 10.47 | 10.76 | 31.12 | 16.70 | 24.34 | 1.39 | 8.60 | 3.89 | 13.53 | 22.85 |
四类 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.81 | 0.43 | 38.32 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 37.97 |
全部 | 97.29 | 100 | 186.39 | 100 | 13.89 | 16.19 | 100 | 28.77 | 100 | 12.19 |
Tab.3 HTI and HCI Index, proportions of various hub cities in 2012, 2017, and annual growth rate (10,000, %)
类别 | HTI | HCI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2017 | 2012 | 2017 | |||||||
值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | 值 | 占比 | 值 | 占比 | 增速 | |
一类 | 76.53 | 78.66 | 121.69 | 65.29 | 9.72 | 13.13 | 81.11 | 20.34 | 70.70 | 9.15 |
二类 | 10.13 | 10.41 | 32.77 | 17.58 | 26.47 | 1.65 | 10.19 | 4.44 | 15.44 | 21.89 |
三类 | 10.47 | 10.76 | 31.12 | 16.70 | 24.34 | 1.39 | 8.60 | 3.89 | 13.53 | 22.85 |
四类 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.81 | 0.43 | 38.32 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 37.97 |
全部 | 97.29 | 100 | 186.39 | 100 | 13.89 | 16.19 | 100 | 28.77 | 100 | 12.19 |
城市 | 枢纽 | HTI | HCI | MCD | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
类型 | 值 | 增速 | 位序 | 位序差 | 值 | 增速 | 位序 | 位序差 | 2012 | 2017 | |
北京 | 1 | 497319 | 4.4 | 1 | 84335.4 | 5.5 | 1 | 25.93 | 28.53 | ||
上海 | 1 | 414086 | 15.1 | 2 | 61842.4 | 12.2 | 2 | 11.75 | 13.87 | ||
广州 | 1 | 305462 | 13.9 | 3 | 57177.8 | 12.2 | 3 | 29.29 | 29.49 | ||
昆明 | 2 | 76576 | 26.6 | 5 | -1 | 12571.2 | 19 | 4 | 17.95 | 21.16 | |
成都 | 2 | 82780 | 37.9 | 4 | +3 | 9471.4 | 30.6 | 5 | +3 | 7.93 | 12.17 |
深圳 | 2 | 68107 | 24.6 | 6 | -1 | 9108.2 | 28.9 | 6 | +1 | 9.16 | 15.31 |
厦门 | 3 | 37209 | 11.3 | 8 | -2 | 5713.1 | 11.9 | 7 | -2 | 9.42 | 12.37 |
杭州 | 3 | 52112 | 26.4 | 7 | +1 | 5586.6 | 26.4 | 8 | +3 | 4.80 | 8.29 |
乌鲁木齐 | 2 | 26142 | 16 | 11 | +1 | 5012.5 | 12.1 | 9 | -3 | 19.23 | 20.21 |
西安 | 2 | 32623 | 25.8 | 10 | +3 | 4116 | 21 | 10 | +2 | 8.63 | 13.45 |
重庆 | 2 | 35261 | 23.4 | 9 | +2 | 3546.5 | 22.1 | 11 | +2 | 6.22 | 9.05 |
南京 | 3 | 24124 | 33.1 | 13 | +1 | 3336.8 | 33 | 12 | +3 | 4.36 | 8.47 |
青岛 | 3 | 24703 | 11.5 | 12 | -3 | 3292.5 | 9.3 | 13 | -4 | 6.52 | 7.69 |
武汉 | 3 | 23835 | 35.7 | 14 | +1 | 3212.8 | 26.2 | 14 | 8.35 | 7.65 | |
长沙 | 3 | 23218 | 36.8 | 15 | +1 | 2649.9 | 40.8 | 15 | +3 | 4.43 | 8.63 |
大连 | 3 | 17004 | 5.9 | 17 | -7 | 1951.9 | 2.3 | 16 | -6 | 6.12 | 6.22 |
天津 | 3 | 17184 | 43.8 | 16 | +4 | 1947.7 | 45.1 | 17 | +4 | 1.85 | 4.67 |
福州 | 3 | 11593 | 26.5 | 18 | 1766.7 | 28.6 | 18 | -1 | 3.30 | 6.27 | |
南宁 | 3 | 9007 | 49 | 20 | +4 | 1225.1 | 60.6 | 19 | +7 | 1.51 | 6.32 |
