快速城镇化下中国大城市房权分异研究—

引用本文

陈宏胜, 李志刚. 快速城镇化下中国大城市房权分异研究——对广州的实证. 69(12): 1821-1832
CHEN Hongsheng, LI Zhigang. Tenure-based housing segregation under rapid urbanization in post-reform urban China: A case study of Guangzhou. Acte Geographica Sinica, 69(12): 1821-1832 复制到剪切板

Permissions

本文是开放获取期刊文献，在以下情况下可以自由使用：学术研究、学术交流、科研教学等，但不允许用于商业目的.

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. 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

李志刚 (1976-), 湖北天门人, 中国地理学会会员 (S110007845M), 教授, 博导, 主要研究方向为城市空间结构、城市社会地理。E-mail: lizhig@mail.sysu.edu.cn

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: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

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

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

CHEN Hongsheng¹, LI Zhigang²

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

Fund: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

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.

Keyword: housing tenure; the index of housing tenure; segregation; mechanism; Guangzhou

Show Figures

1 引言

随着中国进入快速城市化阶段, 城市形态与内部空间结构正加速演变^{[1, 2]}, 城镇化已成为推动中国未来发展的核心动力^{[3, 4]}。2010年全国城镇化率达49.7% (“ 六普” 数据), 大量人口的城市集聚必然导致庞大的住房需求, 产生各种新的居住形态。另一方面, 自改革开放以来, 在单位福利住房制度退出^[5]、市场化住房制度的建立^[6]以及城乡人口流动机制的变化^[7]等多种因素影响下, 中国城市的住房形态已从计划经济体制下的单一状态转向多元异质^[8], 住房的空间分异与人口的空间分异共同塑造当下中国城市居住格局^[9]。

作为城市研究的重要组成部分, 学界对城市居住空间分异的研究已较为深入。冯健和周一星^[10]利用街区人口普查数据对北京都市区社会空间分异演变进行研究, 发现1982-2000年间城市制度、市场和文化的变化是导致居民混居程度提高的主要原因。李志刚, 吴缚龙^[11]将上海居住区划分为6大类, 并认为以社会经济属性为基础的空间分异并不显著。周春山等^[12]利用“ 五普” 资料中街道层面的数据将广州市建成区的住房空间划分为四大类, 并从城市发展历程、城市规划、住房制度、房地产业的发展等方面进行原因探究。从1988年推行住房私有化至今, 住房市场已日渐成熟, 城市家庭依据自身的经济条件和意愿可重新选择住房^[13], 衍生出外国人社区^[14]、绅士化社区^[15]、乡缘社区^[16]、转型单位社区^[17]等诸多不同类型的城市居住空间, 同时城市居住空间的分异也越发凸显^{[2, 11]}。除了对“ 北上广” 的研究外, 还有黄友琴等^[18]对武汉居住分异的研究、吴启焰等^{[19, 20]}对南京居住分异的研究等。总的看来, 中国城市居住空间分异的研究呈现方法多样、视角多元并渐成体系, 但亦有学者认为此类研究在研究方法、分异测度、政策效应等方面仍有创新和完善的空间^[21]。

中国城市居住空间分异的演变与其市场导向的经济改革密不可分, 特别是20世纪90年代以来, 以商品房为核心的房地产市场的蓬勃发展加剧了分异进程^[22], 其中重要一环就是推动住房市场化、住房投资加大^[23]。在此背景下, 居住空间分异同时伴随着房权 (housing tenure) 的分异。Huang^[24]对90年代城市租客 (renters) 的房权进行研究, 发现市场机制的引入赋予城市居民更多房权选择。Li^[25]对北京和广州城市居民房权的变化进行研究, 发现城市间住房市场的差异对居民房权构成具有重要影响; Li^[26]还指出, 拥有市场化住房 (商品房) 的居民拥有更高的收入和社会地位, 而城市低收入阶层主要依赖市场化住房 (租赁), 且原单位职工在城市从福利房向商品房体系的转变中其住房困难亦开始显现^[27], 可支付性已成为拥有住房的最大障碍^[28]。另外, 社会阶层的居住隔离与房权分异紧密相关, 李志刚和吴缚龙^[9]利用“ 五普” 数据对上海进行实证, 发现上海的房权分异已相当显著, 不同阶层的居住隔离正在形成。然而, 需进一步回答的是：当前中国大城市的房权构成有何特点?房权分异度如何?影响因素有哪些?为此, 本文将以广州为例, 利用“ 六普” 资料中居民委员会单元的统计数据对其房权构成和分异程度进行研究, 并探究其影响因素。在行文上, 首先建构房权指数用以衡量不同社区的房权差异, 接着采用“ 六普” 数据居委会尺度数据展开实证, 测算房权分异度, 分析其空间格局, 最后再从市场、制度等维度进行解析。

2 研究方法

本研究主要选取城市社区进行分析, 在广州市“ 六普” 资料中, 城市社区的基本统计单元是“ 居委会” , 乡村地区则是“ 村委会” 。在“ 城中村” 方面, 虽然很多城中村实质上承担了城市的居住职能, 甚至被认为是城市廉租房社区^[29], 但因其住房属性的限制 (住房以自建房和出租房为主) 且统计资料未涵盖, 故本文未将其纳入研究范围。本研究聚焦于广州城市社区, 图1有色部分为本研究所涵盖的区域; 从城市社区的空间分布上可见, 城市社区集中分布在越秀区、荔湾区、海珠区、天河区、黄埔区、白云区、萝岗区和南沙区, 在番禺区、花都区、增城市、从化市等则集中在部分地方中心区。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图1 广州市城市社区房权指数分布Fig. 1 The distribution of the index of housing tenure

本研究数据源自广州市2010年第六次人口普查资料和广东省2010年第六次人口普查资料(1 2010 年第六次全国人口普查采用了长、短两种普查表, 长表抽取10%的户填报, 短表由其余户填报, 本项研究同时采用了以上两种数据。)。广州的城市社区单元1478个 (“ 居委会” 尺度), 其六普数据可以全面反映社区房权状况。在测算方法上, 采用了房权指数T、房权分异指数ID和房权集中指数II, 其中房权指数T作为市场化下私有房权比重的测度指标, 房权分异指数ID和房权集中指数II分别作为区域私有房权分异程度和集中程度的测算指标。分异指数ID和集中指数II是测度空间分异程度的常用方法^[30]。此类指数综合了质性分析与定量技术。

房权指数T (the index of housing tenure)：

$\begin{matrix} T = \frac{\sum^{} M_{n} K_{n}}{\sum^{} M_{n} K_{n} + \sum^{} Z_{i} K_{i}} \end{matrix}$ (1)

式中：M代表私有房权, 分别为“ 购买商品房” 、“ 购买二手房” 、“ 购买原公有住房” 、“ 购买经济适用房” 和“ 自建住房” , 相应的加权系数K分别为8、7、6、5、4; Z代表租赁房权, 分别为“ 租赁其他住房” 、“ 租赁廉租住房” 和“ 其他” , 相应的加权系数K分别为3、2、1, 这里结合对三种住房权利完整程度的认识, 定性地拉开三者的量化距离^{[31, 32, 33]}, 实际是用加权系数以体现不同住房的市场化差异。房权指数T主要用于衡量社区总体尺度的私有化房权水平, 其分布区间为[0, 1], T趋向于0反映社区的房权值低, 社区住房以租赁为主, T趋向于1反映社区的房权值高, 社区住房以住户购买为主。

分异指数ID (the index of dissimilarity)：

$\begin{matrix} ID = 0.5 \times \sum^{} [|\frac{X_{t}}{X_{all}} - \frac{Y_{t}}{Y_{all}}|] \end{matrix}$ (2)

式中：x_i为空间单元i中类别为X的人数; X_all为类别X的总人数; y_i为空间单元i中类别为Y的人数; Y_all为类别Y的总人数。分异指数ID用于测算不同群体之间的隔离程度, 其分布区间为[0, 1], ID小于0.30则隔离程度低, ID大于0.60则隔离程度高^{[34, 35]}。分异指数将用于测算广州市各区 (市) 的房权分异情况。

集中指数II (the index of isolation)：

$\begin{matrix} II = \sum^{} [(\frac{x_{i}}{X_{all}}) \times (\frac{x_{i}}{T_{i}})] \end{matrix}$ (3)

