地理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 69 ›› Issue (12): 1821-1832.doi: 10.11821/dlxb201412008

• • 上一篇    下一篇

快速城镇化下中国大城市房权分异研究——对广州的实证

陈宏胜1(), 李志刚2()   

  1. 1. 东南大学建筑学院, 南京 210096
    2. 中山大学地理科学与规划学院, 广东省城市化与地理环境空间模拟重点实验室, 广州 510275
  • 收稿日期:2013-10-16 修回日期:2014-06-24 出版日期:2014-12-25 发布日期:2014-12-25
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:陈宏胜 (1988-), 广东梅州人, 博士研究生, 主要研究方向为城乡规划、城市地理。E-mail: hongsheng.chen2006@163.com

  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目 (41271163, 41422103, 40601033, 41130747);教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目 (11JZD028);教育部新世纪优秀人才支持计划资助 (NCET-12-0571);同济大学“高密度人居环境生态与节能教育部重点实验室”项目

Tenure-based housing segregation under rapid urbanization in post-reform urban China: A case study of Guangzhou

Hongsheng CHEN1(), Zhigang LI2()   

  1. 1.School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
    2. School of Geography and Planning, Guangdong Key Laboratory for Urbanization and Geo-simulation, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
  • Received:2013-10-16 Revised:2014-06-24 Published:2014-12-25 Online:2014-12-25
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41271163, No.41422103, No.40601033, No.41130747;Major Philosophy and Social Science Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China, No.11JZD028;Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University of the Ministry of Education of China, No.NCET-12-0571;The Major Lab of Ecology and Energy Saving for High Density Human Settlement, Tongji University Project

摘要:

利用广州市第六次人口普查的微观数据,通过房权指数T、房权分异指数ID和房权集中指数II三指标对广州市城市社区的房权分异进行测算,并使用“六普”数据从人口、制度、市场、住房四项维度对影响广州城市房权指数的因素进行分析。研究表明,广州城市房权指数的平均水平为0.71,属较高水平;各区房权指数存在明显差异,其分布由城市核心到边缘可分为“中—低—高”三类,中心区较为混合,而郊区则呈现较为极化的格局;广州中心区城市房权分布以越秀、荔湾、海珠三区交接处为中心,房权指数最高,老城区外围房权指数最低,呈现一种“差序格局”。第二,就空间分异而言,广州不同房权住房的空间分异度为0.45,集中指数为0.68,属中等水平,说明广州的房权分异并不明显,不同房权类型的住房呈现相对混合的空间分布;但各区则呈现差异化格局:近郊区的房权分异强 (空间极化)、远郊区房权分异弱 (空间混合),近郊区房权分异最为突出。在机制上,婚姻状况、年龄构成、学历状况、户籍制度、社区居住条件等5个要素对社区房权有显著影响;总体模型表明,婚姻和户籍是影响社区房权分异的决定性因素,说明当前中国城市的住房房权的分布格局主要由家庭和制度因素驱动,而非由市场因素驱动,以此展现和强调了中国城市社会地理与西方的差别。

关键词: 房权, 房权指数, 房权分异, 机制, 广州

Abstract:

For the first time in the examination of post-reform Chinese cities, this study uses the newly published 6th census data, at the microscopic level of residential committee, to examine the segregation of housing tenure in Guangzhou, the southern capital city. It first measures the housing tenure index for urban communities, and articulates the spatial pattern of housing tenure index across the city. More than that, it sheds light upon the mechanism of the differentiation of housing tenures through a series of regression models in terms of the variables of population, institution, market and space. In this vein, this paper contributes to the knowledge of the sociospatial morphology of post-reform urban China, with a particular attention paid to the dimension of housing tenure, so to fill the vacuum of our understanding about the pattern or dynamic mechanism of property right spatiality against the context of fast rising urbanism. There are three major findings. First, the average level of housing tenure index of Guangzhou is about 0.71, a high level, indicating its fast-speed privatization as well as de-collectivization of housing assets. Nevertheless, in the study we identify marked disparities across districts, as the index is the largest at the inner suburb, the smallest in the outer suburb, and the level of the central city is in-between. Thereby, the central city is featured by a mix of housing tenure, whilst that of the inner suburb is far more polarized, of which the tenure is dominated by private rental housing, especially those in "urban villages". Moreover, with regards to the spatiality of housing tenure within the central city, there is a "central-peripheral" pattern, as the highest index is found at Yuexiu, Liwan and Haizhu districts, the central area, whilst that of the surrounding districts is far smaller. Second, it is found that the segregation of housing tenure in Guangzhou is not very high, just 0.45, and the concentration index is about 0.68, which indicates that housing with different tenures in Guangzhou is largely spatially mixed, so that in general the segregation is by no means high. A close examination of districts indicates a complicated landscape: the tenure segregation in the inner suburbs, such as Haizhu, Tianhe, Baiyun and Huangpu, is pretty high, or even polarized, whilst the segregation index of outer suburban districts, such as Huadu, Conghua, and Zengcheng, is far smaller. The polarized housing tenure of inner suburbia indicates the assemblage of urban/migrant villages with commodity housing estates in the inner suburbia of Guangzhou. Such findings further highlight the impacts of urban villages and their private rental housing regime upon the sociospatial morphology of post-reform Chinese cities. Third, there are five factors we identify, through regression models, as the major factors of the sociospatial ecology of housing tenure: marriage status, age, educational attainment, hukou status and residential conditions; moreover, two variables, marriage and hukou status, are found to be the key determinants. In this sense, we argue that, differing to the situation in the West, it is the combined effect of family and institution, rather than market, that is driving the (re)structuring tenure landscape of post-reform urban China.

Key words: housing tenure, the index of housing tenure, segregation, mechanism, Guangzhou