World Regional Studies ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 146-158.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2023.09.2021664
Jinghong HE1,2(), Fenglong WANG1,3()
Received:
2021-09-16
Revised:
2022-01-20
Online:
2023-09-15
Published:
2023-09-25
Contact:
Fenglong WANG
通讯作者:
王丰龙
作者简介:
何静红(1996—),女,硕士, 研究方向为行为地理学,E-mail:51193902007@stu.ecnu.edu.cn。
基金资助:
Jinghong HE, Fenglong WANG. Change in neighborhood environment and its influencing factors before and after intra-urban residential mobility: A case study in Beijing[J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(9): 146-158.
何静红, 王丰龙. 城市内部居住迁移前后的社区环境变化及其影响因素——以北京市为例[J]. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(9): 146-158.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://sjdlyj.ecnu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2023.09.2021664
属性 | 类别 | 频数 | 占比/% | 属性 | 类别 | 频数 | 占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 男性 | 252 | 46.93 | 受教育程度 | 初中及以下 | 75 | 13.97 |
女性 | 285 | 53.07 | 高中 | 276 | 51.40 | ||
年龄 | 39岁以下 | 248 | 46.18 | 大学及以上 | 186 | 34.64 | |
40~59岁 | 217 | 40.41 | 家庭平均月收入 | 5 999元以下 | 63 | 11.73 | |
60岁以上 | 72 | 13.41 | 6 000~9 999元 | 165 | 30.73 | ||
婚姻状况 | 已婚 | 458 | 85.29 | 10 000~19 999元 | 225 | 41.90 | |
其他 | 79 | 14.71 | 20 000元以上 | 84 | 15.64 | ||
就业情况 | 有稳定工作 | 348 | 64.80 | 子女状况 | 有11岁以下的孩子 | 131 | 24.39 |
其他 | 189 | 35.20 | 无11岁以下的孩子 | 406 | 75.61 | ||
户籍类型 | 本地户口 | 467 | 86.96 | 汽车拥有情况 | 有 | 309 | 57.54 |
外地户口 | 70 | 13.04 | 无 | 228 | 42.46 |
Tab.1 Descriptive statistics of the samples' socioeconomic characteristics
属性 | 类别 | 频数 | 占比/% | 属性 | 类别 | 频数 | 占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 男性 | 252 | 46.93 | 受教育程度 | 初中及以下 | 75 | 13.97 |
女性 | 285 | 53.07 | 高中 | 276 | 51.40 | ||
年龄 | 39岁以下 | 248 | 46.18 | 大学及以上 | 186 | 34.64 | |
40~59岁 | 217 | 40.41 | 家庭平均月收入 | 5 999元以下 | 63 | 11.73 | |
60岁以上 | 72 | 13.41 | 6 000~9 999元 | 165 | 30.73 | ||
婚姻状况 | 已婚 | 458 | 85.29 | 10 000~19 999元 | 225 | 41.90 | |
其他 | 79 | 14.71 | 20 000元以上 | 84 | 15.64 | ||
就业情况 | 有稳定工作 | 348 | 64.80 | 子女状况 | 有11岁以下的孩子 | 131 | 24.39 |
其他 | 189 | 35.20 | 无11岁以下的孩子 | 406 | 75.61 | ||
户籍类型 | 本地户口 | 467 | 86.96 | 汽车拥有情况 | 有 | 309 | 57.54 |
外地户口 | 70 | 13.04 | 无 | 228 | 42.46 |
感知社区环境的评价指标 | 载荷值 | 迁移前均值 | 迁移后均值 | 均差 | t | p值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
因子1:设计与绿地 | — | 3.217 | 3.892 | 0.675 | 14.109 | 0.000 |
整体及建筑设计很美观 | 0.795 | 2.905 | 3.808 | 0.903 | 14.460 | 0.000 |
夜里路灯的照明情况很好 | 0.738 | 3.650 | 4.177 | 0.527 | 9.510 | 0.000 |
维护得很好 | 0.708 | 3.179 | 3.780 | 0.601 | 10.305 | 0.000 |
有很多绿地或公共休憩空间 | 0.711 | 3.155 | 3.803 | 0.648 | 10.350 | 0.000 |
因子2:噪声与安全性 | — | 3.142 | 3.597 | 0.455 | 9.026 | 0.000 |
街道上车辆很少 | 0.689 | 2.824 | 3.275 | 0.450 | 6.667 | 0.000 |
很安静 | 0.673 | 3.462 | 3.790 | 0.328 | 5.771 | 0.000 |
走路很安全 | 0.812 | 3.328 | 3.771 | 0.443 | 7.555 | 0.000 |
可以放心让孩子在户外活动 | 0.642 | 2.952 | 3.520 | 0.568 | 7.816 | 0.000 |
因子3:综合设施可达性 | — | 3.790 | 4.126 | 0.336 | 8.440 | 0.000 |
到市中心或大型购物中心很便捷 | 0.766 | 3.937 | 4.190 | 0.253 | 4.996 | 0.000 |
服务设施很多a | 0.682 | 3.199 | 3.758 | 0.559 | 9.553 | 0.000 |
坐公交车或地铁出行很方便 | 0.782 | 4.162 | 4.385 | 0.223 | 4.713 | 0.000 |
因子4:社会经济属性与社会交往 | — | 3.425 | 3.722 | 0.298 | 6.463 | 0.000 |
经济地位比邻居高 | 0.664 | 3.527 | 3.816 | 0.289 | 5.544 | 0.000 |
邻居之间的社会属性接近b | 0.816 | 3.469 | 3.831 | 0.361 | 6.505 | 0.000 |
邻居之间的交流很多 | 0.776 | 3.291 | 3.529 | 0.238 | 3.521 | 0.000 |