式中：x_i为空间单元i中类别为X的人数; X_all为区域内类别X的总人数; T_i为空间单元i的总人口数。集中指数II用于衡量绝对集中程度, II的分布空间为[0, 1], II小于0.30则集中程度低, II大于0.60则集中程度高^{[34, 35]}。集中指数将用于测算广州市各区 (市) 的房权集中情况。

总体上, 房权指数用来体现社区房权的平均水平或自有化程度; 分异指数和集中指数则用来衡量不同房权住房的空间分布。

3 实证分析

3.1 六普所反映的广州住房状况

根据“ 六普” 数据可知 (表1), 广州城市社区居民租赁市场化住房 (非福利房) 的比例最大, 占42.62%; 其次是购买商品房, 占22.44%; 第三是购买原公有房, 占11.72%; 经济适用房比例最低, 占1.57%。租房居民的比例是46.01%, 购房居民的比例是40.35%, 自建房居民的比例是7.10%; 可见, 租房是广州居民的主要住房模式。广州市场化住房 (商品房、二手房、自建房、租赁普通房)、福利性住房 (原公有房、经济适用房、廉租房) 的比例分别为76.78%和16.68%, 住房自有率为47.45%, 与其他地区相比, 广州的住房自有率较低(2 2012年5月13日西南财经大学和中国人民银行共同发布的《中国家庭金融调查报告》中显示中国家庭住房自有率为89.68%。城市家庭自有率为85.39%, 农村家庭自有率为92.60%。东、中、西部地区家庭自有住房拥有率分别为87.35%、94.42%、90.41%; 世界平均住房拥有率为63%, 美国为65%, 日本为60%。), 住房保障体系仍有较大的提升空间^[36]。在社区的分布上 (表1), 租赁其他住房的平均比例最高占32.10%, 其次是商品房比例占24.80%; 同样, 租赁其他住房、购买商品房、购买原公有房的社区标准差大, 反映此三类住房在不同社区的比例差异大。在空间分布上, 越秀区、荔湾区、海珠区 (中心区) 和南沙区、番禺区、花都区、增城市、从化市 (城市外围区域) 的住房分布集中, 而天河区、黄埔区、白云区、萝岗区 (中心区外围) 的住房分布离散。

表1 2010年广州市城市社区各类住房比例 Tab. 1 The ratio of housing of Guangzhou urban community in 2010

3.2 广州房权分布格局与空间分异

对广州市“ 10区2市” 1478个城市社区单元进行房权分析。从广州全市城市社区房权分布图可看到 (图1), 广州城市社区主要集中于中心7区 (荔湾区、越秀区、海珠区、天河区、黄埔区、白云区北部和萝岗区北部)。广州全市房权指数的平均值为0.71。按各区 (市) 社区房权T值的分布特点, 将广州市各区 (市) 分为三类区域(3 文中“ 房权指数” 为本研究根据已有文献自行界定, 未能作横向对比, 故本文依据全市平均水平 (0.71), 将广州12个区 (市) 的房权值均分为“ 低中高” 三个组别, 对应房权值分别为0.00-0.70、0.71-0.80、0.81-1.00, 以便对比分析, 且此类划分所得各组区 (市) 空间特点明显, 具有较强的解释性和合理性。) (图2)。一类区域为越秀区、荔湾区、海珠区、南沙区, 房权值较高 (0.70~0.80), 其中越秀、荔湾、海珠处于城市中心区, 基层管理单元以居委为主, 管理单元密度大; 二类地区为天河区、黄埔区、白云区、萝岗区, 房权值低 (0.55~0.70), 社区间房权差异大, 基层管理单元中村委、居委数量相当, 为中心区的外围区域; 三类地区为番禺区、花都区、增城市和从化市, 房权值高 (0.80~0.89), 基层管理单元以村委为主, 管理单元的密度低, 处于城市外围(4 南沙区为国家经济技术开发区演化而来, 发展较为特殊。) (图2)。此外, 从中心7区城市社区房权分布图可看出 (图3), 以越秀、荔湾、海珠三区交接处为中心的老城区的房权指数最高, 老城区外围房权指数最低, 呈现一种“ 差序格局” (5 萝岗北部房权指数的增高受广州近年来着力打造东部宜居新城的影响。)。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图2 2010年广州各区的社区房权指数分布 (“ ○” 表示与四分位数值的距离超过1.5倍的样本, “ ☆” 表示与四分位数值的距离超过3倍的样本)Fig. 2 The distribution of the index of housing tenure of Guangzhou districts in 2010

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图3 2010年广州中心区房权指数分布Fig. 3 The distribution of the index of housing tenure of Guangzhou center in 2010

在分异指数上 (表2), ID < 0.4的区域是越秀、荔湾、南沙和增城, 0.4 < ID < 0.5的区域是萝岗、番禺、花都和从化, ID > 0.5的区域是海珠、天河、黄埔和白云; 在空间分布上, 广州的房权分异呈现老城区 (越秀、荔湾) 分异指数低, 老城区外围分异指数高, 到城市外围区市后分异指数又降低的特点; 分异指数所反映的现实情况是, 老城区“ 有房” 居民 (拥有“ 住房所有权” 的居民, 下同) 与“ 无房” 居民混居 (无“ 住房所有权” 的居民, 下同), 老城区外围“ 有房” 居民与“ 无房” 居民存在隔离, 城市外围区域的隔离程度有所降低。从房权集中指数II值的分布情况来看 (表2), II < 0.6的区域是黄埔、白云、萝岗和南沙, 0.6 < II < 0.8的区域是越秀、荔湾、海珠和天河, II > 0.8的区域是番禺、花都、增城和从化; 在空间分布上, 房权集中指数从城市中心区向外围区域呈现“ 中— 低— 高” 的特点, 中心区较为混合, 而郊区则呈现较为极化的格局; 集中指数所反映的现实情况是, 中心区“ 有房” 居民的集中程度高, 外围区房屋集中程度有所降低, 在城市郊县房屋的集中程度再次提高。

表2 2010年广州各区城市社区的房权指数 Tab. 2 The distribution of the index of housing tenure in Guangzhou in 2010

3.3 广州市房权分异的影响因素

本节将从人口、制度、市场和住房四个维度对广州城市社区房权分异的机制进行系统探究。需要强调的是, 这4个维度并不覆盖影响房权分布的全部维度, 但已有研究表明, 影响当代中国城市居住分异的要素集中于此4个维度^[10]。相关因素的指标化及其确定依据如下：

人口维度中关注婚姻状况 (“ 15岁以上人口中已婚比例” )、老龄化水平 (“ 60岁以上人口比例” )和教育水平 (“ 大专以上学历人口比例” ); 制度维度用居民户籍状况 (“ 集体户比例” 和“ 非农户比例” )衡量; 市场维度以就业结构 (“ 服务业从业者比例” )、外来人口比例、房租水平 (“ 月租500元以下住户比例” )、住房利用 (“ 住房兼用于生产的户数比例” )等来衡量; 住房维度关注住房配套 (“ 住房基础设施指数” )、住房面积 (“ 人均住房面积对数” 、“ 住房面积大于150 m²户数比例” )、房龄 (“ 1979年前住房比例” )等指标 (表3)。

表3 2010年广州城市社区各类属性值分布状况 Tab. 3 Basic characteristics of Guangzhou districts in 2010

在人口方面, 15岁以上人口中已婚比例平均为71.85%, 60岁以上人口平均占总人口的11.28%, 大专以上学历人口平均占24.74%; 在户籍方面, 集体户比例和非农户比例平均为的13.48%和73.77%; 在市场因素方面, 服务业从业者比例平均为37.07%, 外来人口比例为46.35%, 月租500元以下住户比例为48.84%, 住房兼用于生产的户数比例较低, 为1.52%; 在住房方面, 住房基础设施指数平均为81.05%, 人均住房面积为21.43 m² (人均住房面积对数为1.33), 1979年前住房比例为12.21%, 住房面积大于150 m²户数比例较低, 仅为3.42%。总体来看, 广州社区人口中已婚比例大, 外来人口多, 租赁低价住房的比例大。在样本的离散程度上, 大专以上学历人口比重、非农户口人口比重、月租500元以下住户比例、1979年前住房比例等因素的标准差较大, 一定程度上反映了快速城镇化时期城市社会空间极化和社区均质化现象^{[37, 38]}。

