The Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influence Mechanisms of Intercity...

[Full title: The Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influence Mechanisms of Intercity Cooperation Networks from the Perspective of Sustainable Regional Development: A Case Study of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, China]

Academic Editor: Charles Chang-Yu Hong Received: 27 March 2025 Revised: 16 May 2025 Accepted: 19 May 2025 Published: 20 May 2025 Citation: Shi, R.; Sun, C.; Zhang, C.; Peng, Z. The Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influence Mechanisms of Intercity Cooperation Networks from the Perspective of Sustainable Regional Development: A Case Study of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, China Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su 17104709 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article The Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influence Mechanisms of Intercity Cooperation Networks from the Perspective of Sustainable Regional Development: A Case Study of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, China Ruochen Shi 1 , Changsheng Sun 1,2, *, Chunying Zhang 1 and Zhenwei Peng 2 1 College of Tourism & Landscape Architecture, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China; rcs 996221@gmail.com (R.S.); zhangchuying_zcy@163.com (C.Z.) 2 College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China; pengzhw@tongji.edu.cn * Correspondence: sunchangsheng@tongji.edu.cn Abstract: Intercity cooperation networks are critical for addressing regional imbalances and advancing sustainable regional development, yet existing studies typically focus on specific functional domains, rather than the overall intercity cooperation network. To bridge this gap, this study examines the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt (21 cities, 2014–2023), analyzing its spatio-temporal evolution and influence mechanisms through Social Network Analysis (SNA) and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The results reveal the following: (1) the network has undergone three policy-driven development stages: initial–accelerated–steady; (2) a spatial pattern of “east—dominant, west—weak” has emerged, shaped by the radiating influence of core cities; and (3) institutional proximity and cooperation investment are key drivers of network formation, while geographical and organizational proximity exhibit negative impacts. These findings underscore the need for related regional development strategies to foster a more vital and open cooperation network. Overall, this study deepens the understanding of intercity cooperation by revealing its macro-level patterns and influence mechanisms, and provides practical implications for policymakers committed to promoting sustainable regional development Keywords: Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt; sustainable regional development; intercity cooperation network; multidimensional proximity 1. Introduction Globalization has significantly altered the roles and inter-relationships of nations, regions, and cities [ 1 ]. As this process reshapes social, economic, and political structures, city-regions have gained increasing importance [ 2 ]. To respond to this shift, many countries—guided by the New Public Management movement—have decentralized regulatory powers to the regional scale to enhance national competitiveness [ 3 ]. In contrast, China has implemented decentralization reforms to restructure central– local power relations since the late 20 th century [ 4 ]. However, a top-down, government-led governance model still predominates at the regional scale, characterized by the coexistence of political centralization and economic decentralization [ 5 , 6 ]. This “Chinese-style federalism” has intensified horizontal competition among local governments, which, in turn, has Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 https://doi.org/10.3390/su 17104709

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 2 of 19 resulted in fragmented and uncoordinated regional development [ 7 ]. Specific manifestations include growing cross-provincial economic disparities and a widening urban–rural gap [ 8 ], both of which undermine the goals of sustainable regional development. Moreover, as cross-boundary public issues increasingly emerge, individual local governments are unable to resolve them independently [ 9 ]. Similar governance challenges resulting from administrative fragmentation under decentralization have also been observed in other countries [ 10 ]. To address increasingly complex governance and development challenges, China introduced a coordinated regional development strategy in 2018, emphasizing the need to deepen regional cooperation mechanisms and strengthen exchange and cooperation between cities. Related studies also indicate that, in response to administrative fragmentation and regional development imbalances, China is pursuing a more cooperative regional governance mechanism [ 11 , 12 ]. In this context, intercity cooperation has emerged as a key approach to narrowing regional disparities and promoting sustainable development [ 13 – 15 ], attracting wide attention from both policymakers and scholars. Furthermore, in the face of governance challenges caused by administrative fragmentation, intercity cooperation offers a viable governance mechanism by integrating cross-boundary stakeholders, thereby facilitating more coordinated and sustainable social, economic, and environmental development [ 16 – 19 ]. Under this governance mechanism, intercity cooperation has become a widespread phenomenon, where political and administrative hierarchical structures are increasingly open to horizontal networks, both inter-sectoral and intra-sectoral [ 20 ]. By embedding local governments with citizen representatives, experts, public associations, and NGOs into collective governmental actions, a network governance mechanism for intercity cooperation is established [ 21 ]. A typical example of this network governance in action is the California Bay Delta in 1994, where over 25 federal and state agencies, along with more than 30 stakeholder and local groups, adopted a networked cooperative governance mechanism to address complex water resource management challenges [ 22 ]. In summary, analyzing intercity cooperation networks among local governments is essential for addressing widening regional disparities and development inequalities exacerbated by globalization. Such analysis facilitates more effective governance of crossboundary public issues and contributes to sustainable regional development [ 23 , 24 ]. Although significant progress has been made in the theoretical and empirical study of cooperation networks, several important limitations remain: (1) Most existing studies focus on specific functional domains, such as the intercity cooperation network in environmental governance and public services [ 25 – 27 ], which limits the understanding of the overall structure and evolutionary characteristics of intercity cooperation networks. (2) Research attention has largely concentrated on coastal regions or well-developed city-regions, such as the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei area, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area [ 28 – 30 ], while the intercity cooperation networks in less developed and inland regions remain relatively underexamined. (3) Analyses of the influence mechanisms of intercity cooperation networks have largely focused on endogenous factors (e.g., cities’ economic level) [ 31 , 32 ], while exogenous factors have received comparatively less attention To address these research gaps, this study takes the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt as the study area. Connecting the highly developed Pearl River Delta with less developed inland regions, the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt exemplifies the economic disparities, administrative fragmentation, and spatial coordination challenges that are characteristic of regional development in the globalization era. As a representative case, it offers significant research value for exploring ways to narrow regional disparities and

