广州城市居民地方依恋测度与机理

“地方依恋”问题涉及地理学、心理学、社会学、城市学等多个学科,已经成为中国快速城市化时期亟待解决的重要问题。伴随大城市内部空间的剧烈重构,城市居民对其居住空间的地方依恋也在不断变化,需要进行深入研究。本文选取广州23个典型社区,通过量表测度居民的地方依恋,并采用结构方程模型等计量方法,探索社区信任、社区满意度等要素对居民地方依恋的作用机理。同时,系统对比了居民对于不同空间尺度的地方依恋,如社区尺度和城市尺度,并对本地居民和外来移民两组人群的地方依恋及其差异进行了系统研究。研究发现：① 城市居民的社区依恋程度高于城市依恋程度;② 本地居民的社区依恋和城市依恋程度均明显高于外来移民;③ 城市居民的社区依恋同时受到社区信任和社区满意度的直接影响,但两者需通过社区依恋的中介效应间接影响居民的城市依恋;④ 社区信任与社区满意度对外来移民的社区依恋和城市依恋均具有显著作用,但对本地居民的城市依恋作用较弱。基于实证结果,本文认为,相同因素对于不同尺度的地方依恋作用机理存在差异,不同人群的地方依恋机理亦有不同,地方依恋同时具有尺度差异性和群体差异性。

Place attachment of urbanites in Guangzhou: Measurement and mechanism

Along with the tremendous reconfiguration of social space in urban China, the place attachment of urbanites to their community or the city may undergo transformation or restructuration, yet has been rarely touched by existing literature. In particular, the measurement and mechanism of the place attachment deserve high attentions, and there is in need of an in-depth empirical study. In this vein, with a case of a typical large city, Guangzhou, this paper explores the dynamics of residents' place attachment, both theoretically and empirically. In details, we first examine the role of various forces such as social dimension (framed by social trust), functional dimension (framed by residential satisfactory to the services and facilities in the neighborhood), and their interactions underlying the making of place attachment. Second, we examine the interrelation between residents' place attachment to various scales, community and city. Third, we compare the place attachment for two groups, local residents and migrants, with respect to the extent of their place attachment and mechanisms. The empirical study includes 23 communities surveyed in Guangzhou. Our sampling strategy, questionnaire and resultant database prove to be representative. It includes the measurement of the degree of place attachment of residents through known Likert scale; then we apply ANOVA analysis by SPSS21.0 and Structural Equation Model by STATA14.0 to test the effects of various factors, such as social trust and residential satisfaction, for different types of urbanites. Our empirical study reveals that: first, there are two types of place attachments: community attachment and city attachment. The level of urban residents' community attachment is higher than that of city attachment. Second, the level of local residents' place attachment is significantly higher than that of migrants. Third, urban residents' community attachment is significantly affected by both social trust and residential satisfaction, but without the mediating effect of community attachment these two dimensions do not have direct impacts on city attachment. Fourth, social trust and residential satisfaction have significant effects on both community attachment and city attachment of migrants; but their impacts on local residents' city attachment are relatively weak. Our findings indicate that the mechanism of place attachment is marked by both spatiality and heterogeneity. For instance, for different spatial scales, the determinants of place attachment and their effects are by no means the same. Moreover, there are varied mechanisms of place attachments for different types of residents or social groups. As such, we call for policy concerns upon the differentiation of stratified social groups and spatial contexts, when China implements its strategy to promote people-centered urbanization and social wellbeing, or against the context of developing countries or transitional economy.