Tab.2 Rotated factor loadings and the paired-samples t test of changes in perceived neighborhood environment
感知社区环境的评价指标 | 载荷值 | 迁移前均值 | 迁移后均值 | 均差 | t | p值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
因子1:设计与绿地 | — | 3.217 | 3.892 | 0.675 | 14.109 | 0.000 |
整体及建筑设计很美观 | 0.795 | 2.905 | 3.808 | 0.903 | 14.460 | 0.000 |
夜里路灯的照明情况很好 | 0.738 | 3.650 | 4.177 | 0.527 | 9.510 | 0.000 |
维护得很好 | 0.708 | 3.179 | 3.780 | 0.601 | 10.305 | 0.000 |
有很多绿地或公共休憩空间 | 0.711 | 3.155 | 3.803 | 0.648 | 10.350 | 0.000 |
因子2:噪声与安全性 | — | 3.142 | 3.597 | 0.455 | 9.026 | 0.000 |
街道上车辆很少 | 0.689 | 2.824 | 3.275 | 0.450 | 6.667 | 0.000 |
很安静 | 0.673 | 3.462 | 3.790 | 0.328 | 5.771 | 0.000 |
走路很安全 | 0.812 | 3.328 | 3.771 | 0.443 | 7.555 | 0.000 |
可以放心让孩子在户外活动 | 0.642 | 2.952 | 3.520 | 0.568 | 7.816 | 0.000 |
因子3:综合设施可达性 | — | 3.790 | 4.126 | 0.336 | 8.440 | 0.000 |
到市中心或大型购物中心很便捷 | 0.766 | 3.937 | 4.190 | 0.253 | 4.996 | 0.000 |
服务设施很多a | 0.682 | 3.199 | 3.758 | 0.559 | 9.553 | 0.000 |
坐公交车或地铁出行很方便 | 0.782 | 4.162 | 4.385 | 0.223 | 4.713 | 0.000 |
因子4:社会经济属性与社会交往 | — | 3.425 | 3.722 | 0.298 | 6.463 | 0.000 |
经济地位比邻居高 | 0.664 | 3.527 | 3.816 | 0.289 | 5.544 | 0.000 |
邻居之间的社会属性接近b | 0.816 | 3.469 | 3.831 | 0.361 | 6.505 | 0.000 |
邻居之间的交流很多 | 0.776 | 3.291 | 3.529 | 0.238 | 3.521 | 0.000 |
类别 | 变量 | 度量与赋值(占比/均值) |
---|---|---|
客观环境改善 (因变量) | 综合设施可达性 | 二期与一期居住社区综合设施数量差值; 1=差值>0(36.31%),0=差值<=0 (63.69%) |
步行安全性 | 一期与二期社区人行道与机动车道隔离变化; 1=非隔离—隔离(15.27%),0=非隔离—非隔离、隔离—隔离与隔离—非隔离(84.73%) | |
步行通畅性 | 二期与一期的社区人行道连续程度差值; 1=差值>0(11.92%);0=差值<=0(88.08%) | |
社区区位变化 | 1=以内城为目的地(24.58%),0=以郊区为目的地(75.42%) | |
主观环境改善 (因变量) | 设计与绿地 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(70.02%),0=差值<=0(29.98%) |
噪声与安全性 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(67.04%),0=差值<=0(32.96%) | |
综合设施可达性 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(65.55%),0=差值<=0(34.45%) | |
邻里经济属性与社会交往 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(56.42%),0=差值<=0(43.58%) | |
生命历程事件 (自变量) | 婚姻状况变化 | 二期与一期婚姻状况对比; 0=不变(93.85%),1=结婚(4.10%),2=离婚(2.05%) |
工作状况变化 | 二期与一期工作状况对比; 0=不变(88.07%),1=失/待业(1.68%),2=就业(4.66%),3=退休(5.59%) | |
孩子出生情况 | 二期与一期11岁以下孩子情况对比; 0=无孩子出生(89.57%),1=孩子出生(10.43%) | |
孩子上初中 | 二期与一期12岁以上孩子情况对比; 0=无(86.59%),1=孩子上初中(13.41 %) | |
住房调整 (自变量) | 人均住房面积变化* | 二期与一期人均住房面积差值(5.84) |
住房产权转变 | 1=R-R(11.55%),2=R-O(29.24%),3=O-R(4.10%),4=O-O(55.12%) | |
住房类型变化 | 二期与一期人均住房类型差值;0=不变(44.14%),1=S-C(18.06%),2=C-S(13.41%),3=C-O(1.12%),4=O-S(10.61%),5=O-C(12.66%) | |
迁居原因 (自变量) | 1=家庭变化(27.37%),2=工作变动(10.24%),3=经济因素(3.17%),4=改善住房条件(44.51%),5=改善社区环境(9.31%),6=其他(5.40%) | |
家庭与个人社会经济属性 (自变量) | 年龄 | 0=39岁以下(46.18%),1=40-59岁(40.41%),2=60岁以上(13.41%) |
性别 | 0=女性(53.07%),1=男性(46.93%) | |
户口性质 | 0=外地户口(13.04%),1=本地户口(86.96%) | |
家庭月均收入 | 0=5 999元以下(11.73%),1=6 000~9 999元(30.73%),2=10 000~19 999元(41.9%),3=20 000元以上(15.64%) | |
子女状况 | 0=无11岁以下孩子(75.61%),1=有11岁以下孩子(24.39%) | |
受教育程度 | 0=初中及以下(13.96%),1=高中学历(51.40%),2=大学及以上(34.64%) | |
婚姻状况 | 0=其他(14.71%),1=已婚(85.29%) | |
工作状况 | 0=无稳定工作(5.96%),1=有稳定工作(64.80%),2=已退休(29.24%) |
Tab.3 Variables definition and descriptive analysis
类别 | 变量 | 度量与赋值(占比/均值) |
---|---|---|
客观环境改善 (因变量) | 综合设施可达性 | 二期与一期居住社区综合设施数量差值; 1=差值>0(36.31%),0=差值<=0 (63.69%) |
步行安全性 | 一期与二期社区人行道与机动车道隔离变化; 1=非隔离—隔离(15.27%),0=非隔离—非隔离、隔离—隔离与隔离—非隔离(84.73%) | |
步行通畅性 | 二期与一期的社区人行道连续程度差值; 1=差值>0(11.92%);0=差值<=0(88.08%) | |
社区区位变化 | 1=以内城为目的地(24.58%),0=以郊区为目的地(75.42%) | |
主观环境改善 (因变量) | 设计与绿地 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(70.02%),0=差值<=0(29.98%) |