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 3 of 19 promote sustainable regional development in less developed regions. In terms of the factors influencing the intercity cooperation network, this study adopts the theoretical perspective of multidimensional proximity [ 33 ], and draws upon analytical frameworks that integrate proximity theory with network theory [ 34 ]. Based on Boschma’s widely adopted five-dimensional proximity framework [ 35 ], which has been further developed in subsequent studies [ 36 , 37 ], this study focuses on three dimensions (geographic proximity, organizational proximity, and institutional proximity) by considering the measurability and data availability of cities in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the network characteristics and influence mechanisms of the overall intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River– Xijiang Economic Belt. This contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolution of city-regions, and provides valuable policy implications for policymakers in promoting regional coordination and achieving sustainable development. The structure of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the study area, methods, and data collection process. Section 3 analyzes the spatio-temporal evolution of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt and examines the influence mechanism of multidimensional proximity. Section 4 discusses the research findings and provides relevant policy implications. Section 5 summarizes the key conclusions, highlights the main contributions, acknowledges limitations, and suggests directions for future research 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area The State Council’s approval of the Development Plan for the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt in 2014 marked a strategic shift towards basin-wide cooperation as a regional development approach. The plan envisions the Economic Belt as a support zone for open development in the southwest and central-south regions, a pilot for the Eastern–Western Cooperation, an experimental area for ecological civilization construction, and a vanguard for the Maritime Silk Road. Given these diverse roles and the coexistence of regional economic disparities and developmental opportunities, the region offers a valuable case for examining how intercity cooperation can contribute to sustainable regional development This study takes the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt as the study area. Based on the Development Plan, it includes 21 cities: Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhaoqing, Yunfu, Nanning, Liuzhou, Guilin, Wuzhou, Guigang, Yulin, Baise, Hezhou, Hechi, Laibin, Chongzuo, Qianxinan, Qiandongnan, Qiannan, Anshun, Wenshan, and Qujing. A cooperation network is constructed using these 21 cities as nodes, with intercity cooperation links serving as edges 2.2. Method 2.2.1. Social Network Analysis Given its focus on cooperative relationships between local governments, this study combines Social Network Analysis (SNA) with GIS spatial analysis to quantitatively analyze the intercity cooperation network. As a core concept in Social Network Analysis, the formula for calculating the degree of centrality is as follows: C D ( n i ) = n ∑ j = 1 W ij (1) where W ij represents the weight of the edge between node i and node j (which, in this study, refers to the number of intercity cooperations between the two cities), and n represents the total number of nodes in the network.

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 4 of 19 In recent decades, scholars have extensively applied Social Network Analysis to examine network structures and their key characteristics [ 38 – 40 ]. To analyze the structural characteristics of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, this study adopts the analytical framework proposed by Watt [ 41 , 42 ], focusing on three dimensions: transmission, clustering, and cohesive subgroups Specifically, this study measures the transmission and clustering of the cooperation network based on the average path length and clustering coefficient, respectively. The CONCOR algorithm in UCINET is then employed to identify cohesive subgroups, aiming to uncover the internal structure within the network, as well as the intricate interactional relationships between cities 2.2.2. Structural Equation Modeling To identify the factors influencing the intercity cooperation network, structural equation modeling (SEM) is employed. SEM accommodates simultaneous equations with multiple endogenous variables, allows for multiple indicators of latent constructs, and estimates reliability and validity. Unlike most econometric methods, SEM accounts for measurement error in both exogenous and endogenous variables. Moreover, SEM enables more general measurement models than traditional factor analytic structures, and enables researchers to specify structural relationships among latent variables [ 43 ]. Considering the limited number of sample parameters, this study applies partial least squares–SEM (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS [ 44 ]. Specifically, SEM includes two models, the measurement model and the structural model • Measurement Model The measurement model delineates how latent variables are measured. The formula for the model is as follows: η i = ∑ i = 1 w ij x ij + δ i (2) where η i signifies the latent variable. Within the scope of this paper, it pertains to network characteristics, geographical proximity, organizational proximity, institutional proximity, and cooperation investment x ij denotes the observed variable that constitutes the latent variable w ij represents the correlation between the observed variable and the latent variable δ i indicates the error term associated with the observed variable • Structural Model The structural model elucidates the interconnections among latent variables. This model encompasses exogenous latent variables, which act exclusively as independent variables, and endogenous latent variables, which may function as dependent variables or serve in both capacities. The formula for the model is as follows: η i = ∑ i ̸ = j β ij η j + ζ (3) where η i signifies the endogenous latent variable. In this paper, endogenous latent variables refer to network characteristics η j denotes the exogenous latent variables that influence endogenous latent variables, including geographic proximity, organizational proximity, institutional proximity, and cooperation investment β ij represents the correlation between the endogenous latent variable and the exogenous latent variables ζ indicates the error term associated with the relationship between the latent variables With reference to Kaihuang Zhang’s method [ 45 ], the observed variables for network characteristics include the degree of centrality and the average effective size of structural holes, while the observed variable for cooperation investment is derived from intercity co-

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 5 of 19 operation data. In addition to these two variables, three proximity variables are introduced in the following section • Geographical Proximity Geographical proximity can be measured in terms of both absolute and relative distance, such as the physical distance between two entities in geographical space [ 46 ]. This study quantifies geographical proximity using standardized shortest highway distances between cities, following existing studies [ 47 ]. The formula is as follows: Geo ij = 1 − ln d ij /max d ij (4) where d ij signifies the highway distance from city i to city j . max d ij denotes the maximum road distance among all subjects in the study • Organizational Proximity Organizational proximity refers to the closeness between organizational members arising from shared behavioral practices [ 46 ]. Drawing on Balland’s research [ 48 ], this study represents organizational proximity between different subjects using a dummy variable based on provincial boundary effects. Specifically, if cities i and j in cooperation are within the same province, then Org ij = 1, otherwise Org ij = 0 • Institutional Proximity Institutions refer to human-designed constraints, encompassing both informal institutions (e.g., traditions, customs) and formal institutions (e.g., laws) [ 49 ]. Institutional proximity arises from similarity in institutional frameworks between countries or regions, offering a foundation for cooperation In the context of China’s politico-economic system, intercity relations are shaped by hierarchical administrative structures, reflecting underlying power asymmetries and differentiated economic roles [ 50 ]. Cities with higher administrative levels typically have greater access to resources and preferential policies, enabling them to attract funding for large-scale cooperation projects prioritized by policymakers [ 51 ], and thereby gain an advantageous position in intercity cooperation. Therefore, this study quantifies institutional proximity based on the administrative-level gap between cities Ins ij =          City i and City j are both subprovincial or quasi-sub-provincial cities 3 Only one of City i and City j is a sub-provincial city 2 Only one of City i and City j is a quasi-sub-provincial city 1 City i and City j are both ordinary prefecture-level cities 0 2.3. Data Collection and Processing This study collected intercity cooperation data from official government websites and policy documents, and organized the data collection and processing into three stages (1) Initial Retrieval: This study first retrieved intercity cooperation news (2014–2023) from the official websites of 21 cities, using city names as keywords, and then extracted relevant policy documents from the 13 th and 14 th Five-Year Plans (2) Manual Screening: This study conducted a meticulous manual review, scrutinizing both headlines and content to retain only records explicitly related to intercity cooperation. This process refined the dataset, enhancing its relevance and validity, and ensuring a solid foundation for subsequent analysis (3) Data Structuring: Following duplicate removal and manual curation, the remaining cooperation data were structured by cooperation date and city pairs, resulting in 3844 valid records. These records document intercity cooperation among the 21 cities in

