文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：郊区配建社区的居住混合与行为分异——以北京美和园社区为例

英文题名：Residential Mix and Behavioral Differentiation in Suburban Public Policy Community:Evidence from Beijing Mei-He-Yuan Community

作者：马昕琳[1];柴彦威[1];张艳[2]

第一作者：马昕琳

机构：[1]北京大学城市与环境学院,北京100871;[2]北京联合大学北京学研究所,北京100197

第一机构：北京大学城市与环境学院,北京100871

年份：2020

卷号：27

期号：3

起止页码：55-60

中文期刊名：城市发展研究

外文期刊名：Urban Development Studies

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2017】；CSSCI:【CSSCI2019_2020】；CSCD:【CSCD_E2019_2020】；

基金：国家自然科学基金“城市居民时空行为的中美比较与理论创新”(41529101);国家自然科学基金“郊区居民日常活动的地方秩序嵌套及社区重构研究”(41771185);北京市属高校高水平教师队伍建设支持计划青年拔尖人才培育计划项目“‘新’时间地理学在北京城市社区规划与社会治理中的创新应用”(CIT&TCD201904073)。

语种：中文

中文关键词：配建社区;居住混合;行为分异;时间地理学

外文关键词：Mixed Community;Residential Mix;Behavioral Differentiation;Time Geography

摘要：为避免保障房集中建设带来"贫困的地理集中",北京市保障性住房供给通常采用配建的方式。配建社区具有居住混合特征,被认为有可能增加居民的跨群体交流、身份认同和社区归属感。然而,居住混合的社会后果仍存在争议。选取北京美和园社区为案例,基于2017年12月至2018年2月采集的114位样本居民连续一周的GPS轨迹、连续两天的活动日志及深度访谈数据,对该社区内中等收入居民(两限房居民)和低收入居民(廉租房居民)的日常行为时空特征进行分析,以不同群体对社区公园使用行为为例,探讨两类群体在社区中互动的时空机会。研究表明,居住混合产生了不同收入居民的行为分异,存在活动空间的错位和设施使用时间的错位,因而并不能增加社区互动。配建政策的社会后果亟待住房政策和社区规划研究给于更多关注。
In order to avoid the "geographical concentration of poverty" caused by the centralized construction of public housing, the supply of public policy housing in Beijing generally adopts the way of mixed construction. However, residential mix does not necessarily lead to community integration, and groups from different housing sources do not necessarily increase interaction in daily behavior even if they live in the same community. We selected a Beijing suburb mix community(containing public policy housing and commercial housing) as a case study, and collected samples of 114 residents of continuous GPS trajectory, two consecutive day of the week activity diary and depth interview data. Also, middle-income and low-income residents′ everyday activities were analyzed in space and time.The findings of this study are as follows: 1) the two groups of people in the community have differences in activity time, activity space and use of community facilities, and the possibility of interaction in the community is low;2) middle-income people tend to use the facilities alone at night;low-income people use the facilities with each other in the afternoon, and there is a time mismatch in the use of community public space and facilities. In a word, although the suburbs have mixed residential communities, there are obvious behavioral differences, and there are few opportunities for the interaction of daily behaviors of different groups. Therefore, the social consequences of the housing policy and community planning need to be paid more attention to.