删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

家庭式迁移的流动人口住房状况

本站小编 Free考研考试/2021-12-29

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn.bootcss.com/mathjax/2.7.2-beta.0/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML"></script> <script type='text/x-mathjax-config'> MathJax.Hub.Config({ extensions: ["tex2jax.js"], jax: ["input/TeX", "output/HTML-CSS"], tex2jax: {inlineMath: [ ['$','$'], ["\\(","\\)"] ],displayMath: [ ['$$','$$'], ["\\[","\\]"] ],processEscapes: true}, "HTML-CSS": { availableFonts: ["TeX"] }, TeX: {equationNumbers: {autoNumber: ["none"], useLabelIds: true}}, "HTML-CSS": {linebreaks: {automatic: true}}, SVG: {linebreaks: {automatic: true}} }); </script> 冯长春, 李天娇, 曹广忠, 沈昊婧
北京大学城市与环境学院,北京 100871

Housing outcomes of family migrants at the place of destination

FENGChangchun, LITianjiao, CAOGuangzhong, SHENHaojing
College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
收稿日期:2016-11-28
修回日期:2017-02-4
网络出版日期:2017-04-20
版权声明:2017《地理研究》编辑部《地理研究》编辑部
基金资助:国土资源部公益性行业科研专项(201511010)
作者简介:
-->作者简介:冯长春(1957- ),男,山西安泽人,教授,博士生导师,主要从事区域发展与城镇化、城市与区域规划、土地与房地产经济研究。E-mail:fcc@urban.pku.edu.cn



展开

摘要
近年来“家庭式迁移”日益成为流动人口迁移的主要趋势,并对城市居住的独立性、权属和质量提出了现实需求。运用2009年环渤海、长三角、珠三角、成渝四区域12市的2394份抽样调查问卷,采用Logistic回归分析等计量方法,探究家庭式迁移的流动人口住房特征及影响因素。研究发现,“独住型”“夫妻同住型”“两代同住型”和“三代同住型”的流动家庭住房特征存在显著差异,其购房比例和住房质量依次提高。流动家庭的住房权属和质量受到家庭社会经济特征、家庭类型、地理因素以及流动家庭与老家联系和在流入地融入程度的影响。研究发现,如果纳入城市归属感、留城意愿及与老家的联系等变量,将会显著弱化户口对住房的作用。由于不同类型家庭所处的社会经济状况和应对策略不同,住房特征产生了家庭分异。因此,政府应当制定梯度化的住房管理政策,以此推动流动家庭逐步实现“固化”到城市。

关键词:流动人口;家庭式迁移;住房;家庭策略
Abstract
Nowadays family migration has become the main migration pattern of floating population in China, which may raise new requirements for residential independence, tenure and quality in the cities. For some researchers, the migrant households were generally considered as passive recipients of housing inequality, and the institutional barrier of Hukou were no doubt still the decisive factors for migrants' housing outcomes. However, other researchers start to challenge this perspective, and argue that migrants should be considered as enabling agents with coping strategies in the housing market since the influence of Hukou system in migrants' housing outcomes is declining. Under this context, this paper tries to explore the role of family strategy in family migrants' housing outcomes, and whether this conclusion differentiates among various households. Based on a questionnaire survey which covered 2394 migrants and their households in 12 cities of the Bohai Rim Region, the Yangtze River Delta Region, the Pearl River Delta Region, and the Chengdu-Chongqing Region, this paper uses logistic regression model to explore family migrants' urban housing outcome in terms of housing tenure and quality and the mechanism for this. The result shows, different household arrangements lead to diversification of housing outcome, which means that the ownership and housing quality differs significantly among sole migrants, couple migrants, two-generation migrants, and three-generation migrants. The three-generation migrant households, as expected, have the highest ownership percentage and residential quality among all types of migrant households, while the sole and couple migrants suffer from the poor residential conditions. This housing outcome should be explained by factors such as socio-economic characteristics, household arrangements, geographic environment, migrants' connection with the original hometown and adaptation to current destination. Especially, when considering the effect of migrants' sense of belonging, plan to settle down in the destination and connection with hometown, the effect of Hukou is weakened. Different household arrangements have different barriers and strategies, which leads to the divergence of housing outcomes. The implication from this research is that the governments should make gradient regulation policy for the diverse family migrants, and lead them to settle stably step by step.

Keywords:floating population;family migration;housing;family strategy

-->0
PDF (513KB)元数据多维度评价相关文章收藏文章
本文引用格式导出EndNoteRisBibtex收藏本文-->
冯长春, 李天娇, 曹广忠, 沈昊婧. 家庭式迁移的流动人口住房状况[J]. , 2017, 36(4): 633-646 https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201704003
FENG Changchun, LI Tianjiao, CAO Guangzhong, SHEN Haojing. Housing outcomes of family migrants at the place of destination[J]. 地理研究, 2017, 36(4): 633-646 https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201704003

1 引言

移民住房由于在市场上呈现的产权边缘化、住房质量差、空间集聚封闭等特征,引起国外****的广泛关注[1-3]。国外研究对象主要是国际移民,研究内容涵盖住房权属(housing tenure)、住房质量(housing condition)、居住流动(housing mobility)等,其中是否购买住房是核心关注点[4]。国外对住房权属的研究,普遍从宏观住房市场供给和微观家庭需求的视角展开,将影响因素划分为社会经济地位(职业地位、迁移年限、收入和教育水平等)、人口生命周期(年龄、婚姻状况、家庭结构等)和制度(住房价格、利率、城市规模等)三类[5],认为住房权属是在特定的住房制度及市场供应条件下,家庭依据自身住房需求特征、以及获取住房的能力所做出的住房决策[6]。这一经济学和人口学视角适应于包括移民在内的所有家庭。此视角下的研究认为,移民弱势的社会经济特征导致其相对本地居民在住房市场上的边缘化特征。但近年来国外研究日益发现,传统的住房选择模型并不能完全解释移民相对本地居民的住房差距,即使在面对相同的住房市场状况、处于相同的社会经济地位和家庭生命周期,移民仍然比本地居民购买和改善住房的概率低。而且,这一传统模型也不能解释移民身份特殊性带来的群体内部差别[7],比如新移民(第二代或第三代移民)相对老移民对住房市场需求及贡献的显著增长[8]。为此,国外****开始关注永久定居意愿、移民辈分、语言、社会网络、隔离和歧视等文化因素,从移民与来源地联系和迁移地融入程度的角度,凸显移民身份特殊性对其住房模式的影响[5,9-13]。在此基础上,根据移民对迁入地群体的融入度以及与迁出地群体的脱离度,衍生了“同化理论”(assimilation theory)、“渗透理论”(acculturation theory)和“分层理论”(stratification theory),突出移民身份及其与两地联系程度对移民住房选择的影响。
中国****长期关注流动人口的住房问题,虽然普遍认为流动人口在城市住房市场中处于劣势地位,但逐渐从视流动人口为“制度约束下的被动承受者”(passive recipients)转向“应对挑战的策略制定者”(enabling agents)。20世纪90年代到21世纪初期,研究者强调户口制度和自身能力对这一群体的绝对约束,一方面制度约束将流动人口排斥在主流住房系统尤其是各种类型的福利性住房之外[14,15],另一方面个人收入、社会资本、职业类型和教育水平等个人局限性进一步将流动人口隔离在租金低廉的城中村和企业宿舍等居所[16-18]。近年来,一些研究开始关注制度约束外流动人口自身能动性和策略对住房选择的影响[19,20],认为住房市场改革后流动人口受到的制度约束逐渐减少,但流动人口自身缺乏改善城市住房的动力和积极性[21]。因为流动人口留城意愿不强,迁移的工作导向、高储蓄意愿等特点将使其长期维持“两栖式”迁移[22-24],从而倾向缩减自身在城市的住房消费。
近年来“家庭式迁移”已逐渐成为流动人口迁移的主要趋势[25],这一现象对流入地的城市住房管理提出了新的要求[26,27]。20世纪90年代迁移形成“部分迁移、部分留守”的“分居家庭”,当前则形成“梯次迁移、举家迁移”的“团聚家庭”[28,29]。2012年,举家外出的农民工达3375万人,占外出人口总数的20.66%[30]。这些迁移家庭的社会融入、城市定居意愿和社会服务需求相对于以往的个体迁移都呈现明显的增长趋势[31,32]。因此推断,家庭式迁移的流动人口其住房可能表现出新的改善特征。这一方面是因为入城同住家庭人口增加会客观带来住房需求的增长,另一方面也可能是因为家庭式迁移改变了流动人口对未来的预期(如定居城市),从而主观选择不同于以往工作导向的家庭策略,更主动地增加城市的住房消费。但目前对家庭式迁移流动人口住房特征及机制的猜测亟需验证,而且不同类型的流动家庭所面临的约束和采取的策略可能不同,这种差异性能够反映不同迁移模式家庭的生存和融入状态,因此对住房特征及机制的家庭分异尤为值得关注。
新家庭经济学的出现,使得家庭逐步取代个体成为住房决策研究的基本单元。因此,以流入地的流动家庭为研究对象,试图解决以下三个核心问题:① 不同迁移模式的流动家庭(个体独住型、夫妻同住型、两代同住型、三代同住型和其他型等),其住房特征是否存在明显差异?② 流动家庭住房状况(权属及质量)受哪些因素影响?如果考虑移民的流动策略(与来源地联系和迁移地融入程度),户口是否仍然起作用?③ 不同流动家庭决策机制是否存在显著差别?探究不同迁移模式流动家庭的住房特征、约束及策略机制,一方面能够对各级政府的城市管理和服务提出指导,另一方面能够折射家庭式迁移背景下不同类型家庭融入和“固化”城市的可能性[32]

