深圳不同类型农民工聚居区的社会融合及影响因素

doi:10.11821/dlyj020170657

Abstract

Abstract:

Since the reform and opening up, China's urbanization process has significantly accelerated its pace, with the national resident population urbanization rate increasing from 17.92% in 1978 to 56.1% in 2015. However, in late 2015, the national registered population urbanization rate is only 39.9%, which means that more than 200 million migrant workers are in the semi-urbanization state. For a long time, the separate administration of urban and rural areas has driven the migrant workers away from the urban system, making it difficult for them to enjoy the urban social security and social services like the urban citizens, which has brought about the institutional or non-institutional exclusion when they move into the urban areas. As a result, in the current process of urbanization in China, how to promote the social integration of migrant workers in the urban areas has become an important research topic. This paper selects Shenzhen, a metropolis with many migrant workers, as the research case. It focuses on the social integration of the three evolution types of rural migrant enclaves from the perspective of spatial differences. Based on the 1990, 2000 and 2010 census data in Shenzhen, this paper divides the evolution process of rural migrant enclaves into three types by using the location quotient, including the growing type, the stable type and the decaying type, and analyzes the differences of migrant worker social integration in Luofang village, Qinghu village and Gongle village respectively. It also carries out a questionnaire survey in the three types of rural migrant enclaves in Shenzhen in 2016, and explores the status and the influencing factors of migrant worker social integration in Shenzhen. The research findings are as follows: (1) Social integration of migrant workers in Shenzhen includes community integration, economic integration, social integration, cultural integration and psychological integration. (2) Luofang village has the highest level of social integration, followed by Gongle village and Qinghu village. Luofang village ranks first in terms of community integration, social integration and psychological integration. Gongle village has the highest economic integration. And Qinghu village enjoys the highest cultural integration. (3) Social integration of migrant workers is jointly influenced by community support, vocational skills, family size, length of residence in Shenzhen, and the age. Social integration in Luofang village is mainly influenced by community support, community function, the age and marital status, while social integration in Gongle village is mainly influenced by vocational skills, marital status and the age, and Qinghu village mainly by community support and length of residence in Shenzhen. (4) The most crucial factor contributing to the improvement of economic integration of migrant workers is not the rise of education level, but the improvement of vocational skills and the obtainment of vocational qualification certificates. Additionally, gender and community involvement have positive impact on community integration and negative impact on social integration, meaning that the more community activities one female participates in, the lower social integration and the higher community integration she will have.

Key words: migrant workers, rural migrant enclaves, social integration, influencing factor, Shenzhen

Gao YANG, Chunshan ZHOU. The difference of social integration and its influencing factors by different types of rural migrant enclaves in Shenzhen[J].GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 38(2): 297-312.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig. 1

Tab. 1

Fig. 2

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

Tab. 4

Tab. 5

Tab. 6

Tab. 7

Tab. 8

Multiple regression model of social integration of migrant workers by the three rural migrant enclaves"