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 6 of 19 the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt from 2014 to 2023, forming a comprehensive and reliable dataset 3. Results 3.1. The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of the Intercity Cooperation Network To investigate the spatio-temporal evolution of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, this study reviewed changes in intercity cooperation data from 2014 to 2023 (Figure 1 ) and divided the evolution process into three distinct stages Figure 1. The evolutionary trend of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt cooperation data from 2014 to 2023 (1) First Stage (2014–2015): The cooperation data increased only slightly from 143 in 2014 to 155 in 2015. Although the Development Plan of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt was officially approved in 2014, the supporting policies remained underdeveloped. During this stage, intercity cooperation within the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt was characterized by low intensity, marking the beginning of regional cooperative efforts (2) Second Stage (2016–2020): The cooperation data increased significantly from 289 in 2016 to 521 in 2020. This growth was supported by the opening of the Guiyang– Guangzhou and Nanning–Guangzhou high-speed railways and the enhancement of the Xijiang waterway, which together strengthened the region’s infrastructure foundation. In 2018, the integration of the Eastern–Western Cooperation into the poverty alleviation assessment further catalyzed cooperation, leading to the implementation of multiple paired assistance projects from Guangzhou to Qiannan. Driven by infrastructure improvements and policy incentives, intercity cooperation entered a stage of accelerated development (3) Third Stage (2021–2023): The outbreak of the Omicron variant severely curtailed cross-provincial flows of people and goods, resulting in a sharp decline in cooperation data—from 586 cases in 2021 to 369 in 2022. However, with the implementation of Class B infectious disease management in 2023, cross-provincial cooperation activities, including study tours and investment promotions, recovered markedly. The successful hosting of the 20 th China-ASEAN Exposition in Nanning in September further signaled the stabilization of intercity cooperation, with cooperation patterns becoming more institutionalized and normalized To analyze the spatial pattern of the intercity cooperation network, this study applied Jenks natural breaks classification to categorize the number of cooperations between cities

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 7 of 19 from 2014 to 2023 into five levels (Figure 2 ). To better illustrate the dynamic evolution of this spatial structure, it focused on the top three levels with high-intensity linkages, excluding the lower two levels (Figure 3 ) [ 52 ]. Overall, this study identified the following notable features: • Multi-core Radial Network Structure Building upon the spatial classification results, the intercity cooperation network follows a clear radial structure characterized by a “one core–multiple sub-centers” pattern. Guangzhou, serving as the central hub, plays a pivotal role in facilitating and coordinating regional cooperation efforts. Sub-centers such as Nanning and Foshan jointly promote deeper regional cooperation in coordination with Guangzhou • Rapid Development of Cross-provincial Cooperation The cross-provincial cooperation network between Guangdong and Guizhou has experienced rapid development, with the highest intensity of linkages between Guangzhou and Qiannan. This pattern reflects the close ties and cooperation needs between the two regions in economic, social, and policy coordination domains, primarily driven by the Eastern–Western Cooperation policy for poverty alleviation ( a ) ( b ) Figure 2. The spatial pattern of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang River Economic Belt, 2014–2023. ( a ) Geographical network; ( b ) topological network • Pattern of Regional Development Imbalance The intercity cooperation network reveals a pattern of “east—dominant, west—weak” This pattern is evident in the eastern region (e.g., Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhaoqing, Yunfu), which demonstrates more advanced intercity cooperation network development due to its robust economic base and well-developed infrastructure. In contrast, the western region (e.g., Qiannan, Qujing, Wenshan) remains relatively underdeveloped and geographically isolated, resulting in limited interaction with regional core nodes. This spatial disparity reflects regional development imbalance.

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 8 of 19 ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Figure 3. The evolution of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, 2014–2023. ( a ) 2014–2015; ( b ) 2016–2020; ( c ) 2021–2023 3.2. Analysis of Network Structure and Cohesive Subgroups 3.2.1. Analysis of Network Structure The intercity cooperation network of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt exhibited a trend of gradual expansion and increasing closeness from 2014 to 2023, as reflected in the rising number of participating cities and the establishment of new cooperation links between different cities, alongside enhanced overall network cohesion, as evidenced by rising network density (Table 1 ). From the perspective of transmission and clustering, the network structure of the intercity cooperation network of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt shows distinct characteristics across different development stages (Table 2 ). • Initial Development Stage (2014–2015) In 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission of China officially issued a notice on the implementation of the Development Plan of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt . At the same time, the Guiyang–Guangzhou and Nanning–Guangzhou high-speed railways began operations. Together, these initiatives provided both a policy framework and a physical infrastructure foundation for intercity cooperation in the region.

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 9 of 19 During this stage, the intercity cooperation network was at a relatively low development level. The average path length was 2.026, and the clustering coefficient was 0.617. The relatively high average path length indicates that the transmission efficiency of intercity exchanges and cooperation was low, leading to relatively high diffusion costs for factors like capital, population, technology, and information. Meanwhile, the moderate clustering coefficient suggests that while some local clusters existed within the network, they were not prominent, and the overall clustering effect was not significant Table 1. Basic structural characteristics of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt Period Number of Nodes Number of Edges Network Density 2014–2015 20 49 25.79% 2016–2020 21 126 60.00% 2021–2023 21 122 58.10% Table 2. Analysis of the structural characteristics of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt from the perspective of transmission and clustering Period Average Path Length Clustering Coefficient 2014–2015 2.026 0.617 2016–2020 1.405 0.754 2021–2023 1.429 0.731 • Accelerated Development Stage (2016–2020) As part of the government’s poverty alleviation strategy, Guangzhou replaced Shenzhen as the designated partner for Qiannan in 2013, and further strengthened its support by dispatching a dedicated work team in 2016, which, together, intensified intercity cooperation between the two cities. In parallel, infrastructure development further supported intercity cooperation. In 2017, the 3000-ton capacity expansion project for the Xijiang waterway was completed, achieving full 3000-ton navigability along the Guangdong section of the river. In 2018, construction began on the 3000-ton navigation channel from Guigang to Wuzhou, further enhancing regional inland waterway connectivity During this stage, the average path length of the intercity cooperation network declined from 2.026 to 1.405, indicating optimization of transmission and accessibility between cities. Meanwhile, the network clustering coefficient increased from 0.617 to 0.754, indicating that as the network grew, cities tended to select partners with certain similar characteristics for cooperation. This led to a “local area network” phenomenon within the intercity cooperation network • Steady Development Stage (2021–2023) In 2021, China adjusted the new round of the Eastern–Western Cooperation pairing relationships, and issued policy documents such as the Implementation Opinions on Establishing Closer Paired Assistance Relations Between Guangdong and Guizhou Provinces to Forge an Exemplary Model of Eastern–Western Cooperation and the Agreement on Guangdong–Guizhou Eastern–Western Regional Cooperation During the 14 th Five-Year Plan Period . Against this policy background, in addition to the original Guangzhou–Qiannan partnership, Guangzhou– Anshun and Foshan–Qiandongnan also forged new intercity partnerships. However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments experienced intensified financial pressure, which, in turn, constrained investment in intercity cooperation During this stage, both the average path length and clustering coefficient of the intercity cooperation network remained largely unchanged compared to the previous stage,