2 研究方法与数据来源

2.1 数据来源

数据来自2008年6月-2009年8月期间开展的城市流动人口大样本调查。本调查采用分层多阶段抽样方法,覆盖中国4个主要城市化地区——长三角、成渝、环渤海和珠三角地区。第一步,在每个地区抽取三个城市(包括特大城市、大中城市、小城市/镇)(① 为与调查年份相统一,城市规模采用《中华人民共和国城市规划法》的标准,特大城市城区非农业人口100万以上,大城市城区非农业人口50万~100万,中等城市城区非农业人口20万~50万,小城镇非农业人口20万以下。)。由于特大城市流动人口规模往往很大,在全市范围内进行抽样成本过高,在特大城市一般是选取一个下辖区进行调研,包括广州白云区、重庆沙坪坝区、宁波江北区、济南历城区、成都温江区;而中小城镇则是在城市(或城镇)所在地下辖所有城区调研,抽样结果包括珠三角的中山市、东莞茶山镇,长三角的江阴、乐清和河北三河燕郊镇。第二步,在每个城市流动人口聚集地区随机抽取五个街道。第三步,利用各地公安部门外来流动人口登记计算机系统,对外来流动人口进行等距随机抽样,每个街道随机抽取40个外来流动人口,即每个城市随机选取200个左右的流动人口。
调查收集了流动人口个人与家庭情况,包括就业情况、劳动合同情况、城市居住情况、子女教育情况多个方面。调查问卷中,对流动人口定义是所有户口不在本市市区的人口,包括所有户口在外县市的(不管是农村户口,还是城市户口),以及户籍在本市市区之外的农区、但在本市市区工作生活的农村户籍人口(即跨县或市辖区流动人口),流动时间则依据各地公安系统或其他系统的流动人口管理部门登记系统覆盖的对象。最终收集有效问卷2394份,涉及2394个流动人口家庭(表1)。
Tab. 1
表1
表1调查问卷流动家庭的地区分布
Tab. 1Distribution of questionnaires in four regions
区域样本数(个)省(市)样本数(个)
长三角600浙江省403
江苏省197
成渝597四川省397
重庆市200
环渤海597河北省198
山东省399
珠三角600广东省600


新窗口打开
问卷中家庭成员包括受访者本人及同一个户口本且未分家的配偶、子/女及媳/婿、(外)孙子/女、父/母及配偶父/母、(外)祖父/母、兄弟姐妹及其配偶和其他亲戚。已有研究证实家庭住房情况与城市中家庭构成密切相关,因此根据城市中同住家庭成员的情况对家庭进行归类。

2.2 研究方法及变量说明

本研究考察迁移家庭的住房选择,包含两个方面,即住房权属(1=购房,0=租房)和住房质量。住房质量包含10个方面,自来水(0=无,1=公用,2=独立),厨房燃气(0=无,1=其他燃料,2=天然气),厨房(0=无,1=公用,2=独立),洗澡间(0=无,1=公用,2=独立),卫生间(0=无,1=公用,2=独立),空调(0=无,3=有),房间取暖(0=无,1=有),建筑类型(0=临时,1=永久),居住独立性(0=同事或朋友同住,1=亲戚同住,2=自家独立居住),住房用途(0=工作和居住,1=居住),住房质量得分为10项加和除以最高分18。
住房权属选择采用二元Logistic模型进行分析。将住房权属设为购房和租房的虚拟变量(购房=1,租房=0),模型结构为[18]
ln(pi1-pi)=α+k=1kβkxki(1)
式中: pi为自变量分别为 x1i,x2i,?,xki时“购房”或“租房”事件发生的概率; x为解释变量,若自变量属于分类变量则将其转换为虚拟变量之后再纳入模型; k为变量的总数; α为常量; βk为偏回归系数。
住房选择模型及住房质量模型中涉及的解释变量包括五个方面(表2):社会经济特征(户口类型、性别、家庭非农年收入、年龄、教育年限、工作类型及本地迁移年限)、家庭结构、城市融入因素(本地方言、城市归属感、与当地人交往频率、定居意愿)、老家联系因素(汇款量、老家住房数量、老家近期住房改善计划)和地理因素(迁入地城市规模、迁移距离)。
Tab. 2
表2
表2解释变量的描述说明
Tab. 2General information for the explanatory variables
解释变量描述样本情况
社会经济特征户口类型1:非农户口
0:农业户口
24.06%
75.94%
性别1:男性
0:女性
56.24%
43.76%
家庭平均非农年收入连续变量均值(元)45997.51
同住成员中最长者年龄连续变量均值(岁)34.75
同住成员中最高学历者教育年限连续变量均值(从小学开始算起)(年)9.89
受访者工作类型0:为企业或私人老板打工
1:自雇
2:其他
72.77%
24.08%
3.15%
本地迁移年限连续变量均值(年)5.57
家庭类型入城家庭类型0:单人家庭41.91%
1:夫妻两人家庭16.97%

城市融入
2:核心家庭
3:三代家庭
4:其他家庭
30.48%
5.01%
5.63%
归属感1:有
0:无
60.46%
39.54%
本地方言1:会
0:否
37.24%
62.76%
定居城市意愿1:是
0:否
43.87%
56.13%
与本地人交往程度定序变量均值(1:基本没有,5:经常)2.84
老家联系年汇款额
近期重建、修善老家住房计划
连续变量(元)
1:有
0:无
3196.01
21.14%
78.86%
老家住房数量连续变量均值(套)1.13
地理因素城市规模特大城市50.08%
大城市8.30%
中等城市25.02%
小城市/镇16.60%
迁移距离跨省迁移63.26%
省内跨市30.23%
市内跨县/区6.51%


新窗口打开

3 流动家庭住房状况的分析

3.1 住房状况的类型分异

问卷中住房类型分为四种,即宿舍(36.22%)、租房(53.68%)、买房(5.38%)、借住及其他(4.72%)(表3)。从住房花费看,住房月支出从高到低依次为购房(446元)、租房(325元)、借住及其他(116元)、宿舍(30元)。从住房质量看,住房类型为购房的住房最好(0.82),宿舍最差(0.46)。从房间拥挤度看,购房房间面积最大、人均居住空间最宽敞,家庭平均住房面积为52.27 m2,人均住房面积为25.98 m2;宿舍房间面积最小、人均居住空间最狭窄,家庭平均住房面积为24.10 m2,人均住房面积仅为7.81 m2。从居住独立性看,宿舍主要表现为与同事、同乡和朋友同住(77.62%),租房和买房主要表现为自家独立居住,自家独立居住的比例分别为81.17%和92.25%,借住主要表现为与亲戚合住(61.95%)。从社区设施指数(② 社区设施考察四方面:小区里老人健身或孩子游戏设施(1=有,0=无)、社区道路是硬化路面(1=是,0=无)、社区道路有路灯(1=有,0=无)、社区有公共垃圾环卫设施(1=有,0=无)。四项得分之和再除以总分4为社区设施指数。)看,购买的房子社区设施最齐全,借住次之,租的房子最差。从交通便利度看,不同类型住房与医院距离差不多;与最近的购物中心及电影院/体育场距离,租房最远、购房最近;与最近的学校距离,购房最近、宿舍最远;与工作地的距离,宿舍最近(0.64 km)、购房(3.28 km)和借住最远(3.75 km)。
Tab. 3
表3
表3不同类型住房基本特征
Tab. 3Characteristics of housing in different patterns
基本特征|住房类型总体宿舍租房购房借住及其他
个数23948671285129113
住房的月支出(元)21630325446116
质量指数0.550.460.590.820.65
房间面积(m226.0724.1024.6252.2728.04
人均住房面积(m211.437.8112.3225.9814.41
自家居住占比(%)57.3521.0081.1792.2525.66
亲戚合住占比(%)6.431.385.372.3361.95
同事、同乡、朋友合住占比(%)36.2277.6213.465.4212.39
社区设施指数0.8500.8490.8420.9260.873
距工作地距离(km)1.480.641.653.283.75
距最近购物中心距离1 km内占比(%)59.0060.4457.4963.5760.18
1~3 km占比(%)21.1519.2621.6125.5824.78
3~5 km占比(%)11.6812.3012.407.753.54
5 km以上占比(%)8.178.008.503.1011.50
距最近医院距离1 km内占比(%)57.9256.9658.5057.8158.93
1~3 km占比(%)24.6425.7523.1728.9127.68
3~5 km占比(%)11.4410.7912.488.598.04
5 km以上占比(%)6.006.505.854.695.35
距最近电影院/体育场1 km内占比(%)32.5134.9529.7339.0637.50
1~3 km占比(%)21.7321.6121.4624.2222.32
3~5 km占比(%)19.3420.3120.1113.2810.71
5 km以上占比(%)26.4223.1428.7023.4429.46
距最近学校距离1 km内占比(%)57.8449.8262.1564.5761.95
1~3 km占比(%)25.0727.2823.1925.9828.32
3~5 km占比(%)11.1315.189.624.725.31
5 km以上占比(%)5.967.725.044.734.42