人口因素：在回归模型中, 人口因素将作为控制变量参与到回归模型中, 故先用人口因素作为自变量与房权指数T进行回归分析。在人口因素中, 选取了“ 15岁以上人口中已婚比例” 、“ 60岁以上人口比例” 和“ 大专以上学历人口比例” 3个自变量进入模型 (表4), 分别代表了婚姻状况、年龄构成和学历状况。从人口因素解释模型中可见, “ 已婚” 、“ 老龄化” 、“ 高学历” 三因素对房权是正向影响的, 三者的系数关系是“ 老龄化 (1.243) > 已婚 (0.965) > 高学历 (0.746)” , 说明中老年人、已婚人士和高学历人口多的社区, 其住房的自有化程度高。

表4 2010年人口因素解释模型^注 Tab. 4 Model of demographic factors in 2010

制度因素：在制度因素解释模型中 (表5), 3个子模型的相关系数R、决定系数R²都大于0.5趋近于1 (0.5 < R、R²、R²_adj < 1), 故模型是可信的 (下文中市场因素解释模型、空间因素解释模型与决定因素解释模型具有同样的可信度)。在制度因素解释模型中, 以单因素进行分析, “ 集体户人口比例” (模型一) 系数为负, 表示集体户人口越多, 房权指数值越低, 而“ 非农户口人口比例” 的系数则为正 (模型二), 但其显著性水平大于1%, 故不能进行判断。两制度变量同时进入模型中 (模型三) 得到, “ 非农户口人口比例” 系数为0.784, 而另一变量不显著, 说明非农户口人口比例高的社区, 房权指数高。

表5 制度因素解释模型 Tab. 5 Model of institutional factors

市场因素：在市场因素解释模型中 (表6), 选取了“ 服务业从业者比例” 、“ 常住人口中外来人口比例” 、“ 月租500元以下住户比例” 、“ 住房兼用于生产的户数比例” 四个变量。在单变量分析中, 服务业从业者比重 (-0.138)、外来人口比重 (-0.341)、月租500元以下住户比例 (-0.200) 和住房兼用于生产的户数比例 (-0.656) 的系数皆为负, 说明社区中服务业从业者 (主要为中低端服务业)、外来人口、低价出租房和两用住房 (生活与生产) 比例高的社区, 房权指数低。在模型五中, 住房同时用于生产和生活的系数绝对值最大 (0.669), 其次是外来人口、廉价出租房和服务业从业者, 反映社区生产性用房和外来人口多, 房权指数低。

表6 市场因素解释模型 Tab. 6 Model of market factors

住房因素：在住房因素上, 本文选取“ 住房基础设施指数、人均住房面积对数、1979年前住房比例、住房面积大于150 m²户数比例” 4个自变量。其中, 住房基础设施指数 (系数0.779)、人均住房面积对数 (系数0.597) 和住房面积大于150 m²户数比例 (系数0.462)均对房权指数有正向影响, 而1979年前住房比例 (系数-0.271) 则为负向影响 (表7), 可见社区住房条件越好 (设施越齐全、人均住房面积越大、户型越大) 则社区的房权指数越高, 社区住房的自有化水平高。而社区中老住宅越多, 出租的可能性越大, 对房权指数有负影响。在模型五中, 住房基础设施指数和人均住房面积是主要影响因素, 另外两变量不具统计意义, 说明住房条件好的社区, 社区住房自有化程度高。

表7 住房因素解释模型 Tab. 7 Model of housing factors

决定因素解释模型：将以上四类影响因素综合进模型中进行回归分析 (表8)。从决定因素解释模型中可发现, “ 人均住房面积对数” (系数为0.526)、“ 15岁以上人口中已婚比例” (系数为0.502)、“ 非农户口人口比例” (系数为0.484) 是影响社区房权指数的3个最显著的正向影响因素, 即住房面积、婚姻和户籍对房权值有显著影响, 说明社区人均住房面积越大, 私有房屋比例越高, 房权值也越大, 且已婚和拥有城市户籍的人口更可能拥有住房。在负向影响因素中, “ 外来人口比例” (系数为-0.193)、“ 住房面积大于150平米户数比例” (系数为-0.173)、“ 月租500元以下住户比例” (系数为-0.082)、“ 服务业从业者比例” (系数为-0.081) 等指标系数都为负, 说明外来人口多以租房为主, 大户型住房用于投资、出租的可能性更大, 租金低和服务业人口集中的社区房权值亦较低。

表8 决定因素解释模型 Tab. 8 Model of all factors

4 结论与讨论

(1) 在快速城市化时期, 租房是广州常住居民的主要住房模式, 租房比例为46.01%; 市场化住房 (商品房、二手房、自建房、租赁普通房) 占住房多数, 比例为76.78%。广州中心7区城市社区房权分布以越秀、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” ; 广州全市房权指数为0.71, 属较高水平; 各区的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。全市房权分异指数为0.45, 集中指数为0.68, 属于中等水平, 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的格局：郊区 (海珠、天河、白云、黄埔)的房权分异强 (空间极化)、远郊区 (花都、从化、增城) 房权分异弱 (空间混合), 说明近郊区是房权分异最为突出的地区, 不同类型住房的社区毗邻而列。

(2) 在机制上, 婚姻状况、年龄构成、学历状况、户籍状况、社区居住条件等对社区房权有较为明显的影响。城市社区人均住房面积越大、已婚人口越多、非农户籍人口越多则社区住房自有化程度越高; 而从事低端服务业的人口和廉价出租屋越多的社区, 社区住房自有化水平低。总体模型说明, 婚姻和户籍是影响社区房权分异的决定性因素, 可见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。

中国经近30年的住房市场化改革, 城市住房格局已从单一的行政计划主导向家庭、制度、市场等多因素影响转变。笔者^[11]曾采用上海“ 五普” 中居民委员会尺度的数据对城市空间分异进行研究, 发现上海城市社区可按居民类型分为六类, 且存在严重的住房分异现象, 但社会经济属性的差异不是主要影响因素, 主要受计划经济时代的历史及仍存在的大型企事业单位的影响。随着市场化改革的深入, 历史和体制的影响正在减弱, 家庭、市场等因素对城市住房结构的影响将会越来越大。在研究上, 前者是从居住人群的特征进行分析, 而本文则是从房权的角度进行的后续研究, 深化了中国大城市居住分异的研究。

在快速城镇化时期, 大城市住房问题仍将长期是社会关注的焦点。城市居民的居住状况对阶层认同和生活质量有着重要的影响^[39]。在全国各地城市房价居高不下的背景下, 拥有一套住房对于城市中低收入阶层而言将越来越困难, 因房权分异而产生的社会阶层分化也将更为凸显^{[40, 41]}, 城市的房权分异也将受到更多的关注, 未来需对多种不同类型房权社区进行对比研究, 以期获得更多发现。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献

View Option

[1]	Yin Jie, Zhang Jingxiang, Luo Xiaolong. On urban spatial structure in China: An institutional transformation perspective. Human Geography, 2005, 20(3): 59-62. [殷洁, 张京祥, 罗小龙. 基于制度转型的中国城市空间结构研究初探. 人文地理, 2005, 20(3): 59-62. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.459]
[2]	Feng Jian, Zhou Yixing. A review and prospect on urban internal spatial structure research in China. Progress in Geography, 2003, 22(3): 204-215. [冯健, 周一星. 中国城市内部空间结构研究进展与展望. 地理科学进展, 2003, 22(3): 204-215. ] [本文引用:2] [CJCR: 1.959]
[3]	Zhou Zhenhua. The shift of growth axis. Economic Research, 1995, (1): 3-10. [周振华, 增长轴心转移. 经济研究, 1995, (1): 3-10. ] [本文引用:1]
[4]	Yin Jiangbin, Li Xun. The review and prospect of the migration and urbanization in China. Urban Problems, 2012, (12): 23-29. [殷江滨, 李郇. 中国人口流动与城镇化进程的回顾与展望. 城市问题, 2012, (12): 23-29. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.997]
[5]	Liu Wangbao, Weng Jichuan. Theimpact of housing reform on residential differentiation in urban China. Human Geography, 2007, 22(1): 49-52. [刘望保, 翁计传. 住房制度改革对中国城市居住分异的影响. 人文地理, 2007, 22(1): 49-52. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.459]
[6]	Liu wangbao, Yan Xiaopei, Cao Xiaoshu. Housing type variation and its influencing fastors in transitional urban China: Based on analysis of CGSS 2005. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010, 65(8): 949-960. [刘望保, 闫小培, 曹小曙. 转型期中国城镇居民住房类型分化及其影响因素: 基于CGSS (2005) 的分析. 地理学报, 2010, 65(8): 949-960. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 2.937]
[7]	Zhu Chuangeng, Gu Chaolin, Ma Ronghua et al. The influential factors and spatial distribution of floating population in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2001, 56(5): 548-559. [朱传耿, 顾朝林, 马荣华等. 中国流动人口的影响要素与空间分布. 地理学报, 2001, 56(5): 548-559. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 2.937]
[8]	Li Zhigang. Rsidential segregation of urban China. Urban Planning International, 2008, 23(4): 12-18. [李志刚. 中国城市的居住分异. 国际城市规划, 2008, 23(4): 12-18. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.7705]
[9]	Li Z, Wu F. Tenure-based residential segregation in post-reform Chinese cities: A case study of Shanghai. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2008, 33(3): 404-419. [本文引用:2]
[10]	Feng Jian, Zhou Yixing. Restructuring of socio-spatial differentiation in Beijing in the transition period. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2008, 63(8): 829-844. [冯健, 周一星. 转型期北京社会空间分异重构. 地理学报, 2008, 63(8): 829-844. ] [本文引用:2] [CJCR: 2.937]
[11]	Li Zhigang, Wu Fulong. Sociospatial differentiation in transitional Shanghai. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2006, 61(2): 199-211. [李志刚, 吴缚龙. 转型期上海社会空间分异研究. 地理学报, 2006, 61(2): 199-211. ] [本文引用:3] [CJCR: 2.937]
[12]	Zhou Chunshan, Chen Susu, Luo Yan. The housing spatial structures in Guangzhou urban built-up area and their causes' analysis. Geographical Research, 2005, 24(1): 77-88. [周春山, 陈素素, 罗彦. 广州市建成区住房空间结构及其成因. 地理研究, 2005, 24(1): 77-88. ] [本文引用:1]
[13]	Wu F. Intraurban residential relocation in Shanghai: modes and stratification. Environment and Planning A, 2004, 36(1): 7-26. [本文引用:1]
[14]	Wu F, Webber K. The rise of "foreign gated communities" in Beijing: Between economic globalization and local institutions. Cities, 2004, 21(3): 203-213. [本文引用:1]
[15]	He Shenjing, Qian Junxi, Deng Shangkun. Various forms of gentrification in transitional period in China. Human Geography, 2011, 26(1): 44-49. [何深静, 钱俊希, 邓尚昆. 转型期大城市多类绅士化现象探讨: 基于广州市六个社区的案例分析. 人文地理, 2011, 26(1): 44-49. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.459]
[16]	Li Zhignag, Liu Ye, Chen Hongsheng. Characteristics, mechanism, and spatiality of neo-migrants' homeplace-based communities in China: A case study of Hubei village, Gruangzhou. Geographical Research, 2011, 30(10): 1910-1920. [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. ] [本文引用:1]
[17]	Chai Yanwei. Danwei-based Chinese cities' internal life-space structure: A case study of Lanzhou city. Geographical Research, 1996, 15(1): 30-38. [柴彦威. 以单位为基础的中国城市内部生活空间结构: 兰州市的实证研究. 地理研究, 1996, 15(1): 30-38. ] [本文引用:1]
[18]	Huang Youqin, Yi Chengdong. Hukou, mobility and residential Segregation: A case study of Wuhan city. Urban Studies, 2009, 16(6): 36-40. [黄友琴, 易成栋. 户口、迁移与居住分异: 以武汉为例的实证研究. 城市发展研究, 2009, 16(6): 36-40. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.718]
[19]	Wu Qiyan, Cui Gonghao. The differential characteristics of residential space in Nanjing and its mechanism. City Planning Review, 1999, 23(12): 23-26. [吴启焰, 崔功豪. 南京市居住空间分异特征及其形成机制. 城市规划, 1999, 23(12): 23-26. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.381]
[20]	Song Weixuan, Wu Qiyan, Zhu Xigang. Residential differentiation of Nanjing in the new period. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010, 65(6): 685-694. [宋伟轩, 吴启焰, 朱喜钢. 新时期南京居住空间分异研究. 地理学报, 2010, 65(6): 685-694. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 2.937]
[21]	Sun Bindong, Wu Yafei. Progress and prospect of residential spatial differentiation of Chinese cities. City Planning Review, 2009, 33(6): 73-80. [孙斌栋, 吴雅菲. 中国城市居住空间分异研究的进展与展望. 城市规划, 2009, 33(6): 73-80. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.381]
[22]	Wu F. Sociospatial differentiation in urban China: Evidence from Shanghai's real estate markets. Environment and Planning A, 2002, 34(9): 1591-1616. [本文引用:1]
[23]	Man Yanyun. China's Housing Reform and Outcomes. Beijing: Economic Management Press, 2012. [满燕云. 中国的住房改革及成效. 北京: 经济管理出版社, 2012. ] [本文引用:1]
[24]	Huang Y Q. Renters' housing behaviour in transitional urban China. Housing Studies, 2003, 18(1): 103-125. [本文引用:1]
[25]	Li S M. 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. [本文引用:1]
[26]	Li S M. The housing market and tenure decisions in Chinese cities: A multivariate analysis of the case of Guangzhou. Housing Studies, 2000, 15(2): 213-236. [本文引用:1]
[27]	Fu Y, Tse D K, Zhou N. Housing choice behavior of urban workers in China's transition to a housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, 47(1): 61-87. [本文引用:1]
[28]	Mak S W, Choy L H, Ho W K. Privatization, housing conditions and affordability in the People's Republic of China. Habitat International, 2007, 31(2): 177-192. [本文引用:1]
[29]	Wei Lihua, Yan Xiaopei. Transformation of "urban village" and feasible mode. City Planning Review, 2005, 29(7): 9-13. [魏立华, 闫小培. “城中村”: 存续前提下的转型: 兼论“城中村”改造的可行性模式. 城市规划, 2005, 29(7): 9-13. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.381]
[30]	Massey D S, Denton N A. Trends in the residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-1980. American Sociological Review, 1987: 802-825. [本文引用:1]
[31]	Ma Zhongdong, Zhou Guowei, Wang Haixian. Marketization and housing choices by city residents: A case of Guangzhou. Population and Development, 2010, 16(2): 97-107. [马忠东, 周国伟, 王海仙. 市场化下城市居民的住房选择: 以广州为例. 人口与发展, 2010, 16(2): 97-107. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.7929]
[32]	Wang Haitao, Ren Qiang, Jiang Leiwei. The housing marketization and its determinants in China: A case study of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing. Market and Demographic Analysis, 2004, 10(2): 56-62. [王海涛, 任强, 蒋耒文. 中国四大城市住房市场化程度及其社会人口学因素分析: 以北京、上海、广州和重庆为例. 市场与人口分析, 2004, 10(2): 56-62. ] [本文引用:1]
[33]	Research Group of Ministry of Construction. The Study of Housing, Housing Reform and Real Estate Market. Beijing: China Building Industry Press, 2007. [建设部课题组. 住房、住房制度改革和房地产市场专题研究. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2007. ] [本文引用:1]
[34]	Denton N A, Massey D S. Residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioeconomic status and generation. Social Science Quarterly, 1988, 69(4): 797-817. [本文引用:2]
[35]	Massey D S. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press, 1993. [本文引用:2]
[36]	Chambers M C, Garriga D. E. , Schlagenhauf. Accounting for changes in the homeownership rate. International Economic Review, 2009. 50(3): 677-726. [本文引用:1]
[37]	Gu Chaolin, Kesteloot C. Social polarisation and segregation phenomenon in Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1997, 52(5): 3-11. [顾朝林, 克斯特洛德C. 北京社会极化与空间分异研究. 地理学报, 1997, 52(5): 3-11. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 2.937]
[38]	Li Zhigang, Wu Fulong, Lu Hanlong. Socio-spatial differentiation in China: A case study of three neighbourhoods in Shanghai. City Planning Review, 2004, 28(6): 60-67. [李志刚, 吴缚龙, 卢汉龙. 当代我国大都市的社会空间分异: 对上海三个社区的实证研究. 城市规划, 2004, 28(6): 60-67. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 1.381]
[39]	Tan Rihui. On contemproary Chinese urban residents living situation analysisof class indentity and life quality: Based on Chinese general social survey research. Urban Studies, 2012, 19(10): 74-79. [谭日辉. 当代中国城市居民居住状况对阶层认同与生活质量的影响分析: 基于中国综合调查的实证研究. 城市发展研究, 2012, 19(10): 74-79. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.718]
[40]	Liu Zuyun, Mao Xiaoping. Housing stratification in urban China: A study based on a Guangzhou household questionnaire survey. Social Sciences in China, 2012, (2): 94-109. [刘祖云, 毛小平. 中国城市住房分层: 基于2010年广州市千户问卷调查. 中国社会科学, 2012, (2): 94-109. ] [本文引用:1] [CJCR: 0.082]
[41]	Li Bin. Social exclusion and the Chinese urban housing system reform. Social Science Research, 2002, (3): 106-110. [李斌. 社会排斥理论与中国城市住房改革制度. 社会科学研究, 2002, (3): 106-110. ] [本文引用:1]

2005

0.0

1.459

Yin

Jie

, Zhang

Jingxiang

, Luo

Xiaolong.

On urban spatial structure in China: An institutional transformation perspective.

Human Geography, 2005, 20(3): 59-62.

[殷洁, 张京祥, 罗小龙. 基于制度转型的中国城市空间结构研究初探. 人文地理, 2005, 20(3): 59-62. ]

1990年代以来全球范围内的众多国家发生了重大制度转型,以中国为代表的社会主义国家转型引起了国际学者的广泛关注.城市空间结构是城市社会、经济发展的空间投影,对其理解也必然要从制度转型的深刻层面去加以认识.文章系统回顾了西方城市空间结构研究经历的城市形态研究、实证主义方法、政治经济学分析等过程,揭示出其基本走向是转向对深层制度性因素的关注.继而文章着重分析了中国制度转型的三个根本方面,并概要性地阐释了其对城市空间的影响,最后列举了相应的一些重要研究领域和基本方向.

... 1 引言随着中国进入快速城市化阶段,城市形态与内部空间结构正加速演变^[1,2],城镇化已成为推动中国未来发展的核心动力^[3,4] ...

2003

0.0

1.959

... 1 引言随着中国进入快速城市化阶段,城市形态与内部空间结构正加速演变^[1,2],城镇化已成为推动中国未来发展的核心动力^[3,4] ...

... 从1988年推行住房私有化至今,住房市场已日渐成熟,城市家庭依据自身的经济条件和意愿可重新选择住房^[13],衍生出外国人社区^[14]、绅士化社区^[15]、乡缘社区^[16]、转型单位社区^[17]等诸多不同类型的城市居住空间,同时城市居住空间的分异也越发凸显^{[2, 11]} ...

1995

0.0

... 1 引言随着中国进入快速城市化阶段,城市形态与内部空间结构正加速演变^[1,2],城镇化已成为推动中国未来发展的核心动力^[3,4] ...

2012

0.0

0.997

... 1 引言随着中国进入快速城市化阶段,城市形态与内部空间结构正加速演变^[1,2],城镇化已成为推动中国未来发展的核心动力^[3,4] ...

2007

0.0

1.459

... 另一方面,自改革开放以来,在单位福利住房制度退出^[5]、市场化住房制度的建立^[6]以及城乡人口流动机制的变化^[7]等多种因素影响下,中国城市的住房形态已从计划经济体制下的单一状态转向多元异质^[8],住房的空间分异与人口的空间分异共同塑造当下中国城市居住格局^[9] ...

2010

0.0

2.937

Liu

wangbao

, Yan

Xiaopei

, Cao

Xiaoshu

. Housing type variation and its influencing fastors in transitional urban China: Based on analysis of CGSS 2005. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010, 65(8): 949-960.

[刘望保, 闫小培, 曹小曙. 转型期中国城镇居民住房类型分化及其影响因素: 基于CGSS (2005) 的分析. 地理学报, 2010, 65(8): 949-960. ]

Market competition mechanism and bureaucracy distribution system are the two main channels for China's urban residents to obtain individual housing. To some extent, the differences of channels and opportunities for different types of households to obtain rare housing resources reflect housing inequality and social division in urban China. Institutional factors, market factors and household factors have interacted to shape individual's housing choice in transitional urban China. Using China's General Social Survey (CGSS 2005) (urban part) which covers 88 cities across the country, this paper analyzes housing type variation and its influencing factors in transitional urban China. It is found that house-ownership rate increases more quickly since the reform in 1978 and its main causes have transformed from public housing reform policy to housing commercialisation policy prior to and after 1998. Housing commercialisation has been enhanced gradually, and diversity characterizes housing tenure structure in transitional urban China. The findings demonstrate that household life cycle change, income, hukou, types of work units and occupation have significant impacts on housing choice which manifests the dual significant effect on housing distribution system from institutional and market force. The findings also reveal that types of work units, hukou and life cycle variables have more significant effects on housing choice in more developed areas when housing sources tend to be rare resources and house prices go high and there exists a great gap of housing affordability among residents. With future development of housing commercialisation and housing system reform, local government should gradually relax the constraints for social housing, especially the hukou constraints. Real estate developers should concern more about household structure change and its impacts on the residential preferences in the context of rapid socio-economic transformation.

1. School of Geographical Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China; 2. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Sun Yet-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

转型时期我国城镇居民主要通过市场竞争机制和科层分配体制来获取个人住房,获取稀缺的住房资源的途径和机会的差异在一定程度上反映了住房不平等和社会分化。处于体制转型时期的中国城镇,制度、市场和家庭因素等多重因素相互交织,共同影响中国城镇居民住房选择。以覆盖全国88 个城镇的《中国综合社会调查(CGSS)》(2005 年城镇部分) 调查资料为基础,本文分析了转型背景下中国城镇居民住房类型分化及其影响因素,研究发现：改革开放30 多年以来,中国城镇的住房自有率大幅度提高,其主要原因从1998 年前的公房房改政策向1998 年后住房市场化政策转变。家庭生命周期、家庭收入、户籍、单位性质、职业等变量显著影响住房选择,体现市场与制度对住房资源分配的双重影响。经济发达地区由于住房资源紧缺、住房价格高,居民住房承受能力差异较大,工作单位性质、户籍和家庭生命周期变量对住房选择的影响更显著。随着住房市场化进一步发展和住房制度改革的逐步深入,地方政府应逐步放宽社会住房的享受标准,尤其是户籍限制条件;开发商应更关注社会经济快速转型背景下的家庭结构变化及其对居住偏好的影响。

2001

0.0

2.937

2008

0.0

0.7705

2008

0.0

, Wu

Tenure-based residential segregation in post-reform Chinese cities: A case study of Shanghai.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2008, 33(3): 404-419.

1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, PR China email: lizhig@mail.sysu.edu.cn 2 School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3WA

> The Chinese cities, once characterised by egalitarianism, are becoming the most unequal cities in the world. However, little is known about the spatial implications of such a tremendous transition. This paper examines residential segregation in post-reform Shanghai. For the first time in studying Chinese cities, fine resolution data on the level of the residential committee, from the fifth population census conducted in 2000, are used. The spatial variation of housing tenure is found to be prominent. Most variables in the Index of Dissimilarity (ID) for housing tenure are above 0.5, while the spatial variation of ‘commodity housing purchased’ and ‘public housing rental’ is as high as 0.7, indicating a remarkable concentration of various housing groups. No evidence, however, suggests a high extent of segregation of social groups comparable to the West such as in the UK and US. ID between rural migrants and local residents is just 0.2–0.4. ID between residents with low-level and high-level educational attainment is around 0.3. In terms of hukou (household registration) status, educational attainment and housing tenure, a division between the central city and its surrounding areas is identified. Most communities are characterised by homogeneous tenure and heterogeneous population. In all, post-reform urban China is characterised by tenure-based residential segregation. Through market-oriented housing consumption, a new stratified sociospatial structure is in the making; its outcome, however, will continue to be shaped by the sustained impact of institutions such as hukou and work units.