郑州 | 3 | 10587 | 33.3 | 24 | -3 | 1215.5 | 26.8 | 20 | 4.21 | 5.76 | |
海口 | 3 | 9744 | 38.6 | 21 | +1 | 1198.1 | 45.3 | 21 | +1 | 1.85 | 6.81 |
济南 | 3 | 7296 | 54.2 | 19 | +7 | 993.1 | 53.2 | 22 | +3 | 2.94 | 5.71 |
兰州 | 3 | 5527 | 460.4 | 22 | +30 | 983.8 | 453.5 | 23 | +28 | 0.09 | 12 |
沈阳 | 3 | 10338 | 16.2 | 25 | -8 | 819.9 | 9.3 | 24 | -8 | 2.69 | 2.77 |
哈尔滨 | 2 | 6211 | 13.4 | 26 | -7 | 579.4 | 5 | 25 | -6 | 4.20 | 3.86 |
贵阳 | 3 | 5719 | 55.1 | 23 | +4 | 572.3 | 49.9 | 26 | +3 | 2.36 | 5.61 |
宁波 | 3 | 3899 | 33.2 | 27 | -2 | 459.8 | 31.1 | 27 | -3 | 1.14 | 2.61 |
三亚 | 3 | 2498 | 72.6 | 28 | +10 | 302 | 123.2 | 28 | +14 | 0.10 | 2.56 |
南昌 | 3 | 2074 | 59.2 | 32 | +4 | 244.5 | 52.2 | 30 | +5 | 1.50 | 2.84 |
合肥 | 3 | 1979 | 25.3 | 30 | -2 | 238.5 | 22.4 | 31 | -4 | 1.73 | 2.59 |
银川 | 3 | 2470 | 31 | 217.2 | 32 | 2.41 | |||||
石家庄 | 3 | 1572 | 78.4 | 36 | +5 | 191.5 | 77.2 | 33 | +7 | 0.50 | 3.30 |
呼和浩特 | 3 | 1591 | 31.3 | 35 | -3 | 191.3 | 31.2 | 34 | -3 | 4.92 | 5.63 |
桂林 | 3 | 1832 | 4.2 | 33 | -10 | 173.6 | 7.3 | 36 | -13 | 1.29 | 1.85 |
长春 | 3 | 1370 | 31.1 | 38 | -5 | 153.5 | 29.1 | 38 | -6 | 0.61 | 1.71 |
温州 | 3 | 1556 | 22.6 | 37 | -7 | 147.4 | 13.8 | 39 | -11 | 2.97 | 2.02 |
太原 | 3 | 919 | 7.5 | 40 | -11 | 98.1 | 11.7 | 41 | -11 | 1.66 | 2.34 |
拉萨 | 3 | 163 | 9.4 | 44 | -4 | 32.6 | 19.2 | 43 | -5 | 0.38 | 1.48 |
西宁 | 3 | 117 | 51 | 8.8 | 52 | 0.55 |
Tab.4 International connectivity capability order of the first three types of hub cities in 2017
城市 | 枢纽 | HTI | HCI | MCD | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
类型 | 值 | 增速 | 位序 | 位序差 | 值 | 增速 | 位序 | 位序差 | 2012 | 2017 | |
北京 | 1 | 497319 | 4.4 | 1 | 84335.4 | 5.5 | 1 | 25.93 | 28.53 | ||
上海 | 1 | 414086 | 15.1 | 2 | 61842.4 | 12.2 | 2 | 11.75 | 13.87 | ||
广州 | 1 | 305462 | 13.9 | 3 | 57177.8 | 12.2 | 3 | 29.29 | 29.49 | ||
昆明 | 2 | 76576 | 26.6 | 5 | -1 | 12571.2 | 19 | 4 | 17.95 | 21.16 | |
成都 | 2 | 82780 | 37.9 | 4 | +3 | 9471.4 | 30.6 | 5 | +3 | 7.93 | 12.17 |
深圳 | 2 | 68107 | 24.6 | 6 | -1 | 9108.2 | 28.9 | 6 | +1 | 9.16 | 15.31 |
厦门 | 3 | 37209 | 11.3 | 8 | -2 | 5713.1 | 11.9 | 7 | -2 | 9.42 | 12.37 |
杭州 | 3 | 52112 | 26.4 | 7 | +1 | 5586.6 | 26.4 | 8 | +3 | 4.80 | 8.29 |
乌鲁木齐 | 2 | 26142 | 16 | 11 | +1 | 5012.5 | 12.1 | 9 | -3 | 19.23 | 20.21 |
西安 | 2 | 32623 | 25.8 | 10 | +3 | 4116 | 21 | 10 | +2 | 8.63 | 13.45 |
重庆 | 2 | 35261 | 23.4 | 9 | +2 | 3546.5 | 22.1 | 11 | +2 | 6.22 | 9.05 |
南京 | 3 | 24124 | 33.1 | 13 | +1 | 3336.8 | 33 | 12 | +3 | 4.36 | 8.47 |
青岛 | 3 | 24703 | 11.5 | 12 | -3 | 3292.5 | 9.3 | 13 | -4 | 6.52 | 7.69 |