新窗口打开
因此,从不同类型的住房特征看,雇主提供的宿舍是经济上最节约、前往工作地最方便的住房类型,但同时其房间隐私性差、房屋拥挤、住房质量差,具有显著的工作指向性特征;市场提供的住房(租房/买房)住房独立性好、房屋质量较好、相对宽敞、上学就医交通便利,但价格相对高,呈现出家庭指向性特征,而借助的房子介于市场提供及雇主提供之间。

3.2 住房状况的家庭分异

根据流入地的家庭成员同住情况,可划分为“一人独住型”(41.98%)、“夫妻同住型”(16.96%)、“两代同住型”(30.45%)、“三代同住型”(5.01%)(③ “两代同住型”指同住家庭成员的代际跨度为连续两代,即同住的父母及子女,父母可以是一方或双方,子女可以是已婚或未婚。“三代同住型”指同住家庭成员的代际跨度为三代。“其他”包括了兄弟姐妹及配偶、随行的其他亲属。)及“其他”(5.60%)五类(表4),前三类构成流动家庭的主要形式。“独住型”的受访者平均年龄为28岁,是几类家庭中较为年轻的群体,也是家庭成员留守比例最高的类型,老家有配偶的人数占此类人总数的14.73%,老家有学龄子女的比例达14.53%,老家有父母的比例达84.58%。“其他”类型其父母留守比例与“独住型”的比例相当,但配偶及有学龄子女留守的比例显著小于“独住型”,这一方面是由于其受访者平均年龄为26岁比“独住型”年轻,因此已婚和有学龄子女的比例比“独住型”少,另一方面是由于“独住型”比“其他”类型“打工”者的比例高、“自雇”者的比例低,更可能住在雇主提供的宿舍,因此与同事而非与家人入城同住的概率更大。“夫妻同住型”“两代同住型”和“三代同住型”三类家庭的受访者年龄相近,分别为37岁、35岁和36岁,但三类家庭的子女及父母留守比例存在巨大差异。“夫妻同住型”家庭的学龄子女和父母留守比例最高,分别为44.96%、92.38%;“三代同住型”家庭的学龄子女和父母留守比例最低,分别为5.83%、75.83%。
Tab. 4
表4
表4不同迁移家庭基本特征
Tab. 4Basic characteristics of migrants from different households
基本特征总体独住夫妻同住两代同住型三代同住型其他
家庭
构成
个数
百分比(%)
2394
100
1005
41.98
406
16.96
729
30.45
120
5.01
134
5.60
受访者平均年龄(岁)322837353626
配偶在老家家庭占比(%)7.1414.730.002.741.671.48
老家有学龄孩子家庭占比(%)17.5914.5344.9611.635.830.74
老家有父母家庭占比(%)85.5184.5892.3883.9975.8388.89
社会
经济
特征
迁移本地年限(年)5.63.86.97.27.94.2
家庭非农年收入(元)460144058645948493186073855297
打工家庭占比(%)76.1190.3571.5060.8855.0085.93
自雇家庭占比(%)23.899.6528.5039.1245.0014.07
老家
联系
年汇款额(元)319828934348243455593888
汇款额占非农收入比例(%)9.5810.8510.807.249.179.78
近期计划改善老家住房家庭占比(%)21.1322.8018.8520.1218.3523.08
老家住房数量(套)1.131.191.091.071.191.19
城市
融入
与本地人平均交往程度2.842.922.632.833.062.76
城市归属感家庭占比(%)60.4355.7861.8863.7073.9561.65
留城意愿家庭占比(%)43.8644.7836.1243.5050.0057.04
住房
特征
宿舍家庭占比(%)36.2260.8020.2014.827.5042.54
租房家庭占比(%)53.6833.2370.9471.6065.8346.27
购房家庭占比(%)5.381.494.688.2322.505.97
借住家庭占比(%)4.724.484.195.354.175.22
质量指数0.5540.4870.5980.6040.6940.526
住房面积(m226.0823.9425.3828.1535.8223.95
住房月支出(元)216110258316349203

④ 与本地人平均交往频率打分规则:1.基本没有;2.不太经常;3.一般;4.比较经常;5.经常。
新窗口打开
五类家庭的社会经济状况差异明显。随入城时间的增长,入城家庭成员数量增加,非农家庭收入增加。“独住型”“其他”类型入城时间最短,平均分别为3.8年和4.2年。“三代同住型”在五种家庭类型中非农收入最高(60738元)、入城时间最长(7.9年)、“自雇”比例最高(45.00%)。
“独住型”与老家的联系最强,“两代同住型”与老家联系最弱;“夫妻同住型”城市融入感最弱,“三代同住型”城市融入感最强。“独住型”与老家的联系最强,年汇款额占家庭非农收入的比例最高(10.85%),老家平均住房数量及近期改善意愿都较大。“两代同住型”与老家联系最弱,年汇款的绝对值(2434元)以及汇款占家庭非农收入的比例均最低(4.94%),老家住房数量最少(平均1.1套),近期有一定住房改善的意愿(20.12%)。“夫妻同住型”的汇款额占家庭城市非农收入的10.80%,留城意愿在几类家庭中最低(36.12%),与本地人平均交往程度最低(2.63),说明“夫妻同住型”家庭更多将城市视为工作而非生活的地方,配偶入城只是一种提高收入的家庭策略,未来该类家庭返乡的意愿迫切[22]。“三代同住型”家庭与本地人交往最频繁(3.06)、城市归属感最强(73.95%)、留城意愿最高(50%),将城市非农收入的9.17%汇款回老家(仅高于“两代同住型”),近期改善住房意愿不强烈(18.35%),老家住房数量最多(平均为1.2套)。
五类家庭的住房分异显著。从住房类型看,“独住型”家庭最倾向选择雇主提供的宿舍(60.80%);“夫妻同住型”“两代同住型”及“三代同住型”倾向于选择租房,其租房比例依次为70.94%、71.60%、65.83%;“其他型”以宿舍和租房为主;此外,三代共居家庭的购房比例在五类家庭中显著最高(22.50%)。从家庭住房质量看,总体上家庭成员入城规模越多,住房质量越高,“独住型”“其他型”“夫妻型”“两代同住型”“三代同住型”的住房质量指数依次提高,分别为0.487、0.526、0.598、0.604和0.694,住房面积和月住房支出也满足家庭规模越大住房面积和月支出越多的规律。
总之,五类家庭在家庭来源地流入地的家庭构成、社会经济特征、老家联系、城市融入和住房特征方面差异显著,暗示其中存在不同的家庭策略。但其具体的住房选择机制需要通过模型进行验证。

4 流动家庭住房状况的机制

4.1 住房权属影响因素

为考察“社会经济特征”“家庭特征”“城市融入”“老家联系”和“地理”几类因素对住房权属的作用差异,识别住房权属的约束与策略选择,本文对流动家庭住房权属的影响因素进行二元logistic回归分析,变量全部纳入模型。因为部分家庭类型的购房样本量太少,因此住房权属模型没有进行不同家庭类型的对比回归。模型中逐步纳入不同类型因素,最后得到90%置信度下的三个回归模型。VIF检验小于5,不存在显著共线性,方程检验通过。三个模型Pseudo-R2的值分别为0.198、0.253、0.259(表5),说明三个模型均有效。虽然“社会经济特征”“家庭特征”和“地理因素”解释了大多数的住房权属选择(90.81%),但“老家联系”和“城市融入”变量的加入仍使得模型的解释力度提升,最终模型预测正确率达到93.36%。
Tab. 5
表5
表5住房权属影响因素的Logistic回归分析
Tab. 5Logistic regression of the housing tenure
因变量(购房=1,租房=0) 变量模型一模型二模型三
社会经济特征家庭户口(参照组:农业户口)0.683***0.740***0.036
年龄0.022**0.028***0.029**
教育年限0.184***0.147***0.058
性别(参照组:男性)-0.330-0.255-0.456
迁移本地年限0.062***0.065***0.021
家庭年非农收入3.07e-06***3.79e-06**5.41e-06**
自雇(参照组:打工)-0.531**-0.580**-0.370
家庭类型夫妻同住(参照组:独住型)0.3900.5200.618
两代同住家庭0.949***1.226***1.253**
三代同住家庭1.728***1.910***1.784***
其他家庭0.959*0.7330.785
老家联系老家住房数量1.096***1.229***
有无住房改善计划(参照组:无)-0.509-0.705*
年汇款数6.67e-06-0.00011*
城市融入与本地人交往频率0.081
定居城市意愿(参照组:无)0.787***
归属感(参照组:无)0.816**
本地方言(参照组:无)0.226
地理因素超大城市(参照组:中等城市)0.596**0.627**0.678*
大城市1.314***1.380***1.282**
小城市/镇0.875**1.060***0.829*
跨省迁移(参照组:跨县/区)-0.811**-0.706-0.557
省内跨市迁移0.0730.092-0.089
Constant-6.495***-8.107***-8.370***
Loglikelihood-341.353-284.157-202.461
Pseudo-R20.1980.2530.259
Percentage Correct (%)90.8191.6093.36
自由度161923