... 另外,社会阶层的居住隔离与房权分异紧密相关,李志刚和吴缚龙^[9]利用#cod#x0201c ...

2008

0.0

2.937

Feng

Jian

, Zhou

Yixing.

Restructuring of socio-spatial differentiation in Beijing in the transition period.

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2008, 63(8): 829-844.

[冯健, 周一星. 转型期北京社会空间分异重构. 地理学报, 2008, 63(8): 829-844. ]

B ased on the data at the level of sub-district of the third population census in 1982 and the fifth one in 2000, the authors try to analyze the characteristics of socio-spatial differentiation in B eijing M etropolitan A rea and calculate several indices, including the inform ation entropy, the absolute differentiation index and the relative one, and the index of residential segregation, to indicate the features of the restructuring of socio-spatial differentiation in B eijing M etropolitan A rea.The authors prove that the scale of sub-districts is still an im portant spatial unit for studying urban socio-spatial structure in China w ith enough maneuverability. The analysis of the 2000 census data show s both the pattern of socio-spatial differentiation of each kind of residential population, including density of residential population,m igrant population,fam ily size,old people,population of each kind of educational level,and the minorities,and that of the em ploym ent and housing status under the background of suburbanization and the transition of urban econom y in Beijing M etropolitan Area. The authors find out that the degree of socio-spatial differentiation of Beijing Metropolitan Area in most social indices decreased in the period 1982-2000, except for several indices including the old, sex ratio, family size and the farm ers on the basis of the absolute differentiation m odel. In the sam e period, on the basis of the relative differentiation m odel, they find out that the spatial distribution of m igrant population,the m inorities,population w ith higher education level, and the em ploym ent population of the secondary and the tertiary industries tend to accord w ith the spatial pattern of total urban population, w hile the old, the illiterate and the farm ers do not. From 1982 to 2000, the residential m ixture of m ost dem ographic indices tend to be increasing, w hile that of the old, the m igrants and the farm ers does not.G enerally speaking,the change of the inform ation entropy indicates that urban social spatial structure tend to be m ore com plex w ith m ore and m ore heterogeneity, w hich accords w ith the findings of sim ilar research on the basis of the analysis of B eijing's social areas.M ost im portant of all,by contrast,the analysis by differentiation m odels show us m ore details about urban socio-spatial differentiation and its restructuring, w hich can also be indicated from the restructuring of the relationship betw een the socio-spatial differentiation and the distance from the city center. Finally, the authors put forw ard a theoretical fram ew ork based on the evolution of system , m arket and culture in order to explain the restructuring of socio-spatial differentiation of Beijing Metropolitan Area in the transition period.

College of Urban and Environmental Sciences,Peking University,Beijing 100871,China

利用分街区人口普查数据, 分析1982-2000 年北京都市区社会空间分异特征, 通过计算信息熵、绝对分异指数、相对分异指数和隔离指数等指标, 探讨转型期北京社会空间分异的重构特征。研究表明: “街区尺度”是展现都市区社会空间分异特征具有可操作性的空间尺度; 北京各类居住人口、就业人口以及住房状态都存在明显的空间分异特征; 除了老年人口、性别比、户均人数和农业就业人口等少数指标以外, 1982-2000 年北京绝大部分社会指标的空间分异程度在下降; 同期, 外来人口、各少数民族人口、高学历人口以及二产、三产就业人口等与总人口分布格局的一致性在变好, 而老年人口、文盲人口以及与农业相关的人口逐渐偏离与总人口分布格局的一致性。18 年间城市人口的混居性普遍增强, 但老年人口、外来人口和农业人口却表现出相对于其他人口混居性变弱而群居性增强的特征。北京社会空间分异重构特征还可以从各社会指标与距离关系的演变中获得直观认识。在中国大城市转型期间, “规模重构”和“空间效应”交互作用, 构成社会空间分异重构的外在表现, 其基础动力主要来自于制度、市场和文化的变迁。

... 冯健和周一星^[10]利用街区人口普查数据对北京都市区社会空间分异演变进行研究,发现1982-2000年间城市制度、市场和文化的变化是导致居民混居程度提高的主要原因 ...

... 需要强调的是,这4个维度并不覆盖影响房权分布的全部维度,但已有研究表明,影响当代中国城市居住分异的要素集中于此4个维度^[10] ...

2006

0.0

2.937

Zhigang

, Wu

Fulong.

Sociospatial differentiation in transitional Shanghai.

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2006, 61(2): 199-211.

[李志刚, 吴缚龙. 转型期上海社会空间分异研究. 地理学报, 2006, 61(2): 199-211. ]

Using the 5th census data on the spatial level of neighborhood committee, the lowest administrative level of urban China, this paper examines sociospatial differentiation in post-reform Shanghai. By applying the traditional method of factorial analysis, six types of social areas are identified: worker villages built before reform, migrant communities, professional complexes, peasant villages, new-worker villages and aged accumulated inner-city. Accordingly, the post-reform sociospatial structure of Shanghai is a model combining the three classic structures: concentric layers, clusters, and multi-nuclei. Our findings suggest that residential district (jiedao) is heterogeneous, thus we argue that the social area should be studied on lower spatial levels. In this sense, we further examine to what extent social space is differentiated. It suggests that neither demographic variables nor socio-economic variables have significant differentiation as those in the West; instead, there is rather a high extent of housing differentiation. The underlying reason is attributed to the institutional forces such as work-unit, i.e. their impact upon housing in history and their impact in the post-reform era. This distinctive mechanism indicates that now the extent of sociospatial differentiation of urban China is still much lower than that of Western cities.

1. Centre of Urban and Regional Studies, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou 510275, China; 2. School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UK

采用2000年第五次全国人口普查数据库中居民委员会尺度的数据,对转型期上海城市空间重构与分异展开研究。存在6类社会区：计划经济时代建设的工人居住区、外来人口集中居住区、白领集中居住区、农民居住区、新建普通住宅居住区、离退休人员集中居住区。通过计算分异指数,发现当前上海存在严重的住房分异;但并不存在明显的以社会经济属性为基础的社会空间分异。造成这一现象的原因在于计划经济时代的历史以及仍然存在的大型企事业单位对住房的影响。中国城市目前的社会空间分异在程度上与西方城市还有根本的差异。

... 李志刚,吴缚龙^[11]将上海居住区划分为6大类,并认为以社会经济属性为基础的空间分异并不显著 ...

... 笔者^[11]曾采用上海#cod#x0201c ...

2005

0.0

Zhou

Chunshan

, Chen

Susu

, Luo

Yan.

The housing spatial structures in Guangzhou urban built-up area and their causes' analysis.

Geographical Research, 2005, 24(1): 77-88.