武汉 | 3 | 23835 | 35.7 | 14 | +1 | 3212.8 | 26.2 | 14 | 8.35 | 7.65 | |
长沙 | 3 | 23218 | 36.8 | 15 | +1 | 2649.9 | 40.8 | 15 | +3 | 4.43 | 8.63 |
大连 | 3 | 17004 | 5.9 | 17 | -7 | 1951.9 | 2.3 | 16 | -6 | 6.12 | 6.22 |
天津 | 3 | 17184 | 43.8 | 16 | +4 | 1947.7 | 45.1 | 17 | +4 | 1.85 | 4.67 |
福州 | 3 | 11593 | 26.5 | 18 | 1766.7 | 28.6 | 18 | -1 | 3.30 | 6.27 | |
南宁 | 3 | 9007 | 49 | 20 | +4 | 1225.1 | 60.6 | 19 | +7 | 1.51 | 6.32 |
郑州 | 3 | 10587 | 33.3 | 24 | -3 | 1215.5 | 26.8 | 20 | 4.21 | 5.76 | |
海口 | 3 | 9744 | 38.6 | 21 | +1 | 1198.1 | 45.3 | 21 | +1 | 1.85 | 6.81 |
济南 | 3 | 7296 | 54.2 | 19 | +7 | 993.1 | 53.2 | 22 | +3 | 2.94 | 5.71 |
兰州 | 3 | 5527 | 460.4 | 22 | +30 | 983.8 | 453.5 | 23 | +28 | 0.09 | 12 |
沈阳 | 3 | 10338 | 16.2 | 25 | -8 | 819.9 | 9.3 | 24 | -8 | 2.69 | 2.77 |
哈尔滨 | 2 | 6211 | 13.4 | 26 | -7 | 579.4 | 5 | 25 | -6 | 4.20 | 3.86 |
贵阳 | 3 | 5719 | 55.1 | 23 | +4 | 572.3 | 49.9 | 26 | +3 | 2.36 | 5.61 |
宁波 | 3 | 3899 | 33.2 | 27 | -2 | 459.8 | 31.1 | 27 | -3 | 1.14 | 2.61 |
三亚 | 3 | 2498 | 72.6 | 28 | +10 | 302 | 123.2 | 28 | +14 | 0.10 | 2.56 |
南昌 | 3 | 2074 | 59.2 | 32 | +4 | 244.5 | 52.2 | 30 | +5 | 1.50 | 2.84 |
合肥 | 3 | 1979 | 25.3 | 30 | -2 | 238.5 | 22.4 | 31 | -4 | 1.73 | 2.59 |
银川 | 3 | 2470 | 31 | 217.2 | 32 | 2.41 | |||||
石家庄 | 3 | 1572 | 78.4 | 36 | +5 | 191.5 | 77.2 | 33 | +7 | 0.50 | 3.30 |
呼和浩特 | 3 | 1591 | 31.3 | 35 | -3 | 191.3 | 31.2 | 34 | -3 | 4.92 | 5.63 |
桂林 | 3 | 1832 | 4.2 | 33 | -10 | 173.6 | 7.3 | 36 | -13 | 1.29 | 1.85 |
长春 | 3 | 1370 | 31.1 | 38 | -5 | 153.5 | 29.1 | 38 | -6 | 0.61 | 1.71 |
温州 | 3 | 1556 | 22.6 | 37 | -7 | 147.4 | 13.8 | 39 | -11 | 2.97 | 2.02 |
太原 | 3 | 919 | 7.5 | 40 | -11 | 98.1 | 11.7 | 41 | -11 | 1.66 | 2.34 |
拉萨 | 3 | 163 | 9.4 | 44 | -4 | 32.6 | 19.2 | 43 | -5 | 0.38 | 1.48 |
西宁 | 3 | 117 | 51 | 8.8 | 52 | 0.55 |
序号 | 北京 | 上海 | 广州 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | |||||||
航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | |
1 | CA | 48.4 | CA | 40.3 | MU | 54.7 | MU | 41.4 | CZ | 75.4 | CZ | 56.8 |
2 | CZ | 9.9 | CZ | 10.1 | CZ | 9.9 | CZ | 10.8 | MU | 3.5 | MU | 8.2 |
3 | MU | 8.4 | MU | 9.6 | CA | 7.0 | CA | 7.2 | VN | 2.2 | CA | 6.3 |
4 | HU | 5.8 | HU | 8.5 | HO | 3.3 | HO | 5.2 | HU | 2.1 | ZH | 3.3 |
5 | UA | 2.9 | UA | 2.1 | 9C | 3.0 | 9C | 4.3 | ZH | 1.8 | HU | 2.8 |
Tab.5 Top 5 carriers with the highest international connectivity at Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and their proportion (%)
序号 | 北京 | 上海 | 广州 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | 2012年 | 2017年 | |||||||
