Nanjing’s Intracity Tourism Flow Network Using Cellular Signaling Data: A Comparative Analysis of Residents and Non-Local Tourists

Abstract

With the rapid development of transportation and modern communication technology, “tourism flow” plays an important role in shaping tourism’s spatial structure. In order to explore the impact of an urban tourism flow network on tourism’s spatial structure, this study summarizes the structural characteristics of the tourism flow networks of 43 scenic spots in Nanjing from three aspects—tourism flow network connection, node centrality, and communities—using cellular signaling data and the social network analysis method. A comparative analysis revealed the tourism flow network structures of residents and non-local tourists. Our findings indicated four points. Firstly, the overall network connectivity was relatively good. Core city nodes displayed high spatial concentration and connection strength. However, suburban nodes delivered poor performance. Secondly, popular nodes were intimately connected, although there were no “bridging” nodes. Lesser-known nodes were marginalized, resulting in severe node polarization. Thirdly, regarding the network community structure, the spatial boundary between communities was relatively clear; the communities within the core city were more closely connected, with some parts encompassing suburban nodes. Most suburban communities were attached to the communities in the core area, with individual nodes existing independently. Fourthly, the primary difference in the tourism flow network structures between residents and non-local tourists was that the nodes for residents manifested a more balanced connection strength and node centrality. Core communities encompassed more nodes with more extensive coverage. Conversely, the nodes for non-local tourists showed wide discrepancies in connection strength and node centrality. Furthermore, core communities were small in scale with clear boundaries.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.