西方城市社会空间结构研究回顾及进展

doi:10.11820/dlkxjz.2009.01.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

从城市因子生态分析的视角对近60 年的西方城市社会空间结构研究进行回顾，尝试理清其发展的整个脉络和阶段特征，以期为处于发展期的中国城市地理研究提供有价值的经验借鉴。基于因子生态方法的西方城市社会空间结构研究发展过程可以划分为四个阶段：①20 世纪50-60 年代城市“社会区”概念提出，研究范式发展完善阶段；②60-70 年代末期，城市社会空间结构实证案例积累阶段；③80 年代初-90 年代末，城市社会空间结构实证研究比较总结阶段；④1990 年代末至今，城市社会空间结构研究多元化发展阶段。对中国城市社会空间结构研究的借鉴意义有：①基于因子生态的城市社会空间结构研究具有较强的可比性，有助于中国城市社会空间结构特征归纳；②今后中国城市社会区空间结构的实证研究应重视空间过程的演化分析；③将城市因子生态分析的定量结果作为实证分析的基础，从定性的角度深入探讨其形成机制、比较归纳中国城市社会区空间结构的特征及与西方城市社会区空间结构的共性与差异。

关键词: 城市社会区, 空间结构, 因子生态分析

Abstract:

In this paper we review the nearly 60 years process of urban social areas structure research in Western countries with the eye of the factorial ecology. We straighten out the whole context of its development stages and characteristics, and think these valuable experiences are helpful to the contemporary China's urban geography studies. The nearly 60 years process of urban social areas structure research can be divided into four phases: the first stage is that social areas concept was advanced and its research paradigm developed in 1950～1960; the second is many empirical cases accumulation stage in the 1960s to the late 1970s; in the third phase from the 1980s to the late 1990s, the scholars paid attention to the comparison and summary from the kinds of cases; and the fourth is diversified development stage since the late 1990s. Urban socio-spatial structure in Western countries has been extensively analyzed since the 1950s. Shevky and Bell (1949) initiated social area analysis in the study of Los Angeles and San Francisco. In China, there have been many studies of the social structure of major cities using the Fifth National Population Census data at the subdistrict (jiedao) level recently. Chinese scholars carried out research in the cities of Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, Nanchang and so on, but the research fruits of urban social areas on China's city are rather limited. Finally, this research puts forward some suggestions on the development and study of urban social geography in China. Compared with the numerous case studies based on factorial ecology in Western countries, our urban social structure research should focus more on urban social analysis case studies, fortunately the Fifth National Population Census data is a good available research material to be used. Many comparable Chinese urban case studies based on factorial ecology would be helpful to summing up the characteristics of Chinese urban internal structure and comparing with the Western classic models. At the same time, the spatiotemporal process analysis must be emphasized on these case studies, we could use some years of the National Population Census for instance the Third and the Fourth National Population Census data to rebuild the transformation of urban social areas after the reform and opening-up in the 1980s. Chinese urban social structure studies should be extended. The reason and mechanism of urban social structure and its process in China are needed to go further to excavate. The authors suggest that Chinese urban researchers should combine the qualitative analysis with the quantitative analysis, use the result of the urban factorial ecology, summarize the characteristics of Chinese urban social structure, compare with the urban social structure in the western countries, and analyse the differences and resemblances of each other.

Key words: factorial ecology, spatial structure, urban social area

徐旳, 朱喜钢, 李唯. 西方城市社会空间结构研究回顾及进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2009, 28(1): 93-102.

XU Di, ZHU Xigang, LI Wei. A Review of the Urban Social Structure and Its Development in Western Countries[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2009, 28(1): 93-102.

参考文献

[1] 王开泳,肖玲,王淑婧.城市社会空间结构研究的回顾与展望.热带地理,2005, 25(1): 28~32.

[2] 李健,宁越敏.西方城市社会地理学主要理论及研究的意义.城市问题,2006, 6:84~94.