注:******分别代表10%、5%和1%显著水平上显著,表中数据为系数B值。
新窗口打开
模型一纳入与住房需求、供给和市场状况相关的变量,模型二和模型三逐步纳入与移民身份及流动特征相关的变量。家庭经济状况(年非农收入)、身份状况(户口)、职业状况(自雇与否)、教育状况(学历)用以反映流动家庭社会经济状况;家庭所处的生命周期(年龄、性别)及家庭结构,用以反映流动家庭的住房需求;地理因素(城市规模、迁移距离)用以反映宏观住房市场状况。模型二在模型一基础上加入“老家联系”的相关变量,考察与老家的经济联系(汇款)、长期住房资产持有(老家住房数量)和短期消费预期(住房改善计划)对城市住房权属的影响。模型三在模型二的基础上加入“城市融入”的相关变量,考察流动家庭文化融入(方言)、社交融入(当地人交往频率)、心理融入(归属感)和未来定居预期(留城意愿)对城市住房权属的影响。
模型一,社会经济特征的影响基本符合已有研究结论。首先户口对住房权属的影响显著,非农户口和农业户口相比购房享有优势(B=0.683>0)。性别的作用不显著,年龄、受教育水平、迁移至本地年限和家庭年非农收入均与住房权属呈正相关,即入城时间越长、年龄越大、受教育水平越高、家庭非农收入越高,流动家庭将更倾向于买房而不是租房。职业自雇者相对于打工者更不倾向买房,这可能是缘于自雇者的工作稳定性较差。家庭特征与前文分析较为一致,即家庭成员入城同住越多购房可能性越大,尤其是“三代同住型”相对其他类型家庭购房的可能性最高(B值最大)。但“夫妻同住型”与作为参考类别的“独住型”家庭住房权属的差异在统计上并不显著,说明配偶入城同住并不能显著增加购房可能性,孩子和老人入城同住会显著增加购房可能性。地理因素影响显著,大城市、小城市/镇和中等城市相比,购房的可能性都较高,这可能是因为规模小的城市房价低,而规模大的城市吸引力大。相对于跨县迁移,跨省迁移购买住房的可能性更低(B=-0.811<0),但省内跨市迁移与跨县迁移的差异不明显。
模型二,老家住房数量显著影响购房概率,向老家汇款数量以及近期老家住房改善计划对购房与否的影响不显著。老家住房数量越多,城市购房的概率越高,这可能反映了流动家庭购房的实力和偏好,同时也说明了城市的购房行为并不代表对乡村资产的放弃。加入新变量后,户口的系数上升,说明流动家庭与老家联系的影响并不能替代户口的作用。迁移距离的影响不再显著,说明迁移距离可能通过影响流动家庭与老家的联系间接影响住房权属。“其他”类型与“独住型”家庭住房权属的差异不再显著,“二代同住型”(B=1.226)、“三代同住型”(B=1.910)的系数较高,说明“独住型”“夫妻同住型”和“其他型”家庭购房概率相差较小,而“二代同住型”“三代同住型”的购房概率更高、更可能“扎根城市”。
模型三,定居城市意愿(B=0.787)和对本地的归属感(B=0.816)会正向影响流动家庭的住房权属,是否会讲本地方言、与本地人交往频率对购房与否的影响则不显著。这说明真正影响流动家庭购房的是融入的主观心理感受和未来的停留预期,而不是客观的文化和社会融入。加入城市融入相关变量后,老家联系变量中的有无住房改善计划和年汇款额变为显著,并起着负向作用,说明往老家汇款越多、短期内有改善老家住房的家庭,与老家的经济联系越密切、经济投入越多,越不可能在城市买房。模型二中两个有显著影响的变量:家庭户口和迁移本地年限变得不再显著,这说明流动人口的城市心理融入和留城意愿对购房的解释力更强。
总之,流动家庭究竟是购房还是租房,除了理性考虑当前城市的住房市场状况、家庭的客观居住需求、经济实力,也极为重视自身在城市的归属感和定居城市的长远目标,从而做出住房选择。配偶、兄弟姐妹和其他亲戚入城同住,虽然增加了客观居住需求,但并没有改变流动家庭在城市的“工作导向”特征,因此“独住型”“夫妻同住型”“其他型”购房概率低。“二代同住型”和“三代同住型”家庭拥有子女和父母入城同住,其购房率高不仅缘于成员的住房需求,而且也缘于其融入城市、定居城市的目的、选择和策略。因此,当前流动家庭的住房权属选择表现为一种家庭策略。

4.2 住房质量影响因素

对流动家庭住房质量进行线性回归分析,变量全部纳入模型。为探讨不同类型家庭的住房质量是否存在分异以及背后的机制,分别对不同家庭类型展开回归分析。方差分析显示,“独住型”和“其他”类型、“夫妻同住型”和“两代同住型”的住房质量差异不大,但与“三代同住型”分异显著,因此将五类家庭最后归并为三组。分析得到90%置信度下的4个回归方程,校正R2为分别为0.170、0.122、0.152、0.267,Sig=0.000,所有变量VIF检验小于5(表6)。
Tab. 6
表6
表6住房质量影响因素的线性回归分析
Tab. 6Linear regression of the facility conditions
因变量(住房质量指数) 变量全体流动家庭独住及其他型夫妻及两代同住型三代同住型
社会经济特征家庭户口(参照组:农业户口)0.039***0.071***-0.00060.024
年龄0.001***0.001*-0.001*0.0004
教育年限0.010***0.006**0.012***0.040***
性别(参照组:男性)0.0280***0.040***-0.00080.072
本地迁移年限0.004***0.00060.004***-0.002
家庭年非农收入5.98e-07***2.84e-076.64e-07***4.18e-07
自雇(参照组:打工)0.079***0.107***0.037***-0.0156
老家联系老家住房数量0.0006-0.0150.0240.055
有无住房改善计划(参照组:无)-0.030***-0.039***-0.0250.034
年汇款数-9.27e-08-3.45e-06**1.27e-06-7.08e-06
城市融入与本地人交往频率0.013***0.010**0.014***0.015
定居城市意愿(参照组:无)0.016*0.031**0.0070.007
归属感(参照组:无)0.037***0.033**0.038***0.062
本地方言(参照组:无)0.022**0.024*0.019-0.003
地理因素超大城市(参照组:小城市/镇)0.0080.023-0.00040.078
大城市0.066***0.081***0.067**0.035
中等城市0.051***0.090***0.0180.083
跨省迁移(参照组:跨县/区)0.040**0.069**-0.0060.073
省内跨市迁移0.0140.036-0.0120.111
Constant
R2
Adj R2
样本量
0.169***0.203***0.358***-0.078
0.1790.1430.1710.433
0.1700.1220.1520.267
176982286285

注:******分别代表10%、5%和1%显著水平上显著,表中数据为系数B值。
新窗口打开
对于全体流动家庭,除了老家住房数量、年汇款数、超大城市和省内跨市迁移,其他所有因素都显著,说明流动家庭的住房质量显著受到家庭社会经济特征、城市融入和地理因素的影响,受老家联系的影响较弱。从社会经济特征来看,即使控制了其他变量,户口仍然显著影响住房质量,农业户口的流动家庭被限制在低质量住房内。年龄越大、教育水平越高、进入本地年限越长、非农收入越多的自雇女性,其住房质量越好。从与老家的联系来看,短期内老家有住房改善计划与城市住房质量呈现负相关,而汇款数与老家住房数量对城市住房质量影响不显著,说明短期内由于住房消费的有限性城市住房质量改善与老家住房改善存在矛盾。从城市融入来看,与本地人交往频率越高、越倾向定居城市、会讲本地方言、对本地有归属感的流动家庭,住房质量越好。这一点与住房权属略不同,即城市住房质量与实际融入情况(社交和文化)以及未来定居预期都相关。从地理因素看,除了特大城市外,城市规模越大则住房质量越好,跨省迁移相对市内跨县迁移的住房质量好。
对于“独住型”和“其他型”家庭,与全体流动家庭的影响因素基本一致。户口对这两类家庭的限制(B=0.071)要比全体流动家庭大(B=0.039),说明这两类群体由于入城年限短,受到的各方面制约最多。本地迁移年限和家庭非农收入都不显著,说明这两类家庭即使入城年限增长、收入增加,住房改善的潜力也不大。而且,不同于全体流动家庭的是,这两类家庭的住房质量与向老家汇款的数额呈显著负相关(B<0),进一步说明“独住型”和“其他型”家庭倾向于采取将城市作为工作地的家庭策略,保持与老家紧密的联系,缩减在城市的住房消费,选择质量较差的住房。
对于“夫妻同住型”及“两代同住型”家庭,户口不再成为住房质量的约束条件,老家联系以及地理因素的影响也减弱。“三代同住型”家庭受到的约束更少,除了户口不再起作用外,对“夫妻同住型”及“两代同住型”家庭有影响的入城年限、非农收入、职业特征、城市融入因素,对“三代同住型”家庭都不再显著。说明“三代同住型”家庭的住房改善已经达到一定水平。
总之,家庭式迁移的流动人口住房质量相对个体迁移存在改善,这反映了流动家庭社会经济地位的提升和城市融入的提高。但不同类型家庭的住房质量存在分异,缘于不同能力约束下的家庭策略不同。“独住型”和“其他型”家庭将城市作为工作地,倾向增加对老家的投资和消费,改善住房质量的积极性不高。“夫妻同住型”和“两代同住型”家庭具有增加城市消费、改善住房质量的热情,但仍然受到社会经济地位和能力的制约。“三代同住型”的住房质量既不受户口约束,也不受个人能力限制,住房质量最高。

5 结论与讨论

人口“家庭式”迁移有利于社会稳定,但也给城市住房管理带来了挑战。基于2009年环渤海、长三角、珠三角和成渝四区域的抽样调查问卷,探究家庭式迁移的流动人口住房状况及影响因素。文章主要结论如下:
(1)相对个体流动家庭式迁移的流动人口其住房改善明显,但不同家庭类型的住房特征存在明显差异。“独住型”“其他型”“夫妻同住型”“两代同住型”和“三代同住型”的住房质量、住房面积和住房消费依次提升。从住房类型看,“独住型”倾向选择宿舍,“夫妻同住型”“两代同住型”“三代同住型”以租房为主,“三代同住型”的家庭购房比重在几类家庭中最高。
(2)流动家庭的住房状况是一种约束条件下的能动选择。住房权属受到本地住房市场状况、家庭居住需求、家庭社会经济地位和流动特征(来源地联系和流入地融入)的影响。本文将城市归属感、定居预期及与老家联系程度等相关变量引入购房决策模型,户口作用不再显著。流动家庭的住房质量,受到户口和自身社会经济地位的约束依然显著,但不同类型家庭受到的束缚和采取的策略也不同。
(3)流动家庭是一个多元化的群体,不同类型家庭所处的社会经济状况和采用的城市生存策略不同,从而带来了其住房状况的分异。“独住型”和“其他型”受到约束最大,“夫妻同住型”受到的约束次之,因此倾向于采用不留城、增加与老家的联系、减少城市花费的家庭策略,其城市的住房状况较差;“两代同住型”家庭主要受到自身能力约束,对老家投入少、与老家联系最弱;“三代同住型”受到的制约最小,城市融入最强,住房状况最好。
流动家庭的住房与城市融入已成为中国大规模城市化进程中的重要社会问题。本文研究表明,不同类型的流动家庭其居住特征和策略日益分化,其住房获得和城市融入不是一蹴而就的过程,因此政府应当制定梯度化的住房管理政策,以此推动流动家庭逐步有序地“固化”到城市。
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献 原文顺序
文献年度倒序
文中引用次数倒序
被引期刊影响因子