	Z₁（社区融合）			Z₂（经济融合）			Z₃（社交融合）			Z₄（文化融合）			Z₅（心理融合）			Z（社会融合）
	罗芳	共乐	清湖	罗芳	共乐	清湖	罗芳	共乐	清湖	罗芳	共乐	清湖	罗芳	共乐	清湖	罗芳	共乐	清湖
性别（女）	-0.081	-0.309	0.077	0.004	0.203	-0.197	0.375	0.645^***	0.517	0.318	0.374	0.105	0.346	0.067	-0.254	0.091	0.121^*	0.011
年龄	-0.021	0.008	0.003	0.004	-0.011	-0.004	-0.021	-0.015	-0.016	-0.040^*	-0.002	-0.022	-0.034^**	-0.018	-0.005	-0.013^**	-0.003	-0.003
户籍所在地（广东省内）	0.161	-0.096	-0.345^*	-0.171	0.015	-0.054	0.121	-0.103	-0.148	0.011	0.057	-0.020	-0.042	-0.221	0.096	0.006	-0.059	-0.068
受教育程度（未受过正式教育）	0.209	-0.061	-0.018	0.293^**	0.269^***	0.261^**	-0.386^**	-0.070	-0.011	-0.313^*	0.011	-0.044	-0.113	0.032	-0.127	-0.027	0.015	0.022
婚姻状况（未婚）	0.387	0.129	0.088	0.127	0.226	0.237	-0.116	0.586^**	-0.082	0.622	0.171	0.044	1.010^**	0.168	-0.168	0.255^*	.1530	0.007
在深家庭成员共多少	0.218^*	-0.133	0.010	-0.047	0.060	0.088	-0.083	0.015	0.048	-0.001	0.028	0.194	0.070	0.264^**	-0.037	0.019	0.015	0.035
职业证书（没有）	-0.816^*	0.654^**	-0.175	0.722^**	0.504^**	0.279	0.232	0.495	0.455	0.409	0.045	0.047	0.326	0.215	-0.202	0.018	0.250^***	0.063
在深居住时间	0.032	0.011	0.023	0.016	0.035^*	0.021	0.019	0.043^**	0.078^**	-0.008	-0.029	-0.004	-0.007	0.041^*	0.013	0.008	0.007	0.013^*
社区社会支持度（非常不同意）	0.456^***	0.332^**	0.385^*	-0.071	0.233	-0.120	-0.090	0.160^*	0.251	0.323^*	0.087	0.052	0.315^**	0.093	0.257	0.104^**	0.133^***	0.121^**
社区活动参与度（不愿意参加）	0.085	0.432^**	-0.041	0.018	-0.121	0.010	-0.286	-0.235^*	-0.075	0.241	0.034	-0.088	0.267	-0.012	0.081	0.037	0.023	-0.027
社区功能（居住）	-0.101	0.066	0.005	0.218^**	0.074	0.026	0.184	-0.020	-0.073	0.140	-0.006	0.025	0.073	-0.021	0.062	0.066^*	0.018	0.024
社区环境（农村社区）	0.122	-0.072	-0.029	-0.138	0.026	-0.160	-0.017	0.027	-0.182	-0.311	-0.113	-0.114	0.139	0.173	0.428	-0.022	-0.001	-0.024
常量	-4.748	-0.142	-1.415	0.180	-1.236	-0.013	2.565	-0.907	0.300	-0.038	-0.778	0.790	-2.049	-0.779	-1.588	-0.677	-0.477	-0.276
F检验值	3.136^**	3.442^***	1.264	4.346^***	2.542^**	1.947^*	1.724^*	4.036^***	1.623^*	1.951^*	0.465	0.419	2.771^**	2.475^**	0.977	2.810^**	4.533^***	1.751^*
调整后的R²	0.634	0.586	0.452	0.694	0.528	0.533	0.519	0.616	0.498	0.543	0.257	0.280	0.610	0.523	0.407	0.613	0.639	0.512