航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | |
1 | CA | 48.4 | CA | 40.3 | MU | 54.7 | MU | 41.4 | CZ | 75.4 | CZ | 56.8 |
2 | CZ | 9.9 | CZ | 10.1 | CZ | 9.9 | CZ | 10.8 | MU | 3.5 | MU | 8.2 |
3 | MU | 8.4 | MU | 9.6 | CA | 7.0 | CA | 7.2 | VN | 2.2 | CA | 6.3 |
4 | HU | 5.8 | HU | 8.5 | HO | 3.3 | HO | 5.2 | HU | 2.1 | ZH | 3.3 |
5 | UA | 2.9 | UA | 2.1 | 9C | 3.0 | 9C | 4.3 | ZH | 1.8 | HU | 2.8 |
昆明 | 成都 | 深圳 | 乌鲁木齐 | 西安 | 重庆 | 哈尔滨 | 杭州 | 厦门 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | |
MU | 56.3 | 3U | 21.1 | CZ | 21.8 | CZ | 55.4 | MU | 28.4 | CA | 12.6 | CZ | 24.1 | MU | 13.6 | MF | 49.8 | |
CZ | 6.5 | CA | 20.3 | ZH | 21.2 | MU | 5.7 | HU | 13.7 | 3U | 12.1 | HZ | 20.9 | CA | 11.9 | CA | 8.7 | |
8L | 5.7 | MU | 16.0 | CA | 10.9 | CA | 5.3 | CZ | 6.2 | CZ | 7.8 | MU | 6.7 | CZ | 7.8 | MU | 6.7 | |
CA | 4.0 | CZ | 5.3 | 3E | 9.1 | KC | 4.1 | CA | 6.0 | MU | 6.3 | U6 | 5.2 | MF | 7.1 | CZ | 6.4 | |
3U | 2.6 | ZH | 2.9 | AK | 6.5 | S7 | 3.9 | GS | 4.6 | PN | 6.1 | 3U | 3.5 | JD | 5.5 | SC | 3.8 |
Tab.6 Top 5 carriers with the highest international connectivity at the second-class hub, Hangzhou and Xiamen in 2017 (%)
昆明 | 成都 | 深圳 | 乌鲁木齐 | 西安 | 重庆 | 哈尔滨 | 杭州 | 厦门 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | 航企 | 占比 | |
MU | 56.3 | 3U | 21.1 | CZ | 21.8 | CZ | 55.4 | MU | 28.4 | CA | 12.6 | CZ | 24.1 | MU | 13.6 | MF | 49.8 | |
CZ | 6.5 | CA | 20.3 | ZH | 21.2 | MU | 5.7 | HU | 13.7 | 3U | 12.1 | HZ | 20.9 | CA | 11.9 | CA | 8.7 | |
8L | 5.7 | MU | 16.0 | CA | 10.9 | CA | 5.3 | CZ | 6.2 | CZ | 7.8 | MU | 6.7 | CZ | 7.8 | MU | 6.7 | |
CA | 4.0 | CZ | 5.3 | 3E | 9.1 | KC | 4.1 | CA | 6.0 | MU | 6.3 | U6 | 5.2 | MF | 7.1 | CZ | 6.4 | |
3U | 2.6 | ZH | 2.9 | AK | 6.5 | S7 | 3.9 | GS | 4.6 | PN | 6.1 | 3U | 3.5 | JD | 5.5 | SC | 3.8 |
1 | Herrero, Garcia Alicia, Jianwei Xu. China's Belt and Road Initiative: Can Europe Expect Trade Gains?. China & World Economy, 2017, 25(6):84-99. |
2 | 中国民用航空局,中国民航改革开放三十年(综合篇).北京:中国民航出版社,2009. |
Civil Aviation Administration of China. China's civil aviation reform and opening up for 30 years. Beijing: China Civil Aviation Press, 2009. | |
3 | Danesi A. Measuring airline hub timetable co-ordination and connectivity: Definition of a new index and application to a sample of European hubs. European Transport\Trasporti Europei,2006,34: 54-74. |
4 | Fleming D K, Hayuth Y. Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs: centrality and intermediacy. Journal of transport geography, 1994, 2(1): 3-18. |