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 10 of 19 indicating that the intercity cooperation network temporarily entered a relatively steady and balanced development stage 3.2.2. Analysis of Cohesive Subgroups By applying the CONCOR algorithm in UCINET, this study identifies four cohesive subgroups among the 21 cities in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt (Figure 4 ). Furthermore, to better highlight the specific features of intercity cooperation within each subgroup, this study retains only cities participating within each group to draw the internal intercity cooperation network diagram (Figure 5 ) [ 53 ]. Figure 4. Division of cohesive subgroups of the intercity cooperation network of the Pearl River– Xijiang Economic Belt • Subgroup 1: Policy-Driven Paired Assistance Network Subgroup 1 consists of four cities from Guangdong Province (Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhaoqing, and Yunfu) and three from Guizhou Province (Qiandongnan, Qiannan, and Anshun), which receive paired assistance from Guangdong—Guangzhou supports Qiannan and Anshun, while Foshan assists Qiandongnan. The most frequent intercity cooperation is observed between Guangzhou and Qiannan (966) and between Foshan and Yunfu (251), reflecting the radiating influence of core cities in promoting coordinated regional development This subgroup, centered around Guangzhou and Foshan, engages in Eastern–Western Cooperation through fiscal transfers and industrial relocation with Guizhou cities. This policy-driven cooperation reflects the central government’s efforts to narrow regional disparities through resource redistribution.

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 11 of 19 ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) Figure 5. Subgroups of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt ( a ) Subgroup 1; ( b ) Subgroup 2; ( c ) Subgroup 3; ( d ) Subgroup 4 • Subgroup 2: Boundary Bridge Interwoven with History and Geography Subgroup 2 consists of Wuzhou and Hezhou, which are located at the boundary between Subgroup 1 and Subgroup 3. Formerly administered under Wuzhou, Hezhou became a separate city only in 2002. The two cities have shared infrastructure, cultural identity, and governance experience for a long time, reflecting the enduring impact of geographical proximity and historical connections on intercity cooperation This subgroup serves as a key hub linking the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area with the southwestern hinterland. In 2014, the Guangdong–Guangxi Cooperative Special Pilot Zone was established along the Wuzhou–Zhaoqing border to explore new models of cross-regional cooperation, highlighting the strategic value of geographical proximity in shaping intercity relations • Subgroup 3: Intra-provincial Cooperation Network Led by Administrative Center Subgroup 3 consists of Nanning, Guilin, Hechi, Laibin, Chongzuo, Liuzhou, Guigang, Yulin, and Baise, all of which are located in Guangxi Province and situated in the central part

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 12 of 19 of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt. Within Subgroup 3, the most frequent intercity cooperation occurs between Nanning and Liuzhou (88), followed by Nanning–Baise (82), Nanning–Yulin (77), and Nanning–Chongzuo (75), illustrating a single-core radial network structure with Nanning as the central hub In 2019, Guangxi issued the Implementation Opinions on Advancing the Strategy to Strengthen Provincial Capitals , which emphasized strengthening Nanning’s primacy to become a growth pole and enhancing its capacity to stimulate regional development This reflects the agglomeration effect of regional central cities in the intercity cooperation network, and their role in driving the development of surrounding cities • Subgroup 4: Weakly Connected Clusters at Marginal Area Subgroup 4 consists of Qianxinan, Wenshan, and Qujing, located in the western part of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt. These cities are situated more than 500 kilometers from both Guangzhou and Nanning, and are geographically distant from the main Xijiang River channel This geographical remoteness constrains intercity cooperation and leads to weaker linkages with the core region, positioning this subgroup as a peripheral area within the network Despite their remoteness, the cities in Subgroup 4 possess considerable mineral potential, particularly in coal and metal resources. To unlock this potential, enhanced policy support and targeted intercity cooperation mechanisms are required. This highlights the need to optimize development strategies for peripheral areas within the network 3.3. The Proximity Mechanism of Cooperation Network Evolution This study rigorously tested the model’s reliability and validity using SmartPLS to ensure that it complied with established academic standards. The results (Table 3 ) show that the Cronbach’s alpha values for all variables were greater than 0.7, the composite reliability values were greater than 0.8, and the AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values were greater than 0.5, indicating that the model passed the test Table 3. Tests for reliability and validity Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted Geographical proximity 1 1 1 Organizational proximity 1 1 1 Institutional proximity 1 1 1 Cooperation investment 1 1 1 Network characteristic 0.746 0.886 0.886 The results of the structural equation modeling test (Table 4 ) indicate that, at the 0.05 significance level, geographical proximity, organizational proximity, institutional proximity, and cooperation investment all exerted significant direct effects on network characteristics. Among them, cooperation investment had the largest path coefficient (0.539), followed by institutional proximity (0.510), while geographical and organizational proximity both exhibited negative effects. The model’s R 2 value was 0.684, which was greater than the standard threshold of 0.5. In terms of model fit indices, the SRMR value was 0.053, which was less than 0.08, indicating that the model was generally acceptable.