Tab. 8

Tab. 9

References 38

[1]	顾海英, 史清华, 程英, 等. 现阶段“新二元结构”问题缓解的制度与政策: 基于上海外来农民工的调研. 管理世界, 2011, (11): 55-65.
	[Gu Haiying, Shi Qinghua, Cheng Ying, et al.The system and policy of alleviates "the new dual structure" problem at present stage: Based on the research of migrant workers in Shanghai. Management World, 2011, (11): 55-65.]
[2]	孙九霞, 周尚意, 王宁, 等. 跨学科聚焦的新领域: 流动的时间、空间与社会. 地理研究, 2016, 35(10): 1801-1818. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201610001
	[Sun Jiuxia, Zhou Shangyi, Wang Ning, et al.Mobility in geographical research: Time, space and society. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(10): 1801-1818.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201610001
[3]	Hirschman C.America's melting pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 1983, 9(3): 397-423. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002145
[4]	Park R E.Assimilation, social. In: Seligman E, Johnson A. In encyclopedia of the social sciences. New York: Macmillan. 1930: 281-283.
[5]	Zhou M.Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 1997, 31(4): 957-1008. doi: 10.2307/2547421 pmid: 12293212
[6]	Gordon M M.Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1964.
[7]	Remennick L.Language acquisition, ethnicity and social integration among former Soviet immigrants of the 1990s in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2004, 27(3): 431-454. doi: 10.1080/01491987042000189213
[8]	Klaff V Z.Pluralism as an alternative model for the human ecologist. Ethnicity, 1980, 7(1): 102-118.
[9]	Zelinsky W, Lee B A.Heterolocalism: An alternative model of the sociospatial behaviour of immigrant ethnic communities. International Journal of Population Geography, 1998, 4(4): 281-298. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1220(199812)4:4<281::AID-IJPG108>3.0.CO;2-O pmid: 12294528
[10]	Ellis M, Wright R, Parks V.Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2004, 94(3): 620-637. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00417.x
[11]	Hardwick S W.Nodal heterolocalism and transnationalism at the United States-Canadian border. The Geographical Review, 2006, 96(2): 212-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2006.tb00050.x
[12]	Goldlust J, Richmond A H.A multivariate model of immigrant adaptation. International Migration Review, 1974, 8(2): 193-225. doi: 10.2307/3002781
[13]	Portes A, Parer R N, Cobas J A.Assimilation or consciousness: Perceptions of U.S. society among recent Latin American immigrants to the United States. Social Forces, 1980, 59(1): 200-244. doi: 10.2307/2577841
[14]	Portes A.Social capital: The origins and application in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 1988, 24(1): 1-24. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
[15]	Kibreab G.Revisiting the debate on people, place, identity, and displacement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 1999, 12(4): 384-410. doi: 10.1093/jrs/12.4.384
[16]	Hume S E, Hardwick S W. African, Russian,Ukrainian refugee resettlement in Portland, Oregon. Geographical Review, 2005, 95(2): 189-209.
[17]	张文宏, 雷开春. 城市新移民社会融合的结构、现状与影响因素分析. 社会学研究, 2008, (5): 117-141.
	[Zhang Wenhong, Lei Kaichun.The urban new immigrants' social inclusion: Internal structure, present situation and influential factors. Sociological Studies, 2008, (5): 117-141.]
[18]	任远, 乔楠. 城市流动人口社会融合的过程、测量及影响因素. 人口研究, 2010, 34(2): 11-20.
	[Ren Yuan, Qiao Nan.Social integration for migrants: Process, measurement and determinants. Population Research, 2010, 34(2): 11-20.]
[19]	周皓. 流动人口社会融合的测量及理论思考. 人口研究, 2012, 36(3): 27-37.
	[Zhou Hao.Measurement and theoretical perspectives of immigrant assimilation in China. Population Research, 2012, 36(3): 27-37.]
[20]	薛艳. 基于分层线性模型的流动人口社会融合影响因素研究. 人口与经济, 2016, (3): 62-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4149.2016.03.007
	[Xue Yan.A research on the factors affecting social integration of floating population based on hierarchical linear model. Population & Economics, 2016, (3): 62-72.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4149.2016.03.007
[21]	杨菊华. 从隔离、选择融入到融合: 流动人口社会融入问题的理论思考. 人口研究, 2009, 33(1): 17-29.
	[Yang Juhua.From the segregation, selection to the assimilation: Theoretical perspectives of immigrant assimilation. Population Research, 2009, 33(1): 17-29.]
[22]	杨菊华. 中国流动人口的社会融入研究. 中国社会科学, 2015, (2): 61-79.
	[Yang Juhua.Research on the assimilation of the floating population in China. Social Sciences in China, 2015, (2): 61-79.]
[23]	汪明峰, 程红, 宁越敏. 上海城中村外来人口的社会融合及其影响因素. 地理学报, 2015, 70(8): 1243-1255. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201508005
	[Wang Mingfeng, Cheng Hong, Ning Yuemin.Social integration of migrants in Shanghai's urban villages. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(8): 1243-1255.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201508005
[24]	卢小君, 陈慧敏. 流动人口社会融合现状与测度: 基于大连市的调查数据. 城市问题, 2012, (9): 69-73.
	[Lu Xiaojun, Chen Huimin.Current status and measurement of social integration of migrants: The case of Dalian city. Urban Problems, 2012, (9): 69-73.]
[25]	任远, 陶力. 本地化的社会资本与促进流动人口的社会融合. 人口研究, 2012, 36(5): 47-57.
	[Ren Yuan, Tao Li.Localized social capital and social integration of migrants in urban China. Population Research, 2012, 36(5): 47-57.]
[26]	余运江, 高向东, 郭庆. 新生代乡—城流动人口社会融合研究: 基于上海的调查分析. 人口与经济, 2012, (1): 57-64.
	[Yu Yunjiang, Gao Xiangdong, Guo Qing.Research on social integration for new generation of rural-urban migrants: Based on the survey in Shanghai. Population & Economics, 2012, (1): 57-64.]
[27]	谢桂华. 中国流动人口的人力资本回报与社会融合. 中国社会科学, 2012, (4): 103-124.
	[Xie Guihua.Returns to human capital and social integration of migrants in China. Social Sciences in China, 2012, (4): 103-124.]
[28]	冯长春, 李天娇, 曹广忠, 等. 家庭式迁移的流动人口住房状况. 地理研究, 2017, 36(4): 633-646. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201704003
	[Feng Changchun, Li Tianjiao, Cao Guangzhong, et al.Housing outcomes of family migrants at the place of destination. Geographical Research, 2017, 36(4): 633-646.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201704003
[29]	田明, 博俊丽. 东部地区流动人口城市融入的比较研究. 人文地理, 2014, 29(1): 43-48.
	[Tian Ming, Bo Junli.A comparative study of migrant urban integration with principal component analysis. Human Geography, 2014, 29(1): 43-48.]
[30]	Defilippis J, Faust B.Immigration and community development in New York City. Urban Geography, 2014, 35(8): 1196-1214. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2014.952539
[31]	Darko J L.Through the Lenses of the Ghanaian Immigrant Community in the Washington D. C. Metropolitan Area. Cambridge: Howard University, 2014.
[32]	李志刚, 刘晔, 陈宏胜. 中国城市新移民的“乡缘社区”: 特征、机制与空间性: 以广州“湖北村”为例. 地理研究, 2011, 30(10): 1910-1920. doi: 10.11821/yj2011100017
	[Li Zhigang, Liu Ye, Chen Hongsheng.Characteristics, mechanism, and spatiality of neo-migrants' homeplace-based communities in China: A case study of Hubei village, Guangzhou. Geographical Research, 2011, 30(10): 1910-1920.] doi: 10.11821/yj2011100017
[33]	李志刚, 吴缚龙, 肖扬. 基于全国第六次人口普查数据的广州新移民居住分异研究. 地理研究, 2014, 33(11): 2056-2068. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201411006
	[Li Zhigang, Wu Fulong, Xiao Yang.Residential segregation of new migrants in Guangzhou, China: A study of the 6th census. Geographical Research, 2014, 33(11): 2056-2068.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201411006
[34]	吴晓. “边缘社区”探察: 我国流动人口聚居区的现状特征透析. 城市规划, 2003, 27(7): 40-45. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-1329.2003.07.009
	[Wu Xiao.An investigation into marginal community. City Planning Review, 2003, 27(7): 40-45.] doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-1329.2003.07.009
[35]	翟振武, 侯佳伟. 北京市外来人口聚集区: 模式和发展趋势. 人口研究, 2010, 34(1): 30-42.
	[Zhai Zhenwu, Hou Jiawei.Migrant population concentrated communities in Beijing: Patterns and trends. Population Research, 2010, 34(1): 30-42.]
[36]	周春山, 杨高, 王少剑. 深圳农民工集聚空间的演变特征及影响机制. 地理科学, 2016, 36(11): 1643-1653.
	[Zhou Chunshan, Yang Gao, Wang Shaojian.The characters and influencing mechanism of spatial-temporal variations of migrant workers in Shenzhen. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016, 36(11): 1643-1653.]
[37]	章文, 王佳璆. 基于PCA-SOM的深圳产业空间结构. 地理研究, 2014, 33(9): 1736-1746. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201409014
	[Zhang Wen, Wang Jiaqiu.A research on Shenzhen's industrial spatial structure based on PCA-SOM. Geographical Research, 2014, 33(9): 1736-1746.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201409014
[38]	杨菊华, 张娇娇. 人力资本与流动人口的社会融入. 人口研究, 2016, 40(4): 3-20.
	[Yang Juhua, Zhang Jiaojiao.Human capital and migrants' assimilation in China. Population Research, 2016, 40(4): 3-20.]