5 | Neal Z P. Types of hub cities and their effects on urban creative economies. Hub Cities in the Knowledge Economy: Seaports, Airports, Brainports, 2016: 203. |
6 | Farhadi M. Transport infrastructure and long-run economic growth in OECD countries. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2015, 74: 73-90. |
7 | Holloway S. Straight and level: Practical airline economics: Practical airline economics. London: Routledge, 2017. |
8 | Shaw S L. Hub structures of major US passenger airlines. Journal of Transport Geography, 1993, 1(1): 47-58. |
9 | Kotegawa T, Delaurentis D A, Sengstacken A. Development of network restructuring models for improved air traffic forecasts. Transportation Research, 2010, 18C(6):p.937-949. |
10 | Bagler G. Analysis of the airport network of India as a complex weighted network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2008, 387(12): 2972-2980. |
11 | 戴维·诺克,杨松.社会网络分析(第二版). 李兰,译.上海:格致出版社,2012. |
Knoke David, Song Yang. Social Network Analysis (2nd ed). Shanghai: Ture &Wisdom Press, 2012. | |
12 | Malighetti P, Paleari S, Redondi R. Connectivity of the European airport network: “Self-help hubbing” and business implications. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2008, 14(2): 53-65. |
13 | Bootsma P D. Airline flight schedule development-analysis and design tools for European hinterland hubs.Enschede: Universiteit Twente, 1997. |
14 | Burghouwt G, De Wit J. Temporal configurations of European airline networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2005, 11(3): 185-198. |
15 | Ivy R L. Variations in hub service in the US domestic air transportation network. Journal of Transport Geography, 1993, 1(4): 211-218. |
16 | Veldhuis J. The competitive position of airline networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 1997, 3(4): 181-188. |
17 | Burghouwt G, Veldhuis J. The competitive position of hub airports in the transatlantic market. Journal of Air Transportation,2006,11(1):106-130. |
18 | Burghouwt G., De Wit J., Veldhuis J., Matsumoto H.. Air network performance and hub competitive position: Evaluation of primary airports in East and South-East Asia. Journal of Airport Management,2009,3(4): 384-400. |
19 | Matsumoto H, Veldhuis J, de Wit J, et al. performance Network, hub connectivity potential, and competitive position of primary airports in Asia/Pacific region// 12th Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) World Conference, 2008. |
20 | Li W K, Miyoshi C, Pagliari R. Dual-hub network connectivity: An analysis of all Nippon Airways’ use of Tokyo’s Haneda and Narita airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2012, 23: 12-16. |