[1]Coulson N E.Why are Hispanic- and Asian-American homeownership rates so low? Immigration and other factors.
Journal of Urban Economics, 1999, 45(2): 209-227.
https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1998.2094URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
The homeownership rates of Hispanic- and Asian-American households are significantly less than that of other demographic groups in the US, especially after accounting for income and other characteristics. This naturally leads to an investigation of the impact of immigration characteristics of various groups on the propensity for homeownership. It is found that being an immigrant has a substantial negative effect on the probability of being a homeowner but that this effect dissipates over time. The relative youth of these two groups in and of itself plays a significant role in lowering their homeownership rate, as does the relatively high rate of residence in areas with high value rent ratios.
[2]Sch?nw?lder K, S?hn J.Immigrant settlement structures in Germany: General patterns and urban levels of concentration of major groups.
Urban Studies, 2009, 46(7): 1439-1460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009104575URL摘要
This article investigates the settlement structures of foreigners and, specifically, of Turks, ex-Yugoslavs, Italians, Greeks and ex-Soviets in Germany. The main data source is the as yet unexploited dataset of the Inner-city Spatial Observatory, complemented by data from the 2005 sample census and city statistics. Immigrant settlement is shown to be widely dispersed across west German cities. Within cities, ethnic neighbourhoods are rare. Immigrants typically live in multi-ethnic environments. Although differences exist between national groups, the level of ethnic residential concentration is relatively low in Germany. Hypotheses on the reasons for these findings are developed, focusing on the historical circumstances of migration, the structure of the German housing market, immigrant-specific state intervention as well as ethnic group differences regarding financial resources, discrimination and ethnic preferences.
[3]Kempen R V, ?züekren A S.Ethnic segregation in cities: New forms and explanations in a dynamic world.
Urban Studies, 1998, 35(10): 1631-1656.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984088URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
As an introduction to this special issue on ethnic segregation in cities, we offer the readers an overview of the explanatory factors of ethnic segregation and spatial concentration in modern welfare states. After a discussion of the disadvantages and advantages of segregation and concentration, which can be seen as the impetus behind the widespread interest in this topic, we will briefly review some 'traditional' theories. That review will be followed by a closer look at behavioural theories and explanations in which constraints are central. The next section will elaborate on restructuring processes, giving special attention to economic change and its effects on cities, groups and spatial arrangements. We will conclude this introduction with a few remarks on the future of ethnic segregation and concentration and outline some possible directions for future research in this field.
[4]刘望保. 国内外生命历程与居住选择研究回顾和展望
. 世界地理研究, 2006, 15(2): 100-106.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2006.02.016URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
1970年代后生命历程分析成为贯穿居住选择微观研究的核心方 法.住房权属选择和居住流动是西方居住选择微观研究的主要内容.西方研究大多为应用生命历程观念将住房权属转换和居住流动决策与家庭生命历程和住房市场中 的重要诱因联系起来,发现家庭特征、家庭生命周期变化和住房市场环境等都是居住选择的重要影响因素.对比西方的研究,中国城市居住选择微观研究非常缺乏, 一些研究发现除了家庭特征和住房市场特征外,政府和工作单位的影响非常大.
[Liu Wangbao.Review and prospect of research on life course and housing choice.
World Regional Studies, 2006, 15(2): 100-106.]
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2006.02.016URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
1970年代后生命历程分析成为贯穿居住选择微观研究的核心方 法.住房权属选择和居住流动是西方居住选择微观研究的主要内容.西方研究大多为应用生命历程观念将住房权属转换和居住流动决策与家庭生命历程和住房市场中 的重要诱因联系起来,发现家庭特征、家庭生命周期变化和住房市场环境等都是居住选择的重要影响因素.对比西方的研究,中国城市居住选择微观研究非常缺乏, 一些研究发现除了家庭特征和住房市场特征外,政府和工作单位的影响非常大.
[5]Constant A F, Roberts R, Zimmermann K F.Ethnic identity and immigrant homeownership.
Urban Studies, 2009, 46(9): 1879-1898.
[本文引用: 2]
[6]Clark W A V, Deurloo M C, Dieleman F M. Entry to home-ownership in Germany: Some comparisons with the United States.
Urban Studies, 1997, 34(1): 7-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098976249URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
ABSTRACT New research on migration, mobility and housing tenure choice using the concept of the life-course is providing an enriched analysis of the context within which housing choices are made and of the demographic and economic variables which are critical determinants of the decisions to move and to change tenures. The availability of panel series data for the US and Germany allows cross-national comparisons of the migration and tenure choice processes. There are substantial differences in the rates of mobility and the rates of moves of households from the rental sector to ownership, especially for couples, but the results confirm the overall similarities in the mobility and tenure choice processes despite the differing government commitments to housing policy. The models show that it is primarily couples and families who make the transition to ownership and that income and number of earners are important in both contexts and German households have even higher incomes before they make the transition to ownership. At the same time, the tax benefits in Germany have also made it possible for families with relatively lower incomes to move to the ownership sector.
[7]Rebhun U.Immigration, ethnicity, and housing: Success hierarchies in Israel.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 2009, 27(4): 219-243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2009.09.002URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
The study assesses housing hierarchies among immigrants in Israel by investigating three different but complementary paths: homeownership, crowding, and access to housing goods. Data from the most recent Israeli census in 1995 (the 20% version file) allows us to classify the immigrant population by 46 countries or areas of origin, each meeting the criterion of having a minimum of 100 sample cases. I controlled for several confounding factors: immigration characteristics, community of residence, demographic and human-capital variables, household composition, and housing characteristics. The results of multivariate analyses suggest that membership in approximately half of the immigrant groups has a statistically significant effect on homeownership. Representing very different origin groups from developing countries in Asia and Africa, as well as developed areas in Western Europe and America, most of the effects are negative relative to the reference group of Polish Jews. The pace of home acquisition is fastest among immigrants from several former Soviet republics and slowest among Syrian and Ethiopian Israelis. A better ethnic hierarchy was found for the other two characteristics, crowding and housing goods, with immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe being at a disadvantage. Many of these gaps close as immigrants purchase housing and gain tenure in Israel. The pace of advancement, however, is not uniform. I speculate that the differences in pace reflect structural characteristics, cultural background, and immigration processes, as well as absorption policy, which were not fully indexed by the census data. The discussion addresses broader implications of the findings for ethnic differences and social stratification in immigration countries.
[8]Schoenholtz A, Stanton K.Reaching the immigrant market: Creating homeownership opportunities for new Americans. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University and Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001.
[本文引用: 1]
[9]Amuedo-Dorantes C, Mundra K.Immigrant homeownership and immigration status: Evidence from Spain.
Review of International Economics, 2013, 21(2): 204-218.
https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12031URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
Because of the many advantages of homeownership for immigrants and for the communities where immigrants reside, a variety of countries have implemented policies that facilitate immigrant homeownership. Although these policies hinge on immigration status, the link between immigration status and homeownership is yet to be carefully explored. Using a recent survey of immigrants in Spain, we find that permanent residents from the EU15 enjoy the highest homeownership rates, even after accounting for a wide range of individual and family characteristics known to impact housing ownership. Permanent residents from countries outside the EU15, temporary residents and undocumented immigrants are, respectively, 12 percentagepoints, 29 percentage-points and 33 percentagepoints less likely to own a home than permanent residents from the EU15. Overall, the findings highlight the differences in homeownership by immigrant status, possibly reflecting differences in cultural adaptation and integration across immigrants in host country.
[10]Myers D, Megbolugbe I, Lee S W.Cohort estimation of homeownership attainment among native-born and immigrant populations.
Journal of Housing Research, 1998, 9(2): 237-269.
URL摘要
ABSTRACT This article proposes a cohort method for modeling longitudinal changes in homeownership attain- ment. Theory underlying the method draws on two research traditions: labor economists' research on the economic mobility of immigrants and housing economists' research on homeownership over the life cycle. The modeling technique was applied to native-born, non-Hispanic whites, native-born Mexican Amer- icans, and Mexican immigrants and was used to estimate trajectories of homeownership attainment by birth cohort and arrival cohort from 1980 to 1990. The results show that temporal factors such as cohort membership, aging, and duration of U.S. residence are strong predictors of homeownership attainment. The results also show that the adjusted homeownership trajectories of younger native- born, non-Hispanic whites and Mexican Americans lag behind those of older cohorts.
[11]Alba R D, Logan J R.Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups.
International Migration Review, 1992, 26(4): 1314-1341.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2546885URLPMID:12317909摘要
ABSTRACT "This study investigates homeownership differences among twelve racial/ethnic groups using the [U.S.] Public Use Sample data (PUMS) of the 1980 census.... The study identifies a number of differences among non-Hispanic whites, blacks, American Indians, and Asian and Hispanic groups in access to homeownership.... For every group there is a strong correspondence between homeownership and various individual-level factors: age, household composition, socioeconomic position and language acculturation. The observed differences in ownership are substantially attenuated when group differences in some of these variables are controlled."
[12]Borjas G J.Homeownership in the immigrant population.
Journal of Urban Economics, 2002, 52(3): 448-476.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00529-6URL摘要
ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the determinants of homeownership in immigrant households over the 1980-2000 period. The study finds that immigrants have lower homeownership rates than natives and that the homeownership gap widened significantly during that period. The differential location decisions of immigrant and native households, as well as the changing national origin mix of the immigrant population, helps explain much of the homeownership gap. The evidence also indicates that the growth of ethnic enclaves in major American cities could become an important factor in increasing immigrant demand for owner-occupied housing in many metropolitan areas.
[13]Massey D S, Denton N A.American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. [本文引用: 1]
[14]Wu W P.Migrant housing in urban China: Choices and constraints.
Urban Affairs Review, 2002, 38(1): 90-119.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107808702401097817URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
China’srecent waves of internal migration, primarily rural to urban, reflect a rapidly urbanizing society undergoing a transition from a planned to a market economy. The author addresses two key questions: what access migrants have to urban housing and how migrant housing conditions compare with those of the locals. The main findings are based on citywide housing surveys and interviews conducted in Shanghai and Beijing, as well as results from official surveys. Interpretations of migrant housing patternsin urban China need to be linked with the country’sunique institutional factors, particularly the circulating nature of migration, the existing household registration system, and the transitioning state of the urban housing market. Restricted access to urban housing, together with the temporary status for migrants, contributes to their poor housing conditions.
[15]Huang Y Q.A room of one's own: Housing consumption and residential crowding in transitional urban China.
Environment and Planning A, 2003, 35(4): 591-614.
URL [本文引用: 1]
[16]Zhang L, Zhao S X B, Tian J P. Self-help in housing and Chengzhongcun in China's urbanization.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2003, 27(4): 912-937.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00491.xURL [本文引用: 1]摘要