	罗芳村	共乐村	清湖村
类型	无依托缘聚型（增长型）	半依托混居型（稳定型）	完全依托混居型（减少型）
区位	中心城区边缘	中心城区外围中心区	中心城区外围
物质空间	目前的居住空间主要源于21世纪和90年代的两次重构,但内部缺乏休闲空间	在2000年以前,物质空间基本建设完成,但内部缺乏休闲空间	居住空间经历了一次外推和一次重构,内部缺乏教育空间
空间边界	具有明显的物质空间边界	物质空间边界较为模糊	有较为清晰的物质空间边界
居住空间	以多层住宅为主	以小高层和多层住宅为主	以小高层和高层住宅为主
人口	2015年户籍人口和外来人口分别为2000人和18000人左右	2015年户籍人口和外来人口分别为520人和20000人左右。	2015年户籍人口和外来人口分别为1300人和33000人左右
住房模式	以租房为主	以租房为主,以集体宿舍为辅,并有一定比重的自购房	以租房为主,以集体宿舍为辅
家庭结构	家庭结构稳定,流动性较小,平均在深家庭规模3.1人	家庭结构具有一定的稳定性,平均在深家庭规模2.4人	家庭结构缺乏稳定性,流动性较大,平均在深家庭规模仅为1.7人

序号	变量	指标	均值	最大值	最小值	标准差
1	人均居住面积(m²)	1=0-6,2=7-11,3=12-17,4=18-27,5=28-49,6=50-99,7=100及以上	2.85	7	1	1.289
2	目前的职业	1=无工作,2=产业工人,3=建筑工人,4=服务人员, 5=业务员,6=小型个体工商户,7=中大型个体工商户, 8=专业技术人员,9=中高层管理人员,10=办事人员	4.53	10	1	2.459
3	年收入(元)	1=0-19999,2=20000-39999,3=40000-49999,4=50000-59999,5=60000-69999,6=70000-79999,7=80000-99999,8=100000-199999,9=200000-499999,10=500000及以上	4.36	10	1	2.274
4	平时以讲什么话为主	1=家乡话,2=普通话	1.85	2	1	0.357
5	老家的一些风俗习惯在这边有延续下来吗	1=有,2=较少,3=很少,4=没有	2.38	4	1	1.243
6	在深圳您有多少亲人和熟悉的老乡(位)	1=0,2=1-5,3=6-10,4=11-20,5=20以上	3.59	5	1	1.216
7	在深圳您有多少好朋友(位)	1=0,2=1-5,3=6-10,4=11-20,5=20以上	2.80	5	1	1.191
8	您和该社区的居民多长时间会聊一次天	1=从来没有,2=1个月不到1次,3=一月1次,4=一周一次,5=两三天1次,6=每天	3.05	6	1	1.927
9	您上门拜访该社区居民的频率是	1=从来没有,2=1个月不到1次,3=一月1次,4=一周一次,5=两三天1次,6=每天	2.13	6	1	1.547
10	您对所在社区有很强的归属感	1=非常不同意,2=不太同意,3=一般,4=比较同意,5=非常同意	3.03	5	1	1.032
11	您对该社区和深圳的社会环境满意吗	1=非常不满意,2=不太满意,3=一般,4=比较满意,5=非常满意	3.36	5	1	0.976

序号	变量	指标（取值范围）	均值	最大值	最小值	标准差
1	年龄(周岁)	实际值	33.59	78	17	10.898
2	户籍所在地	1=广东省内,2=广东临近省份,3=其他省份	2.35	3	1	0.726
3	您的受教育程度	1=未受过正式教育,2=小学,3=初中,4=高中,5=中专,6=大专及以上	3.07	6	0	1.278
4	在深居住时间(年)	实际值	8.200	36.0	0.5	6.8120
5	目前所在住房家庭成员多少(位)	实际值	2.43	7	1	1.492
6	性别	1=女,2=男	1.59	2	1	0.492
7	婚姻状况	1=未婚,2=已婚	1.61	2	1	0.488
8	您是否获得过职业资格证书	1=没有,2=有	1.19	2	1	0.394
9	该社区成员对我（家人）很友好	1=非常不同意,2=不太同意,3=一般,4=比较同意,5=非常同意	3.41	5	1	0.832
10	若社区内有活动,您会	1=不愿意参加,2=看情况,3=愿意参加	2.10	3	0	0.686
11	社区功能	1=纯居住地,2=居住和生活地,3=居住和工作地,4=居住、生活和工作地	2.75	4	1	1.110
12	社区环境	1=农村社区,2=半农村半城市社区,3=城市社区	2.15	3	1	0.976