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 13 of 19 Table 4. Tests for structural equation modeling Path Coefficients R 2 SRMR Value Institutional proximity -> Network characteristic 0.510 0.684 0.053 Cooperation investment -> Network characteristic 0.539 Geographical proximity -> Network characteristic − 0.171 Organizational proximity -> Network characteristic − 0.254 Building upon the empirical results of the structural equation modeling, which highlight the varying effects of different dimensions of proximity, this study further explores the underlying influence mechanisms that drive the evolution of the intercity cooperation network • A Trend of Preferential Connections and the Matthew Effect Among the various factors shaping the evolution of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt, institutional proximity plays a particularly central role. High institutional proximity fosters shared norms and values, enhancing trust and reducing cooperation barriers [ 54 ]. This dynamic is further reinforced by cooperation investment, which reflects a city’s capability and willingness to strengthen intercity cooperation. In China’s politico-economic system, cities with higher administrative levels often possess more abundant resources and can leverage comparative advantages in funding, technology, and information to accumulate network capital and achieve self-reinforcement, thereby increasing their cooperation investment. While institutional proximity generally facilitates cooperation, it may also lead to institutional inertia, impeding innovation and the reconfiguration of existing cooperation frameworks [ 55 ]. This development trend is specifically reflected in the spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of the intercity cooperation network. Guangzhou and Nanning, both cities with higher administrative levels, serve as core cities within the intercity cooperation network, playing a significant radiating and driving role and emerging as regional growth poles. Accordingly, the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt exhibits a pattern of agglomeration growth, characterized by “preferential connections and the Matthew effect”. Peripheral cities often rely on core cities as intermediaries to gain access to the network, which also explains the emergence of a “local area network” phenomenon in the structure of the intercity cooperation network • Negative Lock-In under the “Proximity Paradox” Geographical and organizational proximity are conventionally seen as enablers of intercity cooperation by promoting frequent exchange of information and knowledge, and reducing uncertainty and opportunism risks [ 56 , 57 ]. However, excessive proximity may produce counterproductive effects. High geographical proximity can lead to competition for the same resources, resulting in homogenization and reducing willingness to cooperate [ 58 ]. Similarly, excessive organizational proximity may restrict mutual learning and limit the organizational flexibility, ultimately hindering further development [ 59 ]. This “proximity paradox” highlights the potential for diminishing or adverse effects when proximity becomes excessive The empirical results from the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt validate the “proximity paradox”, indicating that both geographical and organizational proximity have a negative impact on the intercity cooperation network. This may stem from excessive similarities in industrial structure and cognition, which are themselves a consequence of high geographical and organizational proximity, thereby reducing complementarity and diminishing the benefits of cooperation. In contrast, backed by substantial national policy

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 14 of 19 support (e.g., the Eastern–Western Cooperation), many cities are actively overcoming geographical constraints by engaging in cross-provincial cooperation with economically or technologically complementary partners. This outward-oriented cooperation has become the dominant mode of network expansion, surpassing the slower pace of intra-provincial cooperation. However, such cooperation remains largely policy-driven. For example, following the formal designation of the Guangzhou–Anshun paired-up assistance in 2021, their intercity cooperation data increased significantly, highlighting the decisive role of policy intervention in shaping intercity cooperation patterns in China 4. Discussion This study adopts quantitative methods to examine the spatio-temporal evolution and influence mechanisms of the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt. Based on the analysis, the main findings are summarized as follows: 1 Policy-Driven Staged Development of the Intercity Cooperation Network Largely shaped by national and regional policy interventions (e.g., the Development Plan of the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt and the Eastern–Western Cooperation), the development of the intercity cooperation network has progressed through three distinct stages—initial, accelerated, and steady. This observation aligns with existing studies that underscore the ongoing dominance of government-led regional governance in China [ 60 ], wherein regional development remains heavily reliant on top-down directives. By quantitatively aligning network structural indicators with policy implementation timelines, this study provides robust empirical evidence for a causal relationship between administrative actions and network transformation, thereby adding methodological rigor to earlier qualitative assessments. Furthermore, the transition from the accelerated to the steady stage may reflect a plateauing effect of short-term policy incentives. This highlights the need to strengthen the self-organizing capacity of local actors and to institutionalize more enduring mechanisms to sustain intercity cooperation beyond the initial stimulus provided by policy interventions 2 Imbalance in Regional Development The intercity cooperation network exhibits pronounced spatial asymmetries, reflecting persistent development imbalances between the eastern and western subregions. Cities such as Guangzhou and Nanning, functioning as regional cores, leverage their comparative institutional and economic advantages (e.g., higher administrative levels) to attract resources and exert radiating influence on surrounding cities. While prior studies have emphasized the economic benefits and spatial spillovers associated with such growth poles, they have also acknowledged the risks of overconcentration and increasing core–periphery divergence [ 61 ]. Unlike these studies, which primarily focus on economic disparity, this study demonstrates how spatial inequality is embedded within the intercity cooperation network. Specifically, it reveals how core cities dominate intercity cooperation, while peripheral cities such as Qianxinan and Wenshan remain relatively marginalized. This phenomenon undermines the inclusiveness of regional cooperation and calls for institutional mechanisms to rebalance participation and ensure more equitable access to cooperative opportunities across the region 3 Paradoxical Effects of Multidimensional Proximity The findings further reveal that while institutional proximity significantly enhances intercity cooperation, both geographical and organizational proximity are associated with counterintuitive negative effects—an outcome indicative of the “proximity paradox”. Existing studies have primarily examined this phenomenon at the micro-level (e.g., partnerships involving universities or industries) [ 58 , 59 , 62 ], while this study extends the concept to