[3] 魏立华,闫小培. 有关“社会主义转型国家”城市社会空间的研究评述.人文地理,2006, 4:7~12.

[4] 吕拉昌,魏也华，林初升.中国城市地理研究的若干问题：海外学者的观点.人文地理,2006, 2:67~71.

[5] 李健,宁越敏.西方城市社会地理学研究进展及对中国研究的意义.地理科学,2008, 28(1):124~130.

[6] Shevky Eshref, Williams Marilyn. The Social Areas of Los Angeles. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1949.

[7] Herbert D T. Social area analysis: A British study. Urban Studies, 1967, 6: 41~60.

[8] McElrath D C. Societal scale and social differentiation, Accra, Ghana. In: Greer S, et al (eds). The New Urbanization. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968.

[9] Bell Wendell. Economic, family, and ethnic status: An empirical test. American Sociological Review, 1955, 20: 45~ 52.

[10] Anderson Theodore R, Bean Lee L. The Shevky-Bell Social Areas: Confirmation of results and reinterpretation. Social Forces, 1961,60:119~124.

[11] McElrath D C. The Social Areas of Rome: A Comparative. American Sociological Review, 1962,27:376-391.

[12] Sweeter Frank L. Patterns of Change in the Social Ecology of Metropolitan Boston: 1950 ～1960. Boston: Massachuusetts Department of Mental Health, 1962.

[13] Schmid Calvin F, Tagashira Kiyoshi. Ecological and demographic indices: A methodological analysis. Demography,1964,1:194~211.

[14] Jones F Lancaster. A social profile of Canberra 1961. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 1965,1: 107~120.

[15] Berry B J L, Tennant R J. Metropolitan Planning Guidelines: Commercial Structure, 1965.

[16] Carey George W. The regional interpretation of Manhattan population and housing patterns through factor analysis. The Geographical Review, 1966, 56:551~569.

[17] Robert A Murdie. Factorial Ecology of Metropolitan Toronto 1951~1961: An Essay on the Social Geography of the City. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1969.

[18] Brian J L Berry, John D Kasarda. Contemporary Urban Ecology. New York and London: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1977.

[19] Robert A Murdie. Factor scores: A neglected element of factorial ecology studies. Urban Geography, 1980,1 (4): 295~316.

[20] Eugene D Perle. Perspectives on the change ecological structure of suburbia. Urban Geography, 1981, 2(3): 237~ 254.

[21] Wayne K D Davies, Robert A Murdie. Consistency and differential impact in urban social dimensionality: Intra - urban variations in the 24 metropolitan areas of Canada. Urban Geography, 1991, 12(1): 55~79.

[22] Wayne K D Davies, Lewis G J. The urban dimensions of Leicester, England. In: Clark B, Gleav B (eds). Social Patterns in Cities. Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, 1983, 5: 71~86.

[23] Albert Hunter. Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago's Local Communities. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

[24] Vasilyev G L, Privalova O L. A social-geographic evaluation of differences within a city. Soviet Geography, 1984, 25(7): 488~497.

[25] Rowland Richard H. Selected urban population characteristics of Moscow. Post -Soviet Geography, 1992, 33 (9): 569~590.

[26] Lo C P. Decentralization and polarization: Contradictory trends in Hong Kong's postcolonial social landscape. Urban Geography, 2005, 26(1): 36~60.

[27] Anthony Gar On Yeh, Xueqiang Xu, Huaying Hu. The Social Space of Guangzhou City, China. Urban Geography, 1995, 16(7): 595~621.

[28] Elvin K Wyly. Continuity and change in the restless urban landscape. Economic Geography, 1999, 75(4): 309~338.

[29] Scott Baum, Michell Haynes, Yolanda van Gellecum, et al. Advantage and disadvantage across Australia's extended metropolitan regions: A typology of socioeconomic outcomes. Urban Studies, 2006, 43: 1549~1579.

[30] John R Weeks, Arthur Getis, