居住区位感知下的北京与非京户籍居民职住空间关系生成路径差异

户籍进入限制是中国大城市控制人口规模快速扩张的重要手段。在此影响下,当地户籍与非当地户籍居民形成了差异化的职住空间关系。本文基于居住区位感知的居民职住空间关系生成路径分析模型,通过问卷调查,运用结构方程模型方法,剖析了北京户籍与非北京户籍居民职住空间关系生成路径的差异。结果表明：① 影响两大居民群体居住区位决策的空间要素存在差异。京籍居民主要关注的要素为住房的位置和价格、居住小区的邻里素养以及教育、医疗、休憩等配套设施的可达性;非京籍居民则更关注住房支出和面积等住房基本条件、居住小区的公共服务和治安状况、购物和娱乐设施以及地铁交通的便捷性。② 职住空间要素影响职住关系的传导路径存在差异。收入与支出能力更为显著地影响了京籍居民的居住区位决策;政策与制度对非京籍居民职住空间要素状况的提升有更为明显的制约作用;情感与发展期望则更有利于提升京籍居民的职住空间关系满意度水平。③ 职住空间关系生成的行为主体存在差异。市场驱动下的住房成本和政府主导下的政策制度更为显著地降低了非京籍居民职住空间要素的可达性和职住接近水平;代表居民主体的情感与发展期望则相对显著地提升了京籍居民的长距离职住通勤的耐受水平。京籍和非京籍居民的职住空间关系及其生成路径的差异是中国大城市转型发展过程中户籍制度影响下的人口社会再分化的结果。

Differences in the formation paths of the jobs-housing spatial relationship between local and non-local registered residents in Beijing based on the perception of residential location

Household registration, taken as one of the main policies to prevent the rapid growth of population in China’s megacities, is one of the main reasons for the difference between local and non-local registered residents in their jobs-housing spatial patterns. However, in-depth analysis of the differences in the formation process and mechanism of the jobs-housing spatial relationship between the two groups of residents have not been conducted yet. In this paper, we develop a new theoretical framework to empirically investigate the influencing factors, and then analyze the formation paths of jobs-housing spatial relationships from the perspective of resident perception for both local and non-local residents using Structure Equation Model based on the data from a questionnaire survey. The findings are as follows. First, Beijing registered and non-Beijing registered residents vary in their preference for housing location. Beijing registered residents are mainly concerned with the location and price of the housing, the qualities of neighbors and the accessibility of facilities such as education and medical care, while non-Beijing registered residents pay much more attention to the expenditure and area of housing, the public service and security of the residential settlements, the accessibility to the shopping mall, entertainment facilities and the subway. Second, the transmission paths of the jobs-housing spatial factors that affect the jobs-housing spatial relationship were different. For Beijing registered residents, the incomes significantly influence their housing location. The policies and institutions mitigate the positive role of jobs-housing spatial factors for non-Beijing registered residents. The sentiment and development expectations contribute to the satisfaction of Beijing registered residents with their jobs-housing spatial relationship. Third, the driving forces of the jobs-housing relationship vary across two groups of residents. The market-driven housing price and government-dominated policies and institutions significantly decrease the accessibility of jobs-housing spatial factors and jobs-housing proximity for non-Beijing registered residents. The sentiment and development expectations, which represent the individual characteristics, considerably improve the tolerance of Beijing registered residents for their long commutes. This paper concludes that Beijing and non-Beijing registered residents′difference in their jobs-housing relationships can be viewed as the results of the social re-differentiation driven by institutions, especially the household registration system, in the transition process of China′s megacities.