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 15 of 19 a new empirical setting: government-led, policy-driven intercity cooperation networks in China. The results suggest that excessive geographical and organizational proximity may lead to intensified homogeneous competition and overlapping resource demands, thus impeding cooperation effectiveness. In this context, institutional proximity acts as a compensatory force that can overcome geographical and organizational barriers, facilitating more effective intercity cooperation. This mechanism may partly explain the predominance of cross-provincial and outward-oriented partnerships in the expansion of the intercity cooperation network within the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt Building on the above findings, this study proposes several policy implications to further optimize the intercity cooperation network in the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt and to promote sustainable regional development (1) Enhance Local Autonomy: To build a more stable and enduring intercity cooperation network, it is crucial to reform the current government-led regional governance mechanism. The key lies in enhancing the self-organizing capacity of local actors (e.g., local governments, enterprises, and social organizations). Within a cooperative governance framework, future intercity cooperation should prioritize local autonomous cooperation mechanisms [ 63 ], rather than relying solely on top-down political mobilization or short-term policy interventions. This transformation can enhance the vitality, adaptability, and openness of the intercity cooperation network (2) Promote Inclusive Cooperation: To narrow regional disparities, targeted resource redistribution mechanisms could be adopted to expand cooperation opportunities for peripheral cities. As ecological barriers, upstream cities such as Qianxinan and Wenshan can engage in cross-regional cooperation with downstream cities through ecological compensation mechanisms [ 64 ]. This approach would promote mutual benefits by aligning environmental preservation with regional economic interests, thus offering a synergistic pathway toward sustainable regional development (3) Encourage Differentiated Development: To address the “proximity paradox” highlighted in this study, policymakers should prioritize differentiated development strategies that reduce homogeneous competition and promote functional complementarity among cities. This includes aligning upstream cities’ mineral and hydropower resources with downstream industrial capabilities to enhance the integrity of regional industrial chains. Simultaneously, regulatory mechanisms should be strengthened to prevent redundant construction and promote efficient resource allocation (4) Strengthen Institutional Mechanisms: To address the lack of stable mechanisms in current intercity cooperation—manifested in weak self-organization, unbalanced cooperation opportunities, and homogenized competition—it is crucial to move toward institutionalized regional governance. This involves embedding cooperative mechanisms into robust legal and regulatory frameworks, clarifying the roles of key actors and enhancing regional policy coordination. Only by replacing fragmented unilateral actions with coherent and comprehensive planning can cross-boundary public issues be effectively addressed [ 65 ], thereby providing a resilient foundation for sustainable and inclusive regional development 5. Conclusions This study focuses on the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt and analyzes intercity cooperation data from 2014 to 2023 using Social Network Analysis and PLS-SEM. The findings reveal the following: (1) a three-stage development process driven by policy interventions; (2) a significant spatial disparity in cooperation, characterized by an “east—dominant, west—weak” pattern; and (3) differentiated effects of proximity dimensions, whereby insti-