Abstract This article focuses on the housing issues of rural migrants arising from urbanization, with particular reference to chengzhongcun, a topic with considerable impact on policy-making. An attempt is made to understand the underlying rationale of self-help in housing and the important role of chengzhongcun in sheltering rural migrants in the context of China's rural-urban dichotomy. As demonstrated in this study, chengzhongcun accommodate, with little in the way of government resources and assistance, millions of rural migrants because of their social accessibility and affordability. While not denying their social problems, we argue that chengzhongcun in fact act as an innovative and positive agent to promote urbanization in present day China by housing massive numbers of rural migrants and assimilating them into cities. Current government policies towards chengzhongcun have generated a wide range of interest conflicts and confrontations. The consequences of such conflicts show that the government policies were problematic and unworkable, as they violated basic market principles as well as citizen rights. Policy strategy towards the redevelopment of chengzhongcun must acknowledge their credibility in the Chinese road to urbanization and requires more thoughtful and prudent consideration of migrants' demands for affordable housing.
[17]王桂新. 城市农民工的分布、居住与社会融合: 以上海为例
. 人口研究, 2005, 29(4): 39-41.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6087.2005.04.006URL摘要
改革开放以来,大量农村人口迁入城市,与城市本地居民"共居"于同一城市空间.农民工在迁入城市的空间分布,很大程度上决定着他们与城市居民接触"界面"的大小和交流机会的多少;农民工的居住状况,又在一定意义上反映了他们与城市居民社会差异的大小及相互融合的程度.
[Wang Guixin.Distribution, housing and integration of urban migrant workers: A case of Shanghai.
Population Research, 2005, 29(4): 39-41.]
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6087.2005.04.006URL摘要
改革开放以来,大量农村人口迁入城市,与城市本地居民"共居"于同一城市空间.农民工在迁入城市的空间分布,很大程度上决定着他们与城市居民接触"界面"的大小和交流机会的多少;农民工的居住状况,又在一定意义上反映了他们与城市居民社会差异的大小及相互融合的程度.
[18]李志刚. 中国大都市新移民的住房模式与影响机制
. 地理学报, 2012, 67(2): 189-200.
https://doi.org/10.11821/xb201202005URLMagsci [本文引用: 2]摘要
利用在广州、东莞、沈阳、成都、杭州、郑州6 市进行配额抽样调查(2008-2009 年) 所获得的3168 份问卷,采用Logistic 回归分析等计量方法,研究快速城市化下中国大都市“新移民”的住房状况、模式与机制。研究表明,城市新移民已经成为一个日趋分化的复合群体,可分为劳力型移民、智力型移民、投资型移民三类,三类新移民住房状况存在较大差异。总体上,新移民人均住房面积为20.69 m<sup>2</sup>,其中智力型新移民的人均住房面积最高(24.87 m<sup>2</sup>/人),劳力型新移民的最低(16.26 m<sup>2</sup>/人)。就住房设施条件而言,新移民的设施指数为0.35,水平较低;其中投资型新移民的设施条件最好,智力型新移民的设施条件次之,劳力型新移民最差。经过多年市场化和户籍制度改革,社会经济要素对于新移民住房模式(购房或租房)的影响越来越大,但当前各类新移民的住房模式主要由制度因素(户口) 所决定,职业因素对新移民住房模式的影响尚不显著。不过,职业对新移民租房的类型选择具有较大影响。此外,影响新移民住房设施水平的主要因素包括户口、收入水平、教育水平、婚姻状况、年龄和新移民类型等多个方面,其中户口仍是决定性因素。
[Li Zhigang.Housing conditions, patterns and mechanisms of second generation migrants in urban China: A case study of six large cities.
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(2): 189-200.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/xb201202005URLMagsci [本文引用: 2]摘要
利用在广州、东莞、沈阳、成都、杭州、郑州6 市进行配额抽样调查(2008-2009 年) 所获得的3168 份问卷,采用Logistic 回归分析等计量方法,研究快速城市化下中国大都市“新移民”的住房状况、模式与机制。研究表明,城市新移民已经成为一个日趋分化的复合群体,可分为劳力型移民、智力型移民、投资型移民三类,三类新移民住房状况存在较大差异。总体上,新移民人均住房面积为20.69 m<sup>2</sup>,其中智力型新移民的人均住房面积最高(24.87 m<sup>2</sup>/人),劳力型新移民的最低(16.26 m<sup>2</sup>/人)。就住房设施条件而言,新移民的设施指数为0.35,水平较低;其中投资型新移民的设施条件最好,智力型新移民的设施条件次之,劳力型新移民最差。经过多年市场化和户籍制度改革,社会经济要素对于新移民住房模式(购房或租房)的影响越来越大,但当前各类新移民的住房模式主要由制度因素(户口) 所决定,职业因素对新移民住房模式的影响尚不显著。不过,职业对新移民租房的类型选择具有较大影响。此外,影响新移民住房设施水平的主要因素包括户口、收入水平、教育水平、婚姻状况、年龄和新移民类型等多个方面,其中户口仍是决定性因素。
[19]Tao L, Hui E C M, Wong F K W, et al. Housing choices of migrant workers in China: Beyond the Hukou perspective.
Habitat International, 2015, 49: 474-483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.06.018URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
ABSTRACT The Hukou system has been increasingly used to explain the housing choices of migrant workers in China. These workers are not as enthusiastic to transfer their Hukou to the locality as the public has expected. Moreover, the role of Hukou is declining. Only a few studies have quantitatively analyzed the important roles of the circular status and coping strategies of migrant workers in their housing choices in China. To fill such knowledge gap and to verify the role of Hukou, this paper investigates the housing tenure and housing choices of migrant workers from the perspective of household strategies. Shenzhen is selected for the case study. Interestingly, Hukou has an indirect role in migrant housing. The remittances, plan to return to their hometowns, and residential mobility plans of migrant workers significantly influence their housing choices. Income has a greater influence on housing choices than housing tenure, but the opposite result is found for social security.
[20]Liu Z L, Wang Y J, Tao R.Social capital and migrant housing experiences in urban China: A structural equation modeling analysis.
Housing Studies, 2013, 28(8): 1155-1174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2013.818620URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
Rural rban migration and housing for the urban poor have attracted worldwide attention from both scholars and policy makers. In China, empirical studies have revealed tremendous discrimination experienced by temporary migrants in the urban housing system, but most have emphasized constraints by formal institutions such as the system. This paper adopts a sociological theory of social capital and employs structural equation modeling to investigate, simultaneously, the impacts of social capital on migrants' housing experiences in Chinese cities, as well as the causal relationships between a migrant's socioeconomic status and his/her social capital profile. Based on data from a twelve-city migrant survey conducted in 2009, statistical analysis revealed that, although migrant workers in general possess a small and truncated network of social ties in the city, those migrants who are connected to individuals with local , rather than connected to more people, have higher access to formal housing and tend to enjoy better housing conditions.
[21]Zheng S Q, Long F J, Fan C C, et al.Urban villages in China: A 2008 survey of migrant settlements in Beijing.
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2009, 50(4): 425-446.
https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.50.4.425URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
A team of Beijing-based urban planning specialists is joined by a noted American geographer to present the results and analyze their 2008 survey of migrant settlements in China's capital city. The paper examines the living and work conditions as well as housing consumption behavior of migrants in Chinese cities, focusing on chengzhongcun or urban villages ural settlements that have been transformed into poor living spaces for migrant workers. It finds that although migrant workers are willing to pay the same or higher rent per unit of space, they consume much smaller dwelling spaces than local residents. Estimations of the Mincerian wage equation and of a housing demand equation show that migrants' small space consumption is a function not only of low income but also of a reluctance to spend their earnings in the city. The findings reinforce the notion that migrant workers consider the city as a place to work rather than a home in which to live. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: J610, O150, R210, R230. 14 figures, 5 tables, 34 references, 1 appendix.
[22]Li B Q, Duda M, An X S.Drivers of housing choice among rural-to-urban migrants: Evidence from Taiyuan.
Journal of Asian Public Policy, 2009, 2(2): 142-156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17516230903027898URL [本文引用: 2]摘要
ABSTRACT Policies addressing the influx of rural migrants into Chinese urban areas have evolved over time from active opposition, through suspicious ambivalence, to wary tolerance, and now seem to have entered a new phase in which productive engagement is being attempted. Unfortunately, little information or experience is available to inform policy development in this new era. This paper helps address this knowledge gap by studying housing behaviour and choices among a sample of migrants in Taiyuan. The study's results suggest that migrants' housing outcomes in urban areas are influenced heavily by priorities linked to the transitional economic environment and individual migration characteristics. The analysis finds a more limited role for factors such as income and life cycle, which are central to housing choice in other contexts. We argue that migrants' housing outcomes cannot be explained without reference to the specific set of challenges they face, and the resulting decisions that they make, as a result of their immersion in the country's economic transition.
[23]Fan C C, Sun M J, Zheng S Q.Migration and split households: A comparison of sole, couple, and family migrants in Beijing, China.
Environment and Planning A, 2011, 43(9): 2164-2185.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a44128URLMagsci摘要
The practice of split households among rural urban migrants in China has persisted for more than twenty years. In this paper we compare three forms of split households, differentiated by whether the migrant's spouse and children are left behind or have joined the migrant: sole migration, couple migration, and family migration. Our survey of fifty chengzhongcun (urban villages) in Beijing conducted in 2008 shows that couple migration and family migration are outcomes of rural Chinese actively rearranging their household division of labor in order to maximize earnings from urban work opportunities. Migrants' decision to leave the children behind or to bring them along depends on the children's age and whether migrants' parents are available to help. Contrary to expectation, more household members in the city signals neither stronger intention to stay nor greater trust in the host society. These findings highlight the importance of thinking about migrants as circulators and thinking about migration, including family migration, as not necessarily a prelude to permanent settlement. They also underscore the need to address the experiences of long-term split households, a discourse that has received much less attention than one that assumes that a family lives together most of the time.
[24]禤文昊. 面向农民工的村镇非正规住房租赁市场研究: 以东莞为例
. 城市区域规划研究, 2011, 4(2): 180-194.
URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
村镇非正规住房租赁市场已成为当代中国面向农民工的主要住房供给机制。本文以东莞为例,从住房和产业的角度对该市场的现状和结构进行分析,发现该市场供给明显过剩,是买方市场,是农民工自身的低收入水平和高储蓄意愿制约着其实际居住条件的改善;近乎完全乃至过度竞争的市场结构导致了这一状况;造就该市场结构的深层次原因,是小农传统下土地住房开发经营的小尺度,以及当地失地农民房东再就业的困难。
[Xuan Wenhao.Informal rental housing market for rural migrants: A case study in Dongguan, China.
Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 2011, 4(2): 180-194.]
URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
村镇非正规住房租赁市场已成为当代中国面向农民工的主要住房供给机制。本文以东莞为例,从住房和产业的角度对该市场的现状和结构进行分析,发现该市场供给明显过剩,是买方市场,是农民工自身的低收入水平和高储蓄意愿制约着其实际居住条件的改善;近乎完全乃至过度竞争的市场结构导致了这一状况;造就该市场结构的深层次原因,是小农传统下土地住房开发经营的小尺度,以及当地失地农民房东再就业的困难。
[25]盛亦男. 中国的家庭化迁居模式
. 人口研究, 2014, 38(3): 41-54.
URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
中国家庭化迁居寓于世界人口流动浪潮中,具有与国外家庭迁移相似的共同性,还体现出因户籍制度、土地制度等结构性因素而带来的特殊性.文章分析了文化与制度因素对家庭化迁居产生的交互作用,认为传统的文化伦理使农村家庭倾向于举家迁徙,但是在制度方面,土地制度安排使农村家庭呈现分离迁居的趋势,户籍管理制度降低了家庭在城市定居的可能性.与西方国家在工业化过程中的家庭迁移进行了比较研究,认为中西方家庭在家庭迁居的决策周期、决策过程、迁居方向、迁居方式与时序上均有差异.最后,本文将家庭化迁居的模式总结为,在宏观层面是“累积因果关系”断裂的模式;在微观层面,农村家庭呈现在文化与制度的中介效应下的多元阶段式迁居模式.
[Sheng Yinan.Family migration pattern in China.
Population Research, 2014, 38(3): 41-54.]
URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
中国家庭化迁居寓于世界人口流动浪潮中,具有与国外家庭迁移相似的共同性,还体现出因户籍制度、土地制度等结构性因素而带来的特殊性.文章分析了文化与制度因素对家庭化迁居产生的交互作用,认为传统的文化伦理使农村家庭倾向于举家迁徙,但是在制度方面,土地制度安排使农村家庭呈现分离迁居的趋势,户籍管理制度降低了家庭在城市定居的可能性.与西方国家在工业化过程中的家庭迁移进行了比较研究,认为中西方家庭在家庭迁居的决策周期、决策过程、迁居方向、迁居方式与时序上均有差异.最后,本文将家庭化迁居的模式总结为,在宏观层面是“累积因果关系”断裂的模式;在微观层面,农村家庭呈现在文化与制度的中介效应下的多元阶段式迁居模式.
[26]周达. 我国城市移民的住房需求分析
. 城市问题, 2010, (3): 58-61.
URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
农民工是构成城市移民的主要成分,尽管住房并不是移民支出的主要部分,大多数农民工在进城后选择低端房屋,但家庭聚居方式让移民对住房的要求逐步提高。计算发现,我国每年新增约200万-250万城市移民,即使按照廉租住房标准给他们提供住房,每年的需求增量也多达2600万平方米。因此,解决城市移民的住房问题对经济社会协调发展具有重要意义。
[Zhou Da.The analysis of housing needs of urban migrants in China.
Urban Problems, 2010, (3): 58-61.]
URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
农民工是构成城市移民的主要成分,尽管住房并不是移民支出的主要部分,大多数农民工在进城后选择低端房屋,但家庭聚居方式让移民对住房的要求逐步提高。计算发现,我国每年新增约200万-250万城市移民,即使按照廉租住房标准给他们提供住房,每年的需求增量也多达2600万平方米。因此,解决城市移民的住房问题对经济社会协调发展具有重要意义。
[27]丁成日, 邱爱军, 王瑾. 中国快速城市化时期农民工住房类型及其评价
. 城市发展研究, 2011, 18(6): 49-54.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2011.06.009URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
城市化过程中来自农村的城市移民的住房问题是城市化过程中的突出问题之一,这个问题解决不好就会出现如巴西和印度等国家大量的城市贫民窟,成为城市发展的"肿瘤"。在分析中国城市农民工住房的基础上,从城市化、城市空间结构、经济和社会发展等角度评估现有的比较典型的农民工住房类型,最后提出几点政策和规划建议。
[Ding Chengri, Qiu Aijun, Wang Jin.Housing types and evaluation of rural-urban labor migrants in the era of rapid urbanization.
Urban Development Studies, 2011, 18(6): 49-54.]
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-3862.2011.06.009URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
城市化过程中来自农村的城市移民的住房问题是城市化过程中的突出问题之一,这个问题解决不好就会出现如巴西和印度等国家大量的城市贫民窟,成为城市发展的"肿瘤"。在分析中国城市农民工住房的基础上,从城市化、城市空间结构、经济和社会发展等角度评估现有的比较典型的农民工住房类型,最后提出几点政策和规划建议。
[28]周皓. 中国人口迁移的家庭化趋势及影响因素分析
. 人口研究, 2004, 28(6): 60-69.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6087.2004.06.011URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
本文利用2000年五普数据,根据户记录的有关信息,证明了家庭迁移是我国1990年代人口迁移中的一个重要特征,而且目前的家庭迁移是以核心家庭的迁移为主要形式.在此基础上,利用罗吉斯蒂回归分析了家庭特征对于家庭迁移的影响作用.分析表明,除了家庭特征以外,户主的个人特征在家庭迁移中同样是重要的影响因素.
[Zhou Hao.Family migration in China: Trends and determinants.
Population Research, 2004, 28(6): 60-69.]
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6087.2004.06.011URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
本文利用2000年五普数据,根据户记录的有关信息,证明了家庭迁移是我国1990年代人口迁移中的一个重要特征,而且目前的家庭迁移是以核心家庭的迁移为主要形式.在此基础上,利用罗吉斯蒂回归分析了家庭特征对于家庭迁移的影响作用.分析表明,除了家庭特征以外,户主的个人特征在家庭迁移中同样是重要的影响因素.
[29]杜鹏, 张文娟. 对中国流动人口“梯次流动”的理论思考
. 人口学刊, 2010, (3): 25-29.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-129X.2010.03.005URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
针对中国大规模流动人口的流动特点及其流动过程进行理论思考,提出梯次流动概念和流动人口的 梯次流动形式、前提条件和原理。将梯次流动定义为在流动迁移的过程中,流动人口凭借自身以及外部的力量不断改善其个人和家庭的福利状况,从而呈现出的一种 渐进性的向上流动现象。梯次流动成为一种人口流动中不断优化决策的过程,梯次流动的实现需要一定的社会经济环境,中国近三十年来的改革开放和社会经济发展 创造了必要的条件,促成了梯次流动动机的形成和实现的可能。梯次流动的分析视角有助于从微观视角分析个人流动到家庭流动迁移完成的过渡过程,更好地认识中 国流动人口现象的特殊性并完善相应的政策与制度。
[Du Peng, Zhang Wenjuan.On the laddering migration of China's floating population.
Population Journal, 2010, (3): 25-29.]
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-129X.2010.03.005URL [本文引用: 1]摘要
针对中国大规模流动人口的流动特点及其流动过程进行理论思考,提出梯次流动概念和流动人口的 梯次流动形式、前提条件和原理。将梯次流动定义为在流动迁移的过程中,流动人口凭借自身以及外部的力量不断改善其个人和家庭的福利状况,从而呈现出的一种 渐进性的向上流动现象。梯次流动成为一种人口流动中不断优化决策的过程,梯次流动的实现需要一定的社会经济环境,中国近三十年来的改革开放和社会经济发展 创造了必要的条件,促成了梯次流动动机的形成和实现的可能。梯次流动的分析视角有助于从微观视角分析个人流动到家庭流动迁移完成的过渡过程,更好地认识中 国流动人口现象的特殊性并完善相应的政策与制度。
[30]国家统计局. 2012年全国农民工监测调查报告
. , 2013-05-27.
URL [本文引用: 1]