21 | Wittman M D, Swelbar W S. Modeling changes in connectivity at US airports: A small community perspective. MIT Small Community Air Service White Paper, 2013. |
22 | Danesi A. Measuring airline hub timetable co-ordination and connectivity: definition of a new index and application to a sample of European hubs. European Transport\Trasporti Europei,2006,34: 54-74. |
23 | 黄洁,王姣娥.枢纽机场的航班波体系结构及其喂给航线的空间格局研究.地理科学,2018,38(11):1750-1758. |
Huang J,Wang J.Wave-system structures of airport hubs and spatial wave-system structures of airport hubs and spatial patterns of possible indirect connections. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018,38(11):1750-1758. | |
24 | 吴文婕,杨兆萍,李松,等.丝绸之路经济带国际航空枢纽竞争力分析与战略研究.干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(10):47-52. |
Wu W,Yang Z,Li S,et al. Competitiveness analysis and strategic research on building of international aviation hub in Silk Road Economic Belt. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2016, 30(10):47-52. | |
25 | Huang J, Wang J. A comparison of indirect connectivity in Chinese airport hubs: 2010 vs 2015. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2017, 65: 29-39. |
26 | Zhu Z, Zhang A, Zhang Y, et al. Air connectivity between countries: The case of China and Australia, 2005-2016[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing,2017,11:52-60. |
27 | Lee S Y, Yoo K E, Park Y. A continuous connectivity model for evaluation of hub-and-spoke operations.Transport metric A: Transport Science, 2014, 10(10): 894-916. |
28 | Grosche T, Klophaus R. Hubs at risk: Exposure of Europe's largest hubs to competition on transfer city Pairs.Transport Policy, 2015, 43: 55-60. |
29 | Zhenran Zhu, Anming Zhang, Yahua Zhang. Measuring multi-modal connections and connectivity radiations of transport infrastructure in China, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 2019,15:2, 1762-1790. |
30 | 中国民用航空局,中国民航改革开放三十年(航空公司和保障篇).北京:中国民航出版社,2009. |
Civil Aviation Administration of China. China's civil aviation reform and opening up for 30 years. Beijing: China Civil Aviation Press,2009. | |
31 | Button K, Lall S. The economics of being an airport hub city. Research in Transportation Economics, 1999, 5: 75-105. |
32 | 王姣娥,莫辉辉.航空运输地理学研究进展与展望.地理科学进展,2011,30(06):670-680. |
Wang J, Mo H. China's international aviation transport to the Belt and Road Initiative area. Progress in Geography, 2011, 34(5): 554-562. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||