噪声与安全性 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(67.04%),0=差值<=0(32.96%) | |
综合设施可达性 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(65.55%),0=差值<=0(34.45%) | |
邻里经济属性与社会交往 | 二期与一期公因子的加权平均分差值(权重为各指标因子载荷); 1=差值>0(56.42%),0=差值<=0(43.58%) | |
生命历程事件 (自变量) | 婚姻状况变化 | 二期与一期婚姻状况对比; 0=不变(93.85%),1=结婚(4.10%),2=离婚(2.05%) |
工作状况变化 | 二期与一期工作状况对比; 0=不变(88.07%),1=失/待业(1.68%),2=就业(4.66%),3=退休(5.59%) | |
孩子出生情况 | 二期与一期11岁以下孩子情况对比; 0=无孩子出生(89.57%),1=孩子出生(10.43%) | |
孩子上初中 | 二期与一期12岁以上孩子情况对比; 0=无(86.59%),1=孩子上初中(13.41 %) | |
住房调整 (自变量) | 人均住房面积变化* | 二期与一期人均住房面积差值(5.84) |
住房产权转变 | 1=R-R(11.55%),2=R-O(29.24%),3=O-R(4.10%),4=O-O(55.12%) | |
住房类型变化 | 二期与一期人均住房类型差值;0=不变(44.14%),1=S-C(18.06%),2=C-S(13.41%),3=C-O(1.12%),4=O-S(10.61%),5=O-C(12.66%) | |
迁居原因 (自变量) | 1=家庭变化(27.37%),2=工作变动(10.24%),3=经济因素(3.17%),4=改善住房条件(44.51%),5=改善社区环境(9.31%),6=其他(5.40%) | |
家庭与个人社会经济属性 (自变量) | 年龄 | 0=39岁以下(46.18%),1=40-59岁(40.41%),2=60岁以上(13.41%) |
性别 | 0=女性(53.07%),1=男性(46.93%) | |
户口性质 | 0=外地户口(13.04%),1=本地户口(86.96%) | |
家庭月均收入 | 0=5 999元以下(11.73%),1=6 000~9 999元(30.73%),2=10 000~19 999元(41.9%),3=20 000元以上(15.64%) | |
子女状况 | 0=无11岁以下孩子(75.61%),1=有11岁以下孩子(24.39%) | |
受教育程度 | 0=初中及以下(13.96%),1=高中学历(51.40%),2=大学及以上(34.64%) | |
婚姻状况 | 0=其他(14.71%),1=已婚(85.29%) | |
工作状况 | 0=无稳定工作(5.96%),1=有稳定工作(64.80%),2=已退休(29.24%) |
情况 | 1(迁居后) | 2(迁居后) | 3(迁居后) | 4(迁居后) | 5(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5(迁居前) | 2(0.8%) | 12(4.78%) | 48(19.12%) | 89(35.46%) | 100(39.84%) | 251(100%) |
4(迁居前) | 1(0.62%) | 16(9.88%) | 26(16.05%) | 63(38.89%) | 56(34.57%) | 162(100%) |
3(迁居前) | 4(4.3%) | 0 | 9(9.68%) | 36(38.71%) | 44(47.31%) | 93(100%) |
2(迁居前) | 0 | 0 | 3(14.29%) | 11(52.38%) | 7(33.33%) | 21(100%) |
1(迁居前) | 0 | 2(20%) | 3(30%) | 1(10%) | 4(40%) | 10(100%) |
N | 7(1.3%) | 30(5.59%) | 89(16.57%) | 200(37.24%) | 211(39.29%) | 537(100%) |
Tab.4 Row probabilities of transition between quintiles of number of facilities within a 15 min walk
情况 | 1(迁居后) | 2(迁居后) | 3(迁居后) | 4(迁居后) | 5(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5(迁居前) | 2(0.8%) | 12(4.78%) | 48(19.12%) | 89(35.46%) | 100(39.84%) | 251(100%) |
4(迁居前) | 1(0.62%) | 16(9.88%) | 26(16.05%) | 63(38.89%) | 56(34.57%) | 162(100%) |
3(迁居前) | 4(4.3%) | 0 | 9(9.68%) | 36(38.71%) | 44(47.31%) | 93(100%) |
2(迁居前) | 0 | 0 | 3(14.29%) | 11(52.38%) | 7(33.33%) | 21(100%) |
1(迁居前) | 0 | 2(20%) | 3(30%) | 1(10%) | 4(40%) | 10(100%) |
N | 7(1.3%) | 30(5.59%) | 89(16.57%) | 200(37.24%) | 211(39.29%) | 537(100%) |
情况 | 隔离(迁居后) | 非隔离(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|
隔离(迁居前) | 100(18.62%) | 82(15.27%) | 182(33.89%) |
非隔离(迁居前) | 240(44.69%) | 115(21.42%) | 355(66.18%) |
N | 340(63.31%) | 197(36.69%) | 537(100%) |
Tab.5 2×2 cross-tabulation of the change in the status of isolation of neighborhood sidewalks and motorways
情况 | 隔离(迁居后) | 非隔离(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|
隔离(迁居前) | 100(18.62%) | 82(15.27%) | 182(33.89%) |
非隔离(迁居前) | 240(44.69%) | 115(21.42%) | 355(66.18%) |
N | 340(63.31%) | 197(36.69%) | 537(100%) |
情况 | 很难通行(迁居后) | 时断时续(迁居后) | 基本连续(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|---|
基本连续(迁居前) | 0 | 62(16.06%) | 324(83.94%) | 386(100%) |
时断时续(迁居前) | 2(1.53%) | 28(21.37%) | 101(77.1%) | 131(100%) |
很难通行(迁居前) | 0 | 3(15%) | 17(85%) | 20(100%) |
N | 2(0.37%) | 93(17.32%) | 442(82.31%) | 537(100%) |
Tab.6 Row probabilities of transition between tertiles of neighborhood sidewalk continuity
