The strong interconnectivity of urban regionalization has led to the cross-boundary nature of sudden incidents, and the frequent occurrence of such crises continually stimulates emergency cooperation among regions. In the face of tensions within the emergency cooperation framework, this paper employs the case of emergency cooperation practices in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) to construct a "Structure-Technology" analysis framework, offering a comprehensive examination of the internal logic driving effective intergovernmental emergency cooperation in the region. The study identifies several core mechanisms underpinning effective cooperation in the GBA: agreement-based safeguards, command coordination systems, information-sharing protocols, and an integrated early warning mechanism. Legitimacy in emergency cooperation is reinforced through regional planning and formal cooperative agreements, while intergovernmental collaboration is coordinated via joint meetings, the establishment of emergency command centers, and lead roles in multi-level prevention and control mechanisms. Technological tools empower these cooperative efforts, encompassing information systems and platforms that facilitate information sharing, as well as joint emergency drills, early warning information dissemination, and targeted warning prompts to strengthen proactive response efforts. The key to resolving tensions within regional emergency cooperation mechanisms lies in a coordinated approach encompassing both structural and technical dimensions.
LONG Yin
. Research on the combined effects of structure and technology in regional emergency cooperation: A case study of cross-boundary crisis in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area[J]. Urban Problems, 2025
, 361(8)
: 84
-93
.
DOI: 10.13239/j.bjsshkxy.cswt.250809
[1] Ansell C, Boin A, Keller A. Managing transboundary crises: Identifying the Building blocks of an effective response system[J]. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2010(4): 195-207
[2] 张海波. 应急管理中的跨区域协同[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学), 2021(1): 102-110
[3] 龙吟. 区域应急合作何以化解“属地—跨界”冲突——基于长三角地区开展危机学习的纵向案例研究[J]. 甘肃行政学院学报, 2024(2): 76-88
[4] 邢华. 我国区域合作治理困境与纵向嵌入式治理机制选择[J]. 政治学研究, 2014(5): 37-50
[5] 汤峰,蓝国瑜. 大数据治理技术与央地关系的优化——基于信息政治学视角的分析[J]. 公共行政评论, 2023(2): 138-156
[6] 陈武,张海波.极端灾难应急响应中的组织适应与信息流动——阜宁龙卷风案例研究[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2018(6):33-40
[7] Comfort L K. Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control[J]. Public Administration Review, 2007(s1): 189-197
[8] 林彬. 粤港澳大湾区府际应急协同的信息流通机制[J]. 城市观察, 2021(3): 28-37
[9] Kapucu N. Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary Spanners in Multiagency Coordination[J]. The American Review of Public Administration, 2006(2): 207-225
[10] 王薇. 跨域突发事件府际合作应急联动机制研究[J]. 中国行政管理, 2016(12): 113-117
[11] 吕孝礼,郭君,徐浩,等. 京津冀跨区域应急府际协议:结构、类型及变迁分析[J]. 甘肃行政学院学报, 2018(6): 48-57
[12] 胡建华,钟刚华. 跨区域公共危机协同治理的实践考察与创新模式研究[J]. 地方治理研究, 2022(1): 15-32
[13] 李楠楠. 跨区域应急协同治理的财政进路——以对口支援为切入点[J]. 中国行政管理, 2022(12): 127-135
[14] 李幸祥. 区域合作中的行政规范性文件协作制定机制研究——以长三角生态绿色一体化发展示范区为例[J]. 行政法学研究, 2021(5): 113-123
[15] 姚晨,樊博. “结构-功能”视角下的多元应急协作[J]. 东南学术, 2023(4): 114-125
[16] 陶振. 跨域公共危机治理中的府际联动:结构、类型与优化[J]. 广西社会科学, 2020(7): 60-68
[17] 李雪峰. 重大自然灾害应急指挥协调制度建设[J]. 理论与改革, 2016(5): 1-4
[18] 游志斌. 中国应急指挥部体系建设的战略方向探讨[J]. 中国行政管理, 2022(9): 140-145
[19] 刘银喜,张春颜. 数字赋能应急管理协同:结构响应、机制运行与效能输出[J]. 南京社会科学, 2024(9): 60-69
[20] 任宗哲,李笑宇. 我国公共危机治理的演进、问题与优化[J]. 西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022(5): 60-72
[21] 张海波. 应急管理的全过程均衡:一个新议题[J]. 中国行政管理, 2020(3): 123-130
[22] 刘星. 预警响应缘何失灵:基于应急管理过程论的一个解释框架——德国洪灾与河南暴雨的启示[J]. 云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022(6): 85-95
[23] 许文文. 开放与闭合:重大突发公共卫生事件中社会组织应急合作网络双模式——一项双案例比较分析[J]. 学习与实践, 2023(3): 98-108
[24] 徐明强. 牵头部门何以牵头:地方政府中心工作下的权威再分配与政策执行[J]. 中国行政管理, 2023(7): 135-144
[25] 林雪. 应急响应中的“决策失灵”[J]. 南京社会科学, 2020(11): 78-84
[26] 张海波. 论“应急失灵”[J]. 行政论坛, 2017(3): 45-52