序号	原始变量	成分					共同度
序号	原始变量	1	2	3	4	5	共同度
1	您和该社区的居民多长时间会聊一次天	0.874	0.025	0.045	-0.107	0.050	0.782
2	您上门拜访该社区里的居民的频率是	0.846	0.025	0.121	-0.086	0.011	0.741
3	年收入	0.064	0.798	0.101	-0.029	-0.028	0.654
4	目前的职业	0.036	0.733	-0.016	0.280	-0.081	0.623
5	人均居住面积	-0.051	0.644	0.052	-0.388	0.209	0.623
6	在深圳您有多少好朋友	0.038	0.025	0.849	-0.103	0.003	0.740
7	在深圳您有多少亲人和熟悉的老乡	0.138	0.090	0.799	-0.026	0.093	0.677
8	平时以讲什么话为主	-0.087	-0.012	0.031	0.738	0.108	0.629
9	老家的一些风俗习惯在这边有延续下来吗	-0.094	0.044	-0.158	0.716	-0.047	0.568
10	您对该社区和深圳的社会环境满意吗	-0.071	-0.041	0.027	-0.042	0.881	0.786
11	您对所在社区有很强的归属感	0.425	0.091	0.118	0.128	0.602	0.602

因子	名称	初始特征值			旋转平方和载入
因子	名称	合计	方差(%)	累积%	合计	方差(%)	累积%
Z₁	社区融合	2.313	20.793	20.793	1.712	15.867	15.867
Z₂	经济融合	1.740	16.384	37.177	1.625	15.296	31.163
Z₃	社交融合	1.318	13.138	50.315	1.442	14.09	45.253
Z₄	文化融合	1.088	10.37	60.685	1.366	13.258	58.511
Z₅	心理融合	1.031	9.933	70.618	1.236	12.107	70.618

The difference of social integration and its influencing factors by different types of rural migrant enclaves in Shenzhen

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 38

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

	Z₁ （社区融合）	Z₂ （经济融合）	Z₃ （社交融合）	Z₄ （文化融合）	Z₅ （心理融合）	Z （社会融合）
无依托缘聚型（罗芳村）	39.59	33.64	52.94	54.77	61.85	50.12
半依托混居型（共乐村）	38.39	44.66	39.84	61.40	54.44	46.85
完全依托混居型（清湖村）	33.10	31.04	46.84	62.94	56.84	45.99
三类聚居区	37.08	36.70	46.34	59.74	57.62	47.64

	无依托缘聚型（罗芳村）	半依托混居型（共乐村）	完全依托混居型（清湖村）
社区融合	职业技能（负）	职业技能	（不显著）
	社区支持度	社区参与度
	在深家庭规模	社区支持度
经济融合	职业技能	职业技能	受教育程度
	受教育程度	受教育程度
	社区功能	在深居住时间
社交融合	受教育程度（负）	性别	在深居住时间
		婚姻
		社区参与度（负）
		在深居住时间
文化融合	社区支持度	（不显著）	（不显著）
	受教育程度（负）
	年龄（负）
心理融合	婚姻	在深家庭规模	（不显著）
	社区支持度	在深居住时间
	年龄（负）
社会融合	婚姻	职业技能	社区支持度
	社区支持度	社区支持度	在深居住时间
	社区功能	性别
	年龄（负）