情况 | 很难通行(迁居后) | 时断时续(迁居后) | 基本连续(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|---|
基本连续(迁居前) | 0 | 62(16.06%) | 324(83.94%) | 386(100%) |
时断时续(迁居前) | 2(1.53%) | 28(21.37%) | 101(77.1%) | 131(100%) |
很难通行(迁居前) | 0 | 3(15%) | 17(85%) | 20(100%) |
N | 2(0.37%) | 93(17.32%) | 442(82.31%) | 537(100%) |
情况 | 郊区(迁居后) | 内城(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|
郊区(迁居前) | 263(86.80%) | 40(13.20%) | 303(56.42%) |
内城(迁居前) | 142(60.68%) | 92(39.32%) | 234(43.58%) |
总计 | 405(75.42%) | 132(24.58%) | 537(100%) |
Tab.7 Neighborhood location changes before and after residential mobility
情况 | 郊区(迁居后) | 内城(迁居后) | N |
---|---|---|---|
郊区(迁居前) | 263(86.80%) | 40(13.20%) | 303(56.42%) |
内城(迁居前) | 142(60.68%) | 92(39.32%) | 234(43.58%) |
总计 | 405(75.42%) | 132(24.58%) | 537(100%) |
变量 | 客观社区环境变化 | 感知社区环境变化 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
客观综合设施可达性 | 步行安全性 | 步行通畅性 | 社区区位变化 | 设计与绿地 | 噪声与安全性 | 邻里经济属性与社会交往 | 综合设施可达性 | |||
生命历程事件 | 婚姻状况变化(参照组:离婚) | 无变化 | 2.132 | 2.579 | 1.003 | 2.280 | 2.347 | 5.296** | 0.996 | 1.348 |
结婚 | 3.144 | 1.741 | 1.900 | 0.812 | 0.903 | 2.805 | 0.421 | 0.300 | ||
工作状况变化(参照组:无变化) | 失/待业 | 1.276 | 0.174* | 0.382 | 6.815* | 1.774 | 3.669 | 1.053 | 1.852 | |
就业 | 1.108 | 0.935 | 0.281* | 2.066 | 1.303 | 0.710 | 0.646 | 0.996 | ||
退休 | 1.578 | 1.105 | 0.477 | 1.612 | 2.145 | 1.336 | 1.388 | 0.786 | ||
小孩出生 | 0.812 | 0.967 | 0.643 | 0.279** | 1.686 | 5.198*** | 1.449 | 1.036 | ||
小孩上初中 | 1.228 | 0.786 | 1.103 | 0.849 | 0.339*** | 0.497** | 0.553* | 0.815 | ||
住房调整 | 人均住房面积变化 | 0.993 | 1.008 | 0.985** | 0.997 | 0.982*** | 0.996 | 0.997 | 0.981*** | |
住房产权转变(参照组:O-R) | R-R | 0.574 | 0.115*** | 0.836 | 0.456 | 1.744 | 0.792 | 2.966* | 1.971 | |
R-O | 0.625 | 0.201*** | 2.285 | 0.500 | 2.298 | 0.543 | 1.886 | 1.971 | ||
O-O | 0.726 | 0.331** | 2.112 | 0.562 | 2.141 | 0.887 | 1.831 | 1.776 | ||
住房类型调整(参照组:O-C) | 不变 | 0.358*** | 0.787 | 0.390** | 0.291*** | 1.183 | 0.752 | 2.680*** | 0.787 | |
S-C | 0.356*** | 0.814 | 2.798*** | 0.935 | 1.800 | 2.090* | 2.853*** | 1.428 | ||
C-S | 0.540 | 0.858 | 0.890 | 0.530 | 1.392 | 0.643 | 2.386** | 1.228 | ||
C-O | 0.393 | 0.744 | — | — | 1.218 | 0.545 | 2.420 | 0.974 | ||
O-S | 0.504* | 0.804 | 1.506 | 0.591 | 2.043 | 0.563 | 1.557 | 3.313** | ||
迁居原因(参照组:其他) | 家庭变化 | 0.661 | 0.941 | 1.447 | 0.623 | 2.172 | 2.713** | 1.531 | 2.481** | |
工作变动 | 0.901 | 0.743 | 0.820 | 0.237** | 0.991 | 1.213 | 3.602** | 3.427** | ||
经济因素 | 0.700 | 1.070 | 0.717 | 0.319 | 7.540* | 3.836 | 3.696* | 4.481** | ||
改善住房条件 | 0.421* | 1.218 | 1.349 | 0.142*** | 2.555** | 2.619** | 1.441 | 2.483** | ||
改善社区环境 | 0.544 | 0.873 | 2.591 | 0.172*** | 1.546 | 7.270*** | 4.581*** | 5.129*** | ||
家庭与个人社会经济属性 | 年龄(参照组:39岁以下) | 40~59岁 | 2.251*** | 2.080*** | 0.782 | 2.268** | 1.506 | 1.608 | 1.302 | 0.847 |
60岁以上 | 2.063 | 1.568 | 0.674 | 2.234 | 2.929** | 1.545 | 1.364 | 0.871 | ||
男性 | 1.168 | 1.132 | 0.930 | 1.262 | 1.276 | 1.009 | 0.975 | 0.962 | ||
本地户口 | 0.322*** | 0.690 | 2.991** | 2.997** | 0.815 | 0.626 | 0.719 | 0.962 | ||
家庭月均收入(参照组:5 999元以下) | 6 000~9 999 | 2.064* | 1.623 | 0.337** | 1.013 | 1.083 | 1.264 | 2.742*** | 1.544 | |
10 000~19 999 | 1.323 | 2.858*** | 0.686 | 1.011 | 2.002* | 1.462 | 1.867* | 0.891 | ||
20 000以上 | 1.499 | 2.785** | 0.933 | 0.486 | 0.912 | 0.507 | 0.597 | 0.727 | ||
有11岁以下孩子 | 1.927** | 0.971 | 1.591 | 0.939 | 0.311*** | 0.162*** | 2.113** | 0.656 | ||
受教育程度(参照组:初中及以下) | 高中 | 0.982 | 1.063 | 0.885 | 0.564 | 2.482** | 1.236 | 0.955 | 0.742 | |