[National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. National migrant workers monitoring survey report in 2012
. , 2013-05-27.]
URL [本文引用: 1]
[31]盛亦男. 中国流动人口家庭化迁居
. 人口研究, 2013, 37(4): 66-79.
URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
家庭化迁居已成为我国未来人口流动的主要趋势。文章利用2010年流动人口监测数据,分析当前我国流动人口家庭化迁居的现状,对家庭化迁居的概念、类型进行重新界定。按照家庭迁居程的差异,将流动家庭划分为已完成迁居和未完成迁居的家庭。数据分析表明,家庭的经济水平、家庭户规模和结构等因素,使家庭在迁居方式与进程方面表现出不同的特征。在家庭分批迁居的过程中,不同批次迁居的成员呈现出家庭内成员身份、人力资本存量、迁居时间间隔等方面的选择性特征。文章认为对人口流动家庭化迁居现象应采取&quot;支持&quot;型的政策导向,并为建立流动家庭管理服务体系提出政策意见,即进一步推进户籍制度改革,建立覆盖家庭生命周期、家庭类型的流动家庭服务体系。
[Sheng Yinan.Family migration in China.
Population Research, 2013, 37(4): 66-79.]
URLMagsci [本文引用: 1]摘要
家庭化迁居已成为我国未来人口流动的主要趋势。文章利用2010年流动人口监测数据,分析当前我国流动人口家庭化迁居的现状,对家庭化迁居的概念、类型进行重新界定。按照家庭迁居程的差异,将流动家庭划分为已完成迁居和未完成迁居的家庭。数据分析表明,家庭的经济水平、家庭户规模和结构等因素,使家庭在迁居方式与进程方面表现出不同的特征。在家庭分批迁居的过程中,不同批次迁居的成员呈现出家庭内成员身份、人力资本存量、迁居时间间隔等方面的选择性特征。文章认为对人口流动家庭化迁居现象应采取&quot;支持&quot;型的政策导向,并为建立流动家庭管理服务体系提出政策意见,即进一步推进户籍制度改革,建立覆盖家庭生命周期、家庭类型的流动家庭服务体系。
[32]胡书芝, 刘桂生. 住房获得与乡城移民家庭的城市融入
. 经济地理, 2012, 32(4): 72-76.
URL [本文引用: 2]摘要
住房获得对乡城移民而言不仅具有居住生活等使用价值,住房获得途 径、结果的差异也具有阶层分化、身份认同等象征价值,是乡城移民家庭立足城市、实现城市融入的关键;乡城移民的家庭式迁移对城市住房问题提出了现实要求, 城市住房政策需要随着乡城移民家庭城市融入的推进而不断变迁,二者相互调整和适应,才能真正推进我国的城市化进程。
[Hu Shuzhi, Liu Guisheng.Housing acquaintance and integration of rural-urban migrants' family in city.
Economic Geography, 2012, 32(4): 72-76.]
URL [本文引用: 2]摘要
住房获得对乡城移民而言不仅具有居住生活等使用价值,住房获得途 径、结果的差异也具有阶层分化、身份认同等象征价值,是乡城移民家庭立足城市、实现城市融入的关键;乡城移民的家庭式迁移对城市住房问题提出了现实要求, 城市住房政策需要随着乡城移民家庭城市融入的推进而不断变迁,二者相互调整和适应,才能真正推进我国的城市化进程。
相关话题/城市 质量 户口 人口 市场