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 16 of 19 tutional proximity promotes network development, while geographical and organizational proximity exert negative influences The main contributions of this study are as follows: (1) Theoretical Contribution: It proposes a holistic analytical framework for intercity cooperation networks by integrating multidimensional proximity theory with Social Network Analysis. This approach deepens the understanding of their structural evolution and influence mechanisms, shifting the focus from specific functional domains to a broader perspective on overall intercity cooperation networks (2) Empirical Contribution: By selecting the Pearl River–Xijiang Economic Belt—a region connecting economically developed and less developed cities—as a case study, the study provides valuable policy implications for narrowing regional disparities and promoting sustainable development in China and other emerging economies Despite its contributions, this study has certain limitations. Firstly, the exclusive reliance on publicly available government data may fail to capture informal cooperation, potentially leading to an underestimation of the overall intensity and diversity of intercity cooperation. Secondly, the selection of influencing factors is constrained by data availability, potentially omitting other relevant variables that affect the intercity cooperation network. Lastly, the study primarily adopts quantitative approaches (e.g., Social Network Analysis and PLS-SEM), which, while effective in revealing structural patterns, may fall short in capturing the underlying institutional logic, contextual dynamics, and policymaking processes To address these limitations, future research should consider incorporating emerging data sources (e.g., big data, social media) to refine the measurement of intercity cooperation and its influencing factors. Additionally, integrating qualitative methods—such as interviews, case studies, or discourse analysis of policy documents—could complement quantitative models by offering deeper insights into the mechanisms of intercity cooperation formation, performance, and institutional interplay. These enhancements would not only improve the granularity and timeliness of cooperation data, but also contribute to more nuanced theoretical understanding and provide stronger empirical support for the development of targeted and inclusive policy strategies aimed at sustainable regional development Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.S., R.S. and C.Z.; methodology, C.S. and R.S.; validation, C.S. and R.S.; resources, R.S. and C.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, C.S. and R.S.; writing—review and editing, C.Z. and Z.P.; supervision, Z.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 52468008 Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest References 1 Wei, Y.D.; Liefner, I. Globalization, Industrial Restructuring, and Regional Development in China Appl. Geogr 2012 , 32 , 102–105 [ CrossRef ] 2 Keating, M. Introduction: Rescaling Interests Territ. Politics Gov 2014 , 2 , 239–248. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 17 of 19 3 Albrechts, L. Strategic Planning and Regional Governance in Europe: Recent Trends in Strategic Planning and Responses to Address Emerging Issues and Problems. In China’s Pan-Pearl River Delta: Regional Cooperation and Development ; Hong Kong University Press: Hongkong, China, 2010; pp. 15–42 4 Wei, Y.D. Regional Development in China: Transitional Institutions, Embedded Globalization, and Hybrid Economies Eurasian Geogr. Econ 2007 , 48 , 16–36. [ CrossRef ] 5 Yu, Y.; Hamnett, C.; Ye, Y.; Guo, W. Top-down Intergovernmental Relations and Power-Building from below in China’s Urban Redevelopment: An Urban Political Order Perspective Land Use Policy 2021 , 109 , 105633. [ CrossRef ] 6 Chen, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhou, L. Which Works Better? Comparing the Environmental Outcomes of Different Forms of Intergovernmental Collaboration in China’s Air Pollution Control J. Environ. Policy Plan 2023 , 25 , 16–28. [ CrossRef ] 7 Lu, W.W.; Tsai, K.S. Inter-Governmental Vertical Competition in China’s Urbanization Process J. Contemp. China 2019 , 28 , 99–117 [ CrossRef ] 8 He, S.; Chung, C.K.L.; Bayrak, M.M.; Wang, W. Administrative Boundary Changes and Regional Inequality in Provincial China Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2018 , 11 , 103–120. [ CrossRef ] 9 Ostrom, V.; Tiebout, C.M.; Warren, R. The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry Am. Political Sci. Rev 1961 , 55 , 831–842. [ CrossRef ] 10 Melichová, K.; Varecha, L. Endogenous Political, Institutional, Cultural, and Geographic Determinants of Intermunicipal Cooperation—Evidence from Slovakia Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 709. [ CrossRef ] 11 Chen, B.; Suo, L.; Ma, J. A Network Approach to Interprovincial Agreements: A Study of Pan Pearl River Delta in China State Local Gov. Rev 2015 , 47 , 181–191. [ CrossRef ] 12 Wei, Q.; Yang, W. Addressing Uneven Development through State-Steered Intercity Cooperation? Insights from Shenzhen– Ganzhou Cooperation Plan-Making Reg. Stud 2024 , 59 , 2377669. [ CrossRef ] 13 Castanho, R.A.; Vulevic, A.; Fernández, J.C.; Fernández-Pozo, L.; Gómez, J.M.N.; Loures, L.C. Accessibility and Connectivity– Movement between Cities, as a Critical Factor to Achieve Success on Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) Projects. A European Analysis Sustain. Cities Soc 2017 , 32 , 181–190. [ CrossRef ] 14 Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yue, W.; Tang, C. Does Regional Cooperation Constrain Urban Sprawl? Evidence from the Guangdong- Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Landsc. Urban Plan 2023 , 235 , 104742. [ CrossRef ] 15 Xian, S.; Chan, R.C.; Qi, Z. Booming Provincial-Led North–South City-to-City Cooperation in China: A Case Study of Suzhou- Suqian Industrial Park of Jiangsu Province Cities 2015 , 46 , 44–54. [ CrossRef ] 16 Furmankiewicz, M.; Campbell, A. From Single-Use Community Facilities Support to Integrated Sustainable Development: The Aims of Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Poland, 1990–2018 Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5890. [ CrossRef ] 17 Shrestha, M.K.; Feiock, R.C. Local Government Networks. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 537–558 18 Shrestha, M.; Berardo, R.; Feiock, R. Solving Institutional Collective Action Problems in Multiplex Networks Complex. Gov. Netw 2014 , 1 , 49–60. [ CrossRef ] 19 Liu, Y.; Wu, J.; Yi, H.; Wen, J. Under What Conditions Do Governments Collaborate? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Air Pollution Control in China Public Manag. Rev 2021 , 23 , 1664–1682. [ CrossRef ] 20 Teles, F. Local Governments Working Together: Relevance and Motivations. In Local Governance and Inter-Municipal Cooperation ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–13 21 Chang, Y.; Hu, P.; Huang, Y.; Duan, Z. Effectiveness and Heterogeneity Evaluation of Regional Collaborative Governance on Haze Pollution Control: Evidence from 284 Prefecture-Level Cities in China Sustain. Cities Soc 2022 , 86 , 104120. [ CrossRef ] 22 Kallis, G.; Kiparsky, M.; Norgaard, R. Collaborative Governance and Adaptive Management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program Environ. Sci. Policy 2009 , 12 , 631–643. [ CrossRef ] 23 Vinca, A.; Parkinson, S.; Riahi, K.; Byers, E.; Siddiqi, A.; Muhammad, A.; Ilyas, A.; Yogeswaran, N.; Willaarts, B.; Magnuszewski, P.; et al. Transboundary Cooperation a Potential Route to Sustainable Development in the Indus Basin Nat. Sustain 2021 , 4 , 331–339. [ CrossRef ] 24 Zhang, X.; Cheung, D.M.-W.; Sun, Y.; Tan, J. Political Decentralization and the Path-Dependent Characteristics of the State Authoritarianism: An Integrated Conceptual Framework to Understand China’s Territorial Fragmentation Eurasian Geogr. Econ 2019 , 60 , 548–581. [ CrossRef ] 25 Huang, C.; Yi, H.; Chen, T.; Xu, X.; Chen, S. Networked Environmental Governance: Formal and Informal Collaborative Networks in Local China Policy Stud 2022 , 43 , 403–421. [ CrossRef ] 26 Shrestha, M.K. Self-Organizing Network Capital and the Success of Collaborative Public Programs J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2012 , 23 , 307–329. [ CrossRef ] 27 Lee, Y.; Lee, I.W.; Feiock, R.C. Interorganizational Collaboration Networks in Economic Development Policy: An Exponential Random Graph Model Analysis Policy Stud. J 2012 , 40 , 547–573. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 18 of 19 28 Demuynck, W.; Zhang, W.; Caset, F.; Derudder, B. Urban Co-Opetition in Megaregions: Measuring Competition and Cooperation within and beyond the Pearl River Delta Comput. Environ. Urban Syst 2023 , 101 , 101951. [ CrossRef ] 29 Zhang, R.; Tai, H.; Cheng, K.