大学及以上 | 1.638 | 1.102 | 0.735 | 0.749 | 2.417* | 1.439 | 1.222 | 0.843 | ||
已婚 | 0.973 | 0.563* | 1.041 | 0.747 | 0.828 | 0.376** | 1.187 | 1.478 | ||
工作状况(参照组:无稳定工作) | 有稳定工作 | 0.727 | 0.336** | 1.604 | 5.696** | 0.912 | 1.460 | 0.778 | 0.818 | |
已退休 | 0.433 | 0.357* | 1.500 | 3.221 | 0.650 | 1.568 | 0.610 | 0.897 |
Tab.8 Binary Logistic regression results of subjective and objective environmental changes
变量 | 客观社区环境变化 | 感知社区环境变化 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
客观综合设施可达性 | 步行安全性 | 步行通畅性 | 社区区位变化 | 设计与绿地 | 噪声与安全性 | 邻里经济属性与社会交往 | 综合设施可达性 | |||
生命历程事件 | 婚姻状况变化(参照组:离婚) | 无变化 | 2.132 | 2.579 | 1.003 | 2.280 | 2.347 | 5.296** | 0.996 | 1.348 |
结婚 | 3.144 | 1.741 | 1.900 | 0.812 | 0.903 | 2.805 | 0.421 | 0.300 | ||
工作状况变化(参照组:无变化) | 失/待业 | 1.276 | 0.174* | 0.382 | 6.815* | 1.774 | 3.669 | 1.053 | 1.852 | |
就业 | 1.108 | 0.935 | 0.281* | 2.066 | 1.303 | 0.710 | 0.646 | 0.996 | ||
退休 | 1.578 | 1.105 | 0.477 | 1.612 | 2.145 | 1.336 | 1.388 | 0.786 | ||
小孩出生 | 0.812 | 0.967 | 0.643 | 0.279** | 1.686 | 5.198*** | 1.449 | 1.036 | ||
小孩上初中 | 1.228 | 0.786 | 1.103 | 0.849 | 0.339*** | 0.497** | 0.553* | 0.815 | ||
住房调整 | 人均住房面积变化 | 0.993 | 1.008 | 0.985** | 0.997 | 0.982*** | 0.996 | 0.997 | 0.981*** | |
住房产权转变(参照组:O-R) | R-R | 0.574 | 0.115*** | 0.836 | 0.456 | 1.744 | 0.792 | 2.966* | 1.971 | |
R-O | 0.625 | 0.201*** | 2.285 | 0.500 | 2.298 | 0.543 | 1.886 | 1.971 | ||
O-O | 0.726 | 0.331** | 2.112 | 0.562 | 2.141 | 0.887 | 1.831 | 1.776 | ||
住房类型调整(参照组:O-C) | 不变 | 0.358*** | 0.787 | 0.390** | 0.291*** | 1.183 | 0.752 | 2.680*** | 0.787 | |
S-C | 0.356*** | 0.814 | 2.798*** | 0.935 | 1.800 | 2.090* | 2.853*** | 1.428 | ||
C-S | 0.540 | 0.858 | 0.890 | 0.530 | 1.392 | 0.643 | 2.386** | 1.228 | ||
C-O | 0.393 | 0.744 | — | — | 1.218 | 0.545 | 2.420 | 0.974 | ||
O-S | 0.504* | 0.804 | 1.506 | 0.591 | 2.043 | 0.563 | 1.557 | 3.313** | ||
迁居原因(参照组:其他) | 家庭变化 | 0.661 | 0.941 | 1.447 | 0.623 | 2.172 | 2.713** | 1.531 | 2.481** | |
工作变动 | 0.901 | 0.743 | 0.820 | 0.237** | 0.991 | 1.213 | 3.602** | 3.427** | ||
经济因素 | 0.700 | 1.070 | 0.717 | 0.319 | 7.540* | 3.836 | 3.696* | 4.481** | ||
改善住房条件 | 0.421* | 1.218 | 1.349 | 0.142*** | 2.555** | 2.619** | 1.441 | 2.483** | ||
改善社区环境 | 0.544 | 0.873 | 2.591 | 0.172*** | 1.546 | 7.270*** | 4.581*** | 5.129*** | ||
家庭与个人社会经济属性 | 年龄(参照组:39岁以下) | 40~59岁 | 2.251*** | 2.080*** | 0.782 | 2.268** | 1.506 | 1.608 | 1.302 | 0.847 |
60岁以上 | 2.063 | 1.568 | 0.674 | 2.234 | 2.929** | 1.545 | 1.364 | 0.871 | ||
男性 | 1.168 | 1.132 | 0.930 | 1.262 | 1.276 | 1.009 | 0.975 | 0.962 | ||
本地户口 | 0.322*** | 0.690 | 2.991** | 2.997** | 0.815 | 0.626 | 0.719 | 0.962 | ||
家庭月均收入(参照组:5 999元以下) | 6 000~9 999 | 2.064* | 1.623 | 0.337** | 1.013 | 1.083 | 1.264 | 2.742*** | 1.544 | |
10 000~19 999 | 1.323 | 2.858*** | 0.686 | 1.011 | 2.002* | 1.462 | 1.867* | 0.891 | ||
20 000以上 | 1.499 | 2.785** | 0.933 | 0.486 | 0.912 | 0.507 | 0.597 | 0.727 | ||
有11岁以下孩子 | 1.927** | 0.971 | 1.591 | 0.939 | 0.311*** | 0.162*** | 2.113** | 0.656 | ||
受教育程度(参照组:初中及以下) | 高中 | 0.982 | 1.063 | 0.885 | 0.564 | 2.482** | 1.236 | 0.955 | 0.742 | |
大学及以上 | 1.638 | 1.102 | 0.735 | 0.749 | 2.417* | 1.439 | 1.222 | 0.843 | ||
已婚 | 0.973 | 0.563* | 1.041 | 0.747 | 0.828 | 0.376** | 1.187 | 1.478 | ||
工作状况(参照组:无稳定工作) | 有稳定工作 | 0.727 | 0.336** | 1.604 | 5.696** | 0.912 | 1.460 | 0.778 | 0.818 | |
已退休 | 0.433 | 0.357* | 1.500 | 3.221 | 0.650 | 1.568 | 0.610 | 0.897 |