[1]	ZHU Peijuan, LANG Zehui, HE Qingyun, ZHANG Meifang, WU Guoquan. The pattern characteristics and influencing factors of urban space fragmentation in Changsha [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(8): 1739-1754.
[2]	YANG Chengfeng, HAN Huiran, SONG Jinping. Relocation willingness and influencing factors of wholesale market merchants in the background of non-capital function dispersion: A case study of the Zoo Wholesale Market in Beijing [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(8): 1755-1768.
[3]	XUE Shuyan, LI Gang, MA Xueyao, LIU Ling, YANG Lan. The multidimensional spatio-temporal pattern and influencing factors of child trafficking in Guizhou province, China [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(7): 1691-1706.
[4]	JI Xuepeng, SONG Yaya, SUN Yanwei, WANG Danyang, MENG Hao, LI Shengfeng, HUANG Xianjin. Spatial-temporal variation of chemical industry and its influencing factors in the Yangtze River Delta from the perspective of industrial park admission rate of chemical enterprises [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(5): 1116-1127.
[5]	TONG Chunyang, ZHOU Yang. Achievements and influencing factors of help the poor in village in China's targeted poverty alleviation [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(5): 1128-1138.
[6]	LIN Jinping, LEI Jun, WU Shixin, YANG Zhen, LI Jiangang. Spatial pattern and influencing factors of oasis rural settlements in Xinjiang, China [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(5): 1182-1199.
[7]	WANG Xinge, ZHANG Xiyue, CHEN Tian. Influencing factors of tourists' cognition of local nostalgic cultural elements: Take Huizhou region as a case study [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(3): 682-695.
[8]	ZHANG Guojun, WANG Juehan, WU Kunjin, XU Zhihua. Spatial-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of coordination between economic and environmental development of three major urban agglomerations in China [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(2): 272-288.
[9]	ZHANG Shengrui, WANG Yingjie, JU Hongrun, ZHONG Linsheng. The regional differences of land border tourism development in China and influencing factors [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(2): 414-429.
[10]	XIAO Baoyu, ZHU Yu, LIN Liyue. Migrants' subjective social integration and its determinants as a result of the two-way process of assimilation and segregation: A case study of Fuzhou-Xiamen-Quanzhou Urban Cluster [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(12): 2796-2807.
[11]	LIANG Jingtian, WU Jiansheng, ZHAO Yuhao, CHEN Bikai, WANG Yi. Spatiotemporal characteristics and effects of ranking proclamation of PM_2.5 in Shenzhen based on sub-district monitoring network [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(11): 2642-2652.
[12]	XU Ning, LI Xiande, LI Weijiang. The spatial pattern and underlying factors of exited automobile ventures in China [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(10): 2295-2312.
[13]	MA Binbin, CHEN Xingpeng, CHEN Fangting, CHEN Yanbi, DINGBO Wenpeng. Spatial differentiation and influencing factors of China time-honored brand [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 39(10): 2313-2329.
[14]	GUO Fuyou, TONG Lianjun, LIU Zhigang, ZHAO Haijie, HOU Ailing. Spatial-temporal pattern and influencing factors of industrial ecology in Shandong province: Based on panel data of 17 cities [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 38(9): 2226-2238.
[15]	GU Hengyu,QIN Xiaoling,SHEN Tiyan. Spatial variation of migrant population's return intention and its determinants in China's prefecture and provincial level cities [J]. GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 38(8): 1877-1890.

	Z₁	Z₂	Z₃	Z₄	Z₅	Z
年龄	-0.002	-0.004	-0.010	-0.019^*	-0.019	-0.005^*
受教育程度（未受过正式教育）	-0.036	0.320^***	-0.118^*	-0.068	-0.045	0.005
在深居住时间	0.025^*	0.027^**	0.046^***	-0.017	0.025^*	0.010^***
在深家庭成员共多少	0.025	0.062	0.014	0.057	0.147^**	0.032^*
性别（女）	-0.272^*	0.072	0.376^**	0.397^**	0.023	0.064
户籍所在地（广东省内）	-0.061	-0.131	-0.016	0.050	-0.003	-0.028
婚姻状况（未婚）	0.140	0.189	0.206	0.170	0.123	0.096
职业证书（没有）	0.114	0.465^**	0.411^*	-0.015	0.037	0.115^*
社区活动参与度（不愿意参加）	0.172^*	-0.071	-0.161^*	0.058	0.071	0.009
社区功能（居住）	0.030	0.064	0.037	-0.011	0.027	0.026
社区环境（农村社区）	-0.016	-0.077	-0.053	-0.176	0.238^*	-0.014
社区社会支持度（非常不同意）	0.340^***	0.031	0.119	0.176^*	0.247^**	0.122^***
常量	-1.101	-0.511	0.110	-0.528	-1.523	-0.464
F检验值	4.877^***	7.103^***	4.034^***	1.997^*	3.638^***	7.850^***
调整后的R²	0.458	0.528	0.425	0.313	0.407	0.548