-T.; Cao, Z.; Dong, H.; Hou, J. Analysis on Evolution Characteristics and Dynamic Mechanism of Urban Green Innovation Network: A Case Study of Yangtze River Economic Belt Sustainability 2021 , 14 , 297. [ CrossRef ] 30 Hou, L.; Liu, Y.; He, X. Research on the Mechanism of Regional Innovation Network in Western China Based on ERGM: A Case Study of Chengdu-Chongqing Shuangcheng Economic Circle Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 7993. [ CrossRef ] 31 Yao, L.; Li, J.; Li, J. Urban Innovation and Intercity Patent Collaboration: A Network Analysis of China’s National Innovation System Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020 , 160 , 120185. [ CrossRef ] 32 Arieli, T. Intermunicipal Cooperation and Ethno-Social Disparity in Peripheral Regions Reg. Stud 2019 , 53 , 183–194. [ CrossRef ] 33 Boschma, R.; Frenken, K. The Spatial Evolution of Innovation Networks: A Proximity Perspective. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; pp. 120–135 34 Balland, P.-A.; Boschma, R.; Frenken, K. Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics Reg. Stud 2015 , 49 , 907–920 [ CrossRef ] 35 Boschma, R. Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment Reg. Stud 2005 , 39 , 61–74. [ CrossRef ] 36 Balland, P.-A. Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry Reg. Stud 2012 , 46 , 741–756. [ CrossRef ] 37 Cao, Z.; Derudder, B.; Peng, Z. Interaction between Different Forms of Proximity in Inter-Organizational Scientific Collaboration: The Case of Medical Sciences Research Network in the Yangtze River Delta Region Pap. Reg. Sci 2019 , 98 , 1903–1925. [ CrossRef ] 38 Alderson, A.S.; Beckfield, J. Power and Position in the World City System Am. J. Sociol 2004 , 109 , 811–851. [ CrossRef ] 39 Li, X.; Xiao, R. Analyzing Network Topological Characteristics of Eco-Industrial Parks from the Perspective of Resilience: A Case Study Ecol. Indic 2017 , 74 , 403–413. [ CrossRef ] 40 Zhang, Y.; Shao, C.; He, S.; Gao, J. Resilience Centrality in Complex Networks Phys. Rev. E 2020 , 101 , 022304. [ CrossRef ] 41 Watts, D.J. Networks, Dynamics, and the Small-World Phenomenon Am. J. Sociol 1999 , 105 , 493–527. [ CrossRef ] 42 Watts, D.J.; Strogatz, S.H. Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks Nature 1998 , 393 , 440–442. [ CrossRef ] 43 Bollen, K.A.; Long, J.S. Tests for Structural Equation Models: Introduction Sociol. Methods Res 1992 , 21 , 123–131. [ CrossRef ] 44 Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; et al. An Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. In Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R Classroom Companion: Business ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 1–29 45 Zhang, K.; Qian, Q.; Zhao, Y. Evolution of Guangzhou Biomedical Industry Innovation Network Structure and Its Proximity Mechanism Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2456. [ CrossRef ] 46 Torre, A.; Rallet, A. Proximity and Localization Reg. Stud 2005 , 39 , 47–59. [ CrossRef ] 47 Yang, X.; Shen, L.; Wang, X.; Qin, X. Spatial Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Intercity Innovative Competition Relations in China Systems 2024 , 12 , 87. [ CrossRef ] 48 Balland, P.-A.; De Vaan, M.; Boschma, R. The Dynamics of Interfirm Networks along the Industry Life Cycle: The Case of the Global Video Game Industry, 1987–2007 J. Econ. Geogr 2013 , 13 , 741–765. [ CrossRef ] 49 North, D.C. Institutions J. Econ. Perspect 1991 , 5 , 97–112. [ CrossRef ] 50 Cao, Z.; Derudder, B.; Peng, Z. Comparing the Physical, Functional and Knowledge Integration of the Yangtze River Delta City-Region through the Lens of Inter-City Networks Cities 2018 , 82 , 119–126. [ CrossRef ] 51 Andersson, D.E.; Gunessee, S.; Matthiessen, C.W.; Find, S. The Geography of Chinese Science Environ. Plan. A 2014 , 46 , 2950–2971 [ CrossRef ] 52 Tang, Z.L.; Zhang, Z. Identifying and Analysing Urban Linkage Networks at the National Level. In Research on Urban Networks in China: New Perspectives and Approaches ; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2022; pp. 92–111 53 Lin, J.; Tian, Y.; Yao, Q.; Shi, Y. Structural Characteristics of Intergovernmental Water Pollution Control Cooperation Networks Using Social Network Analysis and GIS in Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 13655 [ CrossRef ] 54 Hong, W.; Su, Y.-S. The Effect of Institutional Proximity in Non-Local University–Industry Collaborations: An Analysis Based on Chinese Patent Data Res. Policy 2013 , 42 , 454–464. [ CrossRef ] 55 Freeman, C.; Perez, C. Structural Crises of Adjustment, Business Cycles and Investment Behaviour. In Systems of Innovation ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2008; pp. 38–73 56 Cassi, L.; Plunket, A. Research Collaboration in Co-Inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities Reg. Stud 2015 , 49 , 936–954. [ CrossRef ] 57 Fleming, L.; Frenken, K. The Evolution of Inventor Networks in the Silicon Valley and Boston Regions Adv. Complex Syst 2007 , 10 , 53–71. [ CrossRef ] 58 Mascia, D.; Pallotti, F.; Angeli, F. Don’t Stand so Close to Me: Competitive Pressures, Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration Reg. Stud 2017 , 51 , 1348–1361. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2025 , 17 , 4709 19 of 19 59 Messeni Petruzzelli, A.; Albino, V.; Carbonara, N. External Knowledge Sources and Proximity J. Knowl. Manag 2009 , 13 , 301–318 [ CrossRef ] 60 Li, Y.; Wu, F. The Transformation of Regional Governance in China: The Rescaling of Statehood Prog. Plan 2012 , 78 , 55–99 [ CrossRef ] 61 Nijman, J.; Wei, Y.D. Urban Inequalities in the 21 st Century Economy Appl. Geogr 2020 , 117 , 102188. [ CrossRef ] 62 Alpaydın, U.A.R.; Fitjar, R.D. Proximity across the Distant Worlds of University–Industry Collaborations Pap. Reg. Sci 2021 , 100 , 689–712. [ CrossRef ] 63 Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008 , 18 , 543–571. [ CrossRef ] 64 Yu, J.; Xian, Q.; Cheng, S.; Chen, J. Horizontal Ecological Compensation Policy and Water Pollution Governance: Evidence from Cross-Border Cooperation in China Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2024 , 105 , 107367. [ CrossRef ] 65 Lejano, R.P.; Ingram, H. Collaborative Networks and New Ways of Knowing Environ. Sci. Policy 2009 , 12 , 653–662. [ CrossRef ] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘The Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influence Mechanisms of Intercity...’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Cognition, Proximity, Endogenous factors, Financial pressure, Internal structure, Globalization, Regional development, Five Year Plan, Dynamic evolution, Economic disparity, Environmental Science, Economic Disparities, Cronbach's alpha, Significance level, Institutional framework, Empirical study, Qualitative method, Knowledge Management, Transmission efficiency, Guangxi province, Regional Disparities, Administrative level, Structural equation modeling, Composite reliability, Average variance extracted, Effective governance, Local autonomy, Academic standard, Latent variable, Measurement model, Model fit indices, Structural model, Spatial pattern, Data availability, Key characteristics, Theoretical perspective, Policy document, Policy support, Policy coordination, Path coefficient, Infectious disease management, Valid records, Error term, Regional governance, Local area network, Development plan, Competitive pressure, Government website, Collaborative network, Institutional mechanism, National policy support, Regional coordination, Social network analysis, Functional domain, Clustering coefficient, Liu zhou, Environmental Policy, Industrial structure, MDPI, Governance challenge, Matthew effect, Network density, Nan ning, Network structure, Exogenous factor, UCINET, Regional cooperation, Cooperative relationship, Cronbach's alpha value, Statehood, Spatial inequality, Maritime Silk Road, Dummy variable, Influence mechanism, PLS-SEM, Inter-organizational collaboration, Collaborative governance, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, Geographical proximity, Network characteristics, Endogenous latent variables, SmartPLS, Policy intervention, Average Path Length, Social Network Analysis (SNA), Core cities, Policy implication, Economic belt, Sustainable Regional Development, Peripheral cities, Governance mechanism, Regional imbalance, Central hub, Growth pole, Observed variable, Cross-border cooperation, GIS Spatial Analysis, Preferential policies, Cohesive subgroup, Urban–rural gap, Informal institutions, Ecological compensation mechanism, Spatio-temporal evolution, Exogenous latent variable, Effective size, Network cohesion, Structural hole, Policy incentive, Degree of centrality, Developmental opportunities, Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, Geographical Remoteness, Composite Reliability Value, Formal institution, Coordinated regional development, Multidimensional Proximity, Implementation Opinions, University-Industry Collaboration, Local clusters, Supporting policies, Chinese-style federalism, Highway distance, Manual Screening, Data Structuring, Initial Development Stage, Spatial coordination, Intercity cooperation.