1 | COULTER R, VANHAM M. Following people through time: An analysis of individual residential mobility biographies. Housing Studies, 2013, 28(7): 1037-1055. |
2 | KIM J. Residential and job mobility: Interregional variation and their interplay in us metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 2014, 51(13): 2863-2879. |
3 | WANG F, WANG D. Changes in residential satisfaction after home relocation: A longitudinal study in Beijing, China. Urban Studies. 2020, 57(3): 583-601. |
4 | 侯明, 王茂军. 居民迁居行为研究综述. 首都师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 35(3): 95-100. |
HOU M, WANG M. A review on studies about residents' behavior of changing residence. Journal of Capital Normal University( Natural Science Edition), 2014, 35(3): 95-100. | |
5 | 宋伟轩,陈培阳,胡咏嘉.中西方城市内部居住迁移研究述评.城市规划学刊, 2015(5): 45-49. |
SONG W, CHEN P, HU Y. A review of research on residential mobility from the perspective of urban geography.Urban Planning Forum, 2015(5): 45-49. | |
6 | 刘扬, 周素红, 张济婷. 城市内部居住迁移对个体健康的影响—以广州市为例. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(6): 801-810. |
LIU Y, ZHOU S, ZHANG J. The impact of intra-urban residential mobility on residents' health: A case study in Guangzhou City. Progress in Geography, 2018, 37(6): 801-810. | |
7 | 侯伟, 黄怡. 国内外城市内部迁居研究综述. 住宅科技, 2019, 39(6): 12-16. |
HOU W, HUANG Y. Research summary of internal migration in domestic and foreign cities. Housing Science, 2019, 39(6): 12-16. | |
8 | MORROW-JONES H, WENNING M. The housing ladder, the housing life-cycle and the housing life-course: Upward and downward movement among repeat home-buyers in a us metropolitan housing market. Urban Studies, 2005, 42(10): 1739-1754. |
9 | CLARK W, DEURLOO M, DIELEMAN F M. Housing consumption and residential mobility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1984, 74(1): 29-43. |
10 | MULDER C. The housing consequences of living arrangement choices in young adulthood. Housing Studies, 2003, 18(5): 703-719. |
11 | TATSIRAMOS K. Residential mobility and housing adjustment of older households in europe: IZA discussion paper No 2435, (2006-11-26)[2022-01-20].. |
12 | LI S. Housing tenure and residential mobility in urban china: A study of commodity housing development in Beijing and Guangzhou. Urban Affairs Review, 2003, 38(4): 510-534. |
13 | WU F. Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: The process and outcomes in urban china. Geoforum, 2004, 35(4): 453-470. |
14 | HUI E. Residential mobility of chinese immigrants: An analysis of housing conditions and tenure structure. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 2005, 20(4): 379-399. |
15 | YIP N, LA GRANGE A, FORREST R. Making space: Residential trajectories in hong kong. Urban Geography, 2009, 30(7): 756-778. |
16 | 张国武. 居住迁移与住房子市场变化——以上海为例的实证研究. 城市发展研究, 2016, 23(8): 113-118. |
ZHANG G. Study on the impacts of residential mobility on the housing submarket changes: The case of Shanghai. Urban Development Studies, 2016, 23(8): 113-118. | |
17 | 孙斌栋, 阎宏, 张婷麟. 社区建成环境对健康的影响——基于居民个体超重的实证研究. 地理学报, 2016, 71(10): 1721-1730. |
SUN B, YAN H, ZHANG T. Impact of community built environment on residents' health:A case study on individual overweight. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(10): 1721-1730. | |
18 | 邱婴芝, 陈宏胜, 李志刚,等. 基于邻里效应视角的城市居民心理健康影响因素研究——以广州市为例. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(2): 283-295. |
QIU Y, CHEN H, LI Z, et al. Exploring neighborhood environmental effects on mental health: A case study in Guangzhou, China. Progress in Geography, 2019, 38(2): 283-295. | |
