城市与乡村

转型期广州市居住迁移影响因素于户籍之间的比较

展开
  • 1. 华南师范大学地理科学学院,广州 510000;
    2. 中山大学城市与区域研究中心,广州 510275
刘望保 (1975-),男,博士,教师。研究方向为城市地理学。E-mail: liufeng09023@126.com *通讯作者 : 闫小培,女,教授,博士生导师。主要从事信息产业与城市发展、城市内部空间结构研究。

收稿日期: 2006-12-21

  修回日期: 2007-05-22

  网络出版日期: 2007-09-25

基金资助

国家杰出青年科学基金资助项目(40125003);香港浸会大学基金项目资助(HKBU2080/99H)

Comparison of influencing factors for residential mobility between different household register types in transitional urban China:A case study of Guangzhou

Expand
  • 1. College of Geography Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510000, China;
    2. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Received date: 2006-12-21

  Revised date: 2007-05-22

  Online published: 2007-09-25

Supported by

国家杰出青年科学基金资助项目(40125003);香港浸会大学基金项目资助(HKBU2080/99H)

摘要

住房制度改革以来,中国城市居住迁移率大规模增加,成为城市重构和社会空间分异的基础动力。利用生命历程理论,通过家庭问卷调查,本文使用事件史模型动态地模拟了居住迁移,并比较外来人口与本地人口居住迁移影响因素的差异。整体来看,1980年以来年均居住迁移率呈上升趋势,外来人口的年均居住迁移率要比本地人口高。住房性质、婚姻变化、工作变动、居住区位和年份等变量都显著影响居住迁移,反映了住房制度改革、住房市场和分配环境、家庭生命周期等因素对居住迁移的影响;但影响程度户籍间的差异明显,工作地区位的变动导致通勤成本的变化是外来人口居住迁移的最显著影响因子,而家庭生命周期和住房特征变量是本地人口居住迁移的最显著影响变量,反映了两者之间的本质差别。居住区位对本地人口的居住迁移影响显著,内圈层居民的迁移率相对较低,而居住区位变量对外来人口的影响相对较弱。

本文引用格式

刘望保, 闫小培 . 转型期广州市居住迁移影响因素于户籍之间的比较[J]. 地理研究, 2007 , 26(5) : 1055 -1066 . DOI: 10.11821/yj2007050022

Abstract

As a more and more important statistic method in studies of residential mobility, longitudinal analysis could dynamically simulate residential mobility because this analysis could relate residential mobility to not only specific events or triggers in personal or household's life, such as marriage change and the birth of a child, but also the main changes of housing market in a broader social and economic context. Making use of survey data collected in Guangzhou in 2005 and forming personal-year longitudinal data spanning from 1980 to 2005, the longitudinal analysis results show that residential mobility rate manifests a rising trend from 1980 to 2005 with close connection with housing reform process.Non-native population has evidently higher mobility rate than native population because non-native population has higher rate of employment change, leading to big probability of residential mobility. Housing types, marital status change, job change and time variable indicating the housing form process, housing market and distributional environment and household's life cycle respectively all have significant effects on residential mobility of non-native and native population, but the significant extent has big differences. Life-cycle change is more significant in causing residential mobility of native population, but job change which will change the commuting cost is more significant for the non-native population, indicating the essential differences between the non-native and the native population. Residential location has significant impacts on native population's residential mobility with higher probability of residential mobility of those who reside in the suburban area, but has insignificant impacts on residential mobility of the non-native population.

参考文献



[1] Rossi P H. Why Family Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility.New York: The Free Press.1955, 14~35.



[2] Brown L A, Moore E G.The intra-urban migration process: A perspective.Geografiska Annaler, 1970(52):1~12.



[3] Simmons J W. Changing residence in the city: A review of intra-urban mobility.Geographical Review, 1968(58): 622~651.



[4] Julian Wolpert. Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate.Papers of the Regional Science Association, 1965,15(1):159~169.



[5] Golant, Sttephen M. Adjustment process in a system: A behavioral model of human movement . Geographical Analysis, 1971,(3):203~220.



[6] White P. The West European City. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman.1985.40~55.



[7] Boyle P. Public housing as a barrier to long-distance migration.International Journal of Population Geography,1995,(1):147~164.



[8] Hamnett C.The relationship between residential migration and housing tenure in London, 1971-1981: A longitudinal analysis . Environment and Planning A,1991,(23):1147~1162.



[9] Moore E G, Rosenberg M W. Migration, mobility and population redistribution.In:Changing Social Geography of Canadian Cities.Bourne L S, Ley D F(eds. ).1993.121~137.



[10] Long L. Residential mobility difference among developed countries.International Regional Science Review, 1991(20): 133~147.



[11] Withers D. Linking household transitions and housing transitions: A longitudinal analysis of the renters. Environment and Planning A, 1998,(30): 615~630.



[12] 王兴中,等.中国社会空间结构研究.北京:科学出版社,2004.



[13] 史中华,柴彦威,刘志林.深圳市民迁居特征的时空分析.人文地理,2000,(3):37~42.



[14] 柴彦威,胡智勇,忤宗卿.天津城市内部人口迁居特征及机制分析.地理研究,2000,19(4):391~399.



[15] 冯健,周一星.郊区化过程中北京城市内部迁居及相关空间行为——基于千份问卷调查的分析.地理研究,2004,23(2):227~242.



[16] Li Siming. Life course and residential mobility in Beijing, China.Environment and Planning A,2004,(36): 27~43.



[17] Li Siming , Wang Donggen. Life course and residential mobility in Guangzhou . Occasional Paper, No.39. ISBN 962-8804-30-8.2003.1~25.



[18] 易峥.转型时期中国城市居住流动研究—以广州为例.广州:中山大学博士论文.2003.105~145.



[19] Dieleman F M, Everaers P C.From renting to owning: Life course and housing market circumstances. Housing Studies,1994,(9):11~25.
文章导航

/