地理研究 ›› 2014, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (12): 2275-2285.doi: 10.11821/dlyj201412006

• • 上一篇    下一篇

中美城市居民出行行为的比较——以北京市与芝加哥市为例

赵莹1(), 柴彦威2, 关美宝3   

  1. 1. 中山大学旅游学院, 广州 510275
    2. 北京大学城市与环境学院城市与经济地理系, 北京 100871
    3. 伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳—香槟分校地理及地理信息科学系, 厄巴纳 61820,美国
  • 收稿日期:2014-04-06 修回日期:2014-10-13 出版日期:2014-12-10 发布日期:2015-03-13
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:赵莹(1985- ),女,吉林通化人,博士,讲师,主要从事行为地理学、旅游地理学、旅游者行为研究。E-mail:zhaoy233@mail.sysu.edu.cn

  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(41228001);中山大学青年教师起步资助计划项目(40000-31101400);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目(40000-31610119)

Comparison of urban residents' travel behavior in China and the U.S.: A case study between Beijing and Chicago

Ying ZHAO1(), Yanwei CHAI2, Mei-Po KWAN3   

  1. 1. School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
    2. College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
    3. Department of Geography and Geographic Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Urbana, 61820, USA;
  • Received:2014-04-06 Revised:2014-10-13 Online:2014-12-10 Published:2015-03-13

摘要:

中外城市比较研究是城市科学研究中的一个重要方面。不同社会文化背景、城市规划理念下城市居民日常行为的比较,对中国城市未来发展借鉴国际经验具有重要意义。当前,围绕中美城市空间发展及居民日常行为的研究多局限在经验性的理论讨论,鲜有基于一手数据的比较分析。开展基于活动—出行日志的中国北京与美国芝加哥城市中心区居民出行行为的对比,由此透视不同的城市空间结构对居民行为的时空制约差异。结果显示:北京居民的通勤距离较短,且表现出市中心指向性;而芝加哥居民的通勤距离较长,具有向城市远郊区扩散的趋势。居民日常出行中,工作目的出行距离最长,北京居民事务目的出行居次,而芝加哥休闲目的出行居次。北京居民倾向于慢行交通出行,而芝加哥居民依赖于小汽车出行。最后讨论了美国经验对中国城市空间健康发展的建议,以及中美城市比较研究的未来。

关键词: 城市比较, 出行行为, 通勤, 北京市, 芝加哥市

Abstract:

Comparative urban research is an important perspective for learning international experience and guide Chinese development, and urban residents’ travel behavior is a measurable phenomenon for exploring how different contexts and development stages have impact on residents’ daily activities. Previous studies mostly focus on theoretical discussions on urban spatial development and residents’ daily behavior in China and the U.S. rather than empirical studies based on first-hand surveys. This paper explores differences in behavioral patterns and space-time constraints of residents living in the urban centers of Beijing and Chicago. The datasets are based on Beijing activity diary survey of residents living inside the Fifth Ring Road and Chicago Regional Household Travel Inventory of residents living inside City of Chicago, both of which were collected in 2007. The datasets finally comprise data with two-day activity-travel diary from 715 individuals in Beijing and 589 individuals in Chicago. The results show that people in Beijing have relatively short commuting distance and center-oriented distribution, whereas people in Chicago have relatively long commuting distance and decentralized distribution. These are in consistent with the different suburbanization processes between China and the U.S. Suburbanization in China is mainly living space rather than employment centers. However, employment in large American metropolitan areas has been decentralized in a large extent. For socio-demographics, men with high household-income tend to travel long distance to work, which responds to intra-household gender division of labor and classical sector model in social space. For daily activities and travel, the purpose with the longest distance is work-related activities in both cities, but the second is maintenance-related activities in Beijing while the counterpart is entertainment-related activities in Chicago. For transport mode, people in Beijing prefer walking or bicycling, while people in Chicago are more likely to use cars. This paper generates some important insights on the development mode for future Chinese cities after considering the U.S. experience - i.e., developing sub-centers to form a multi-center spatial structure, improving urban facilities to reduce excess travel demands for maintenance and daily-shopping, encouraging people to keep using bicycles or walking instead of depending of cars. Discussions of the benefits and shortcomings associated with comparative urban research based on travel behavior analysis are provided, along with suggestions for future research.

Key words: comparative urban research, travel behavior, commuting, Beijing city, city of Chicago