19 | 苏玲玲, 周素红, 张雪,等. 社区环境对居民主观幸福感的影响:时间维度的作用. 城市发展研究, 2019, 26(9): 26-34. |
SU L, ZHOU S, ZHANG X, et al. The influences of neighborhood environment on residents' subjective well-being: The effects of time dimension. Urban Development Studies, 2019, 26(9): 26-34. | |
20 | 刘晔, 肖童, 刘于琪,等. 城市建成环境对广州市居民幸福感的影响——基于15 min步行可达范围的分析. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(8): 1270-1282. |
LIU Y, XIAO T, LIU Y, et al. Impacts of urban built environments on residents'subjective well-being: An analysis based on 15-minute walking distance. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(8): 1270-1282. | |
21 | WANG F, WANG D. Place, geographical context and subjective wellbeing: state of art and future directions∥WANG D, HE S.(eds). Mobility, Sociability and Well-being of Urban Living. Berlin: Springer, 2016. |
22 | 张延吉,秦波,唐杰.城市建成环境对居住安全感的影响:基于全国278个城市社区的实证分析.地理科学,2017,37(9):1318-1325. |
ZHANG Y, QIN B, TANG J.The influence of urban built-up environment on sense of residential security: Based on the empirical research of 278 communities in urban China.Scientia Geographica Sinica,2017,37(9):1318-1325. | |
23 | 解垩, 宋颜群. 贫困存在社区邻里效应吗——基于多层回归模型的分析. 财贸研究, 2019, 30(6): 74-86. |
XIE E, SONG Y. Is there neighborhood effect in poverty?Analysis based on multi-level regression model. Finance and Trade Research, 2019, 30(6): 74-86. | |
24 | CLARK W, ONAKA J. Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Studies, 1983, 20(1): 47-57. |
25 | CLARK W, DEURLOO M, DIELEMAN F. Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes. Housing Studies, 2006, 21(3): 323-342. |
26 | CLARK W. Residential mobility and neighborhood change: Some implications for racial residential segregation. Urban Geography, 2013 (1): 95-117. |
27 | CLARK W, RIVERS N. Community choice in large cities: Selectivity and ethnic sorting across neighbourhoods∥VANHAM M, MANLEY D, BAILEy N, et al.(eds). Understanding Neighbourhood Dynamics: New insights for neighbourhood effects research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2013. |
28 | CLARK W, VANHAM M, COULTER R. Spatial mobility and social outcomes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 2014, 29(4): 699-727. |
29 | GAMBARO L, JOSHI H, LUPTON R. Moving to a better place? Residential mobility among families with young children in the millennium cohort study.(2017-10-02)[2022-1-20]. . |
30 | BRAZIL N, CLARK W. Residential mobility and dynamic neighborhood change during the transition to adulthood. Advances in Life Course Research, 2017(33): 1-10. |
31 | SOUTH S, CROWDER K. Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual, community, and metropolitan influences. American Journal of Sociology, 1997, 102(4): 1040-1084. |
32 | SOUTH S, CROWDER K, TRENT K. Children's residential mobility and neighborhood environment following parental divorce and remarriage. Social Forces, 1998, 77(2): 667-693. |
33 | RABE B, TAYLOR M. Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life course events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2010, 173(3): 531-555. |
34 | MORRIS T. Examining the influence of major life events as drivers of residential mobility and neighbourhood transitions. Demographic Research, 2017, 36(35): 1015-1038. |
35 | TIMBERLAKE J. "Scratchin' and surviving" or "movin'on up?" Two sources of change in children's neighborhood SES. Population Research and Policy Review, 2009, 28(2): 195-219. |