[周春山, 陈素素, 罗彦. 广州市建成区住房空间结构及其成因. 地理研究, 2005, 24(1): 77-88. ]

Urban housing spatial structure can be viewed as the substantial expression of urban development history. The housing spatial structure of Guangzhou city is typical in that it lies on the front of opening zone and, furthermore, it is one of the three largest cities in China. Basing on the housing data of Guangzhou's 5th Census, the paper employs factor and cluster methods to analyze 5 key factors taking from 40 variables of 77 sub-districts (F>70%). They are housing constructed years, housing sources, kitchen equipments, toilet equipments and housing floors. The results of the factor scores help to divide the houses in urban built-up area of Guangzhou city into four types with different features: Ⅰ) Pre-establishment Housing Area (in which houses constructed before the founding of P. R. China); Ⅱ) Government Welfare Housing Area (Ⅱa: in which houses constructed for public servant from the time of the founding of P. R. China to the Reform and Opening) and Enterprise Welfare Housing Area (Ⅱb: in which houses constructed for people serving public owned enterprises from the time of the founding of P. R. China to the Reform and Opening); Ⅲ) 1980s Housing Area (houses with relatively rough equipment constructed during the 1980s); Ⅳ) 1990s Housing Area, in which Commercial Houses (Ⅳa) and Privately Constructed Houses (Ⅳb) centralized. The results can be used to explain the formation mechanism of Guangzhou's housing spatial structure. 1) As a result of Guangzhou's development, housing spatial structure turns on concentric circles from inside to outside. The quality of houses in the former urban area (inside circles) is poorer than that in the outer because they are the origin of the city. Some underdeveloped villages were surrounded by built-up area with urban expansion, while some of them were developed apart from the urban. 2) City planning distorted the concentric circle structure. 3) City reconstruction changed the homogeneous situation of the former urban area. 4) Although the housing reform institute changed houses' tenure, their public-owned attribute has not been broken. 5) Outskirts of the city become the hot area of real estate development, which result in the highest ratio of commercial housing in the outside of the built-up area. As a conclusion, the paper deduces the structure mode of housing spatial structure in the large cities of China: The Pre-establishment Housing Area normally lies in the inner circle. The second circle is the Welfare Housing Area. The Commercial Housing Area mainly centralized in the 3rd circle, which surrounds those relatively underdeveloped villages originally far from urban built-up area and some special function area constructed in the culture and education areas in the 1980s. The broad suburban housing area and industrial area together formed the 4th circle.

Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou 510275, China

城市住房空间是城市发展历史轨迹的物质体现。广州市处于改革开放的前沿,其住房空间结构有一定的代表意义。本文利用第五次人口普查资料,以街道为基本单位,运用因子分析和聚类分析方法,将广州市建成区的住房空间结构划分为四大类:Ⅰ解放前建成的旧房区;Ⅱ改革开放前建成的机关公房(Ⅱa)和原工业企业公房集中区(Ⅱb);Ⅲ上世纪年代开始发展的设施相对简陋的住房分布区;Ⅳ上世纪90年代快速发展的商品房(Ⅳa)和自建房(Ⅳb)集中区。并从城市发展历程、城市规划、旧城改造、住房制度、房地产业的发展等方面分析住房空间结构的形成原因,进一步推导了中国大城市的住房空间结构模式。

... 周春山等^[12]利用#cod#x0201c ...

2004

0.0

2004

0.0

, Webber

The rise of "foreign gated communities" in Beijing: Between economic globalization and local institutions.

Cities, 2004, 21(3): 203-213.

Abstract Foreign gated communities in Beijing are produced by the intertwined forces of economic globalization and local institutional changes. Since China’s economy was opened up to the world, Beijing, as the capital, has seen tremendous growth of foreign direct investment and the establishment of the branches of multinational companies. As a result, there has been increasing demand for expatriate housing. However, such demand could not be accommodated by the housing provision system and the production of foreign housing has been materialized through the newly established sector of commodity housing. Foreign housing is built into gated communities, which is attributed to more than security requirements and status differentiation; the formation of foreign gated communities should be traced back to the unusual way in which housing is produced and consumed. Spatially, foreign housing projects are clustered in the northeastern area of Beijing, along the highway leading to the airport. Such an uneven distribution has exacerbated the differential global orientation of the urban areas and laid down the basis for further social spatial differentiation.

2011

0.0

1.459

2011

0.0

1996

0.0

Chai

Yanwei.

Danwei-based Chinese cities' internal life-space structure: A case study of Lanzhou city.

Geographical Research, 1996, 15(1): 30-38.

[柴彦威. 以单位为基础的中国城市内部生活空间结构: 兰州市的实证研究. 地理研究, 1996, 15(1): 30-38. ]

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the internal life-space structure in Chinese cities,by a case study of Lanzhou,the capital city of Gansu Province.A special attention is paid to DANWEI(or working unit),a principal territorial form of the urban life in Chinese cities.The formation,the roles,the daily-life patterns,and the distributive characters of DANWEI are considered.It is clarified that the internal life-space structure in Chinese cities is composed of three levels(Fig.4):the basic life-space as DANWEI,Which is related to both the works and residences of the citizens,and influences on the urban land-use pattern as well as the social area structure;the low-level life-space which is composed of the homogeneous DANWEI; the high-level life-space which is the Municipal District.This internal life-spacestructure in Chinese cities is formed through the administrative control and the residentialPlan of the Municipal Bureau(Fig.5).

Department of Urban and Environment, Peking University, Beijing 100871

本文着眼于中国城市居民生活的最基本组织─单位,通过考察其形成与作用、日常生活类型及空间分布特征等,得出中国城市的内部生活空间结构由三层次构成:(1)由在世界各种城市地域组织中独具一格的单位构成的基础生活圈;(2)同质单位为主形成的低级生活圈;(3)以区为基础的高级生活圈。这种独特的生活空间结构是在社会主义计划城市下行政管理和生活居住规划的双重影响下形成的。

2009

0.0

0.718

Huang

Youqin

, Yi

Chengdong.

Hukou, mobility and residential Segregation: A case study of Wuhan city.

Urban Studies, 2009, 16(6): 36-40.

[黄友琴, 易成栋. 户口、迁移与居住分异: 以武汉为例的实证研究. 城市发展研究, 2009, 16(6): 36-40. ]

计划经济时期的中国城市居住分异程度很低.转型期间快速的城市化和住房的市场化导致了大量人口的迁移迁居,使原来相对均质的单位社区转变为多元的、异质的城市空间,各种新型社区如破旧的移民社区和富有的门禁社区也都应运而生.城市的居住分异日益明显,居住区位也日渐成为社会经济地位的标志.根据武汉市2000年人口普查0.1%按户抽样数据,将市区人口分为市内未迁居居民、市内迁居居民、市外永久移民和市外暂时移民,从户口、迁移迁居和居住的关系分析不同人群在城市中的居住区位及分异状况.与西方城市相比,武汉市区目前的居住分异和隔离程度不高,但各分区的居住隔离程度存在明显差异,特定人群在城市某些区位的分畀隔离程度已达到相当高的程度,各类人群也存在一定程度的孤立性.政府相关部门应对此予以重视.

... 的研究外,还有黄友琴等^[18]对武汉居住分异的研究、吴启焰等^[19,20]对南京居住分异的研究等 ...

1999

0.0

1.381

... 的研究外,还有黄友琴等^[18]对武汉居住分异的研究、吴启焰等^[19,20]对南京居住分异的研究等 ...

2010

0.0

2.937

Song

Weixuan

, Wu

Qiyan

, Zhu

Xigang.

Residential differentiation of Nanjing in the new period.

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010, 65(6): 685-694.

[宋伟轩, 吴启焰, 朱喜钢. 新时期南京居住空间分异研究. 地理学报, 2010, 65(6): 685-694. ]

Under the background of the rapid urbanization, an obvious limitation of "time lag" is used to analyze urban social spatial structure with the data of national census. The new urban spatial forms emerging in Chinese cities, such as gated community, are changing the former social spatial structure and presenting new urban social spatial characters during the course of urban renewal and sprawl. The data of real estate market can directly reflect the change of housing supply and indirectly forecast the structure and tendency of urban residential differentiation. The essay tries to discuss the course, characters and evolving mechanism of residential differentiation in Nanjing by means of combining investigation on attributes of the 1075 residential communities built during 1998-2008 at macro level with interviews with the residents and analyses of questionnaires in six different and typical communities at micro level. As far as the social spatial characters of residential differentiation in Nanjing concerned, new circle layers have appeared in the urban social space due to the course of residential differentiation under the background of urban renewal in the new period (from 1998 till now); that gated communities grow up greatly has led to the social spatial fragmentation and the privatization of public space; while, the changes of institutional pattern of modern communities and life style have exaggerated the indifference of neighborhood relationship. It examines the common pattern of the driver model of urban residential differentiation in China in the new period, through studying residential differentiation in Nanjing.

1. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China; 2. School of Urban Construction and Management, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China

中国快速城市化背景下，利用中国人口普查数据进行城市社会空间结构分析具有明显的“时滞性”缺陷。城市更新与城市扩张过程中，中国城市中大量出现的封闭社区等新生城市空间形式改变着以往的城市社会空间结构，表现出一些新的城市社会空间特征。房地产市场数据能够直接反映住宅供给环境的改变，并可以间接预测出城市居住分异结构及趋势。通过宏观层面对南京1998-2008 年期间新建的1075 个城市居住社区属性特征的调查研究，结合微观层面对案例社区居民访谈与调查问卷的统计分析，探讨南京居住空间分异过程、特征与演化机制。从南京居住分异的社会空间特征来看，新时期(1998 年至今)城市更新背景下的居住分异过程使得城市社会空间出现新圈层结构；封闭社区的大量崛起导致城市社会空间碎片化与公共空间私有化；现代社区组织模式和生活方式转变加剧了社区邻里关系淡漠。通过对南京居住空间分异的研究，揭示出新时期中国城市居住空间分异动力模型的一般范式。

... 的研究外,还有黄友琴等^[18]对武汉居住分异的研究、吴启焰等^[19,20]对南京居住分异的研究等 ...

2009

0.0

1.381

Sun

Bindong

, Wu

Yafei.

Progress and prospect of residential spatial differentiation of Chinese cities.

City Planning Review, 2009, 33(6): 73-80.

[孙斌栋, 吴雅菲. 中国城市居住空间分异研究的进展与展望. 城市规划, 2009, 33(6): 73-80. ]

回顾了1986年至2007年之间中国城市居住空间分异研究领域的155篇学术论文及部分代表性专著,将我国该领域研究总结划分为3个阶段,梳理了城市居住空间分异研究的进展与最新动态,评述了研究理论、研究方法、研究重点、研究成果、发展水平等的阶段性特点与变化,剖析了已有研究的不足,并针对研究中遇到的瓶颈,探讨了未来研究的可能重点与方向,以期有助于我国城市居住空间分异的研究获得新的突破.

... 总的看来,中国城市居住空间分异的研究呈现方法多样、视角多元并渐成体系,但亦有学者认为此类研究在研究方法、分异测度、政策效应等方面仍有创新和完善的空间^[21] ...

2002

0.0

... 中国城市居住空间分异的演变与其市场导向的经济改革密不可分,特别是20世纪90年代以来,以商品房为核心的房地产市场的蓬勃发展加剧了分异进程^[22],其中重要一环就是推动住房市场化、住房投资加大^[23] ...

2012

0.0

2003

0.0

... Huang^[24]对90年代城市租客 (renters) 的房权进行研究,发现市场机制的引入赋予城市居民更多房权选择 ...

2003

0.0

... Li^[25]对北京和广州城市居民房权的变化进行研究,发现城市间住房市场的差异对居民房权构成具有重要影响 ...

2000

0.0

... Li^[26]还指出,拥有市场化住房 (商品房) 的居民拥有更高的收入和社会地位,而城市低收入阶层主要依赖市场化住房 (租赁),且原单位职工在城市从福利房向商品房体系的转变中其住房困难亦开始显现^[27],可支付性已成为拥有住房的最大障碍^[28] ...

2000

0.0

, Tse D

, Zhou

Housing choice behavior of urban workers in China's transition to a housing market.

Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, 47(1): 61-87.

2007

0.0

Mak S

, Choy L

, Ho W

Privatization, housing conditions and affordability in the People's Republic of China.

Habitat International, 2007, 31(2): 177-192.

Abstract Currently, the subject of housing in China is of interest to many researchers, since improvements in living conditions have not kept pace with the territory's economic growth. This paper describes basic housing situations in urban China, and assesses these conditions against the likely benefits its people may enjoy as a result of overall economic improvement over time. Housing affordability in China is a pressing social and economic issue, particularly for populations that are marginal to the housing market. This is due to affordability constraints as a result of the limited participation in key economic activities that restrict the marginalized groups from accessing the housing market. The persistent affordability crisis is discussed in this paper, which focuses especially on the accessibility restriction of potential homeowners to the private housing market. Furthermore, the paper explores the reasons behind homeownership constraints, and reviews government policies to seek alternative solutions to China's housing problems.

2005

0.0

1.381

... 方面,虽然很多城中村实质上承担了城市的居住职能,甚至被认为是城市廉租房社区^[29],但因其住房属性的限制 (住房以自建房和出租房为主) 且统计资料未涵盖,故本文未将其纳入研究范围 ...

1987

0.0

... 分异指数ID和集中指数II是测度空间分异程度的常用方法^[30] ...

2010

0.0

0.7929

... ,相应的加权系数K分别为3、2、1,这里结合对三种住房权利完整程度的认识,定性地拉开三者的量化距离^[31,32,33],实际是用加权系数以体现不同住房的市场化差异 ...

2004

0.0

Wang

Haitao

, Ren

Qiang

, Jiang

Leiwei.

The housing marketization and its determinants in China: A case study of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing.

Market and Demographic Analysis, 2004, 10(2): 56-62.

[王海涛, 任强, 蒋耒文. 中国四大城市住房市场化程度及其社会人口学因素分析: 以北京、上海、广州和重庆为例. 市场与人口分析, 2004, 10(2): 56-62. ]

采用中国第五次人口普查户抽样数据,比较分析了北京、上海、广州和重庆四大城市市辖区分户口性质住房市场化程度及住房条件改善状况.应用Logistic回归模型探讨了影响四大城市住房市场化的主要社会人口学因素.研究显示户主不同出生队列以及户主户口性质和状况、职业、行业等因素对住房市场化的影响最为显著.

2007

0.0

1988

0.0

... 60则隔离程度高^[34,35] ...

... 60则集中程度高^[34,35] ...

1993

0.0

... 60则隔离程度高^[34,35] ...

... 60则集中程度高^[34,35] ...

2009

0.0

Chambers M

, Garriga

D. E.

, Schlagenhauf. Accounting for changes in the homeownership rate. International Economic Review, 2009. 50(3): 677-726.

Towson University, U.S.A.; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S.A.; Florida State University, U.S.A.

> This article accounts for the boom in homeownership from 1994 to 2005 by examining the roles of demographic changes and mortgage innovations. To measure the impact of these factors, we construct a quantitative general equilibrium overlapping generation model with housing. In the long-run, mortgage innovation accounts for between 56 and 70% of the increase whereas demographics account for a much smaller portion. We test this result by considering changes in mortgages after 1940. We find that the introduction of the conventional fixed rate mortgage accounts for at least 50% of the observed increase in homeownership during that period.

... ),住房保障体系仍有较大的提升空间^[36] ...

1997

0.0

2.937

... 在样本的离散程度上,大专以上学历人口比重、非农户口人口比重、月租500元以下住户比例、1979年前住房比例等因素的标准差较大,一定程度上反映了快速城镇化时期城市社会空间极化和社区均质化现象^[37,38] ...

2004

0.0

1.381

Zhigang

, Wu

Fulong

, Lu

Hanlong.

Socio-spatial differentiation in China: A case study of three neighbourhoods in Shanghai.

City Planning Review, 2004, 28(6): 60-67.

[李志刚, 吴缚龙, 卢汉龙. 当代我国大都市的社会空间分异: 对上海三个社区的实证研究. 城市规划, 2004, 28(6): 60-67. ]

全球化下西方后福特主义城市转型的主要特征是社会空间极化.中国市场经济的改革伴随着社会阶层的分化和社会空间的重构,城市特别是大城市空间转型的主要特征表现为社会空间异质性的增加.这一新变化反映了全球化下城市转型的普遍规律.本文以上海为考察对象,选取三个典型社区进行实证分析,探讨了上海社会空间分异在微观空间层次上的现状和特征,对其主要机制进行了分析.我们的研究表明,社区建设的历史时段对其社会空间构成具有重要影响;社区内部的均质化与社区之间的异质化两种趋向正同时发生;市场因素正逐步成为影响社会空间重构的主要因子.由此,本文强调分异中的社会空间形态对城市规划的新要求,市场转型迫切需要规划师拓展视野,关注空间资源配置的公平合理.

2012

0.0

0.718

... 城市居民的居住状况对阶层认同和生活质量有着重要的影响^[39] ...

2012

0.0

0.082

... 在全国各地城市房价居高不下的背景下,拥有一套住房对于城市中低收入阶层而言将越来越困难,因房权分异而产生的社会阶层分化也将更为凸显^[40,41],城市的房权分异也将受到更多的关注,未来需对多种不同类型房权社区进行对比研究,以期获得更多发现 ...

2002

0.0