36 | LU M.'Are pastures greener?'residential consequences of migration. International Journal of Population Geography, 2002, 8(3): 201-216. |
37 | SCHAAKE K, BURGERS J, Ethnicity MULDER C., education and income, and residential mobility between neighbourhoods. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2013(40): 512-527. |
38 | SHARKEY P. Temporary integration, resilient inequality: Race and neighborhood change in the transition to adulthood. Demography, 2012, 49(3): 889-912. |
39 | 郑舒方, 张沥今, 乔欣宇,等. 密集追踪数据分析:模型及其应用.心理科学进展,2021,29(11):1948-1969. |
ZHENG S, ZHANG L, QIAO X, et al. Intensive longitudinal data analysis: Models and application. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(11): 1948-1969. | |
40 | 吴文峰.儿童抑郁症状应激—认知易感模型的追踪研究.长沙: 中南大学, 2011. |
WU W. The Longitudinal study on cognitive vulnerablity-stress model of children's depressive symptoms. Changsha: Central South University, 2011. | |
41 | 宋正娜, 陈雯, 张桂香,等. 公共服务设施空间可达性及其度量方法. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(10): 1217-1224. |
SONG Z, CHEN W, ZHANG G, et al. Spatial accessibility to public service facilities and its measurement approaches. Progress of Geography, 2010, 29(10): 1217-1224. | |
42 | 刘正兵, 张超, 戴特奇. 北京多种公共服务设施可达性评价. 经济地理, 2018, 38(6): 77-84. |
LIU Z, ZHANG C, DAI T. Measuring accessibility of multi-type urban public service facilities with entropy in Beijing. phyEconomic Geography, 2018, 38(6): 77-84. | |
43 | 董世永, 龙晨吟. 基于模糊综合评价的住区可步行性测度方法及发展策略研究——以重庆典型住区为例. 西部人居环境学刊, 2015, 30(1): 106-112. |
DONG S, LONG C. Community walkability measurement methodology and development strategy analysis based on fuzzy comprehensive assessment—A case study of typical communities in Chongqing. Journal of Human Settlements in West China, 2015, 30(1): 106-112. | |
44 | 杨俊宴, 吴浩, 郑屹. 基于多源大数据的城市街道可步行性空间特征及优化策略研究:以南京市中心城区为例. 国际城市规划, 2019, 34(5): 33-42. |
YANG J, WU H, ZHENG Y. Research on characteristics and interactive mechanism of street walkability through multi-source big data: Nanjing central district as a case study. Urban Planning International, 2019, 34(5): 33-42. | |
45 | 崔璨, 穆学英, 常鹤影,等. 上海市居民居住迁移的区位选择及其影响因素研究. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(3): 422-432. |
CUI C, MU X, CHANG H, et al. Patterns and determinants of location choice in residential mobility:A case study of Shanghai. Progress in Geography, 2021, 40(3): 422-432. | |
46 | 李经纬, 范晨璟, 田莉,等. 社区建成环境对老年人社会交往活动的影响研究. 人文地理, 2021, 36(1): 56-65. |
LI J, FAN C, TIAN L, et al. Study on the impact of neighborhood built environment on socail activities of elderly. Human Geography, 2021, 36(1): 56-65. | |
47 | 武永祥, 黄丽平, 张园. 基于宜居性特征的城市居民居住区位选择的结构方程模型. 经济地理, 2014, 34(10): 62-69. |
WU Y, HUANG L, ZHANG Y. Structural equation modeling of residential location choice based on amenity characteristics. Economic Geography, 2014, 34(10): 62-69. | |
48 | 王丰龙, 王冬根, 毛子丹. 城市内部居住迁移对居民自评健康的影响研究——以北京市为例. 人文地理, 2021, 36(1): 30-38. |
WANG F, WANG D, MAO Z. Effect of intra-urban residential relocation on health: a case of Beijing,China. Human Geography, 2021, 36(1): 30-38. | |
49 | TOSUN C.Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study.Annals of Tourism Research,2002,29(1): 231-253. |
50 | 叶姗虹.社区邻里交流空间的景观营造设计研究.新型建筑材料,2020,47(5):179-180. |
YE S.Study on landscape construction and design of community neighborhood communication space.New Building Materals,2020,47(5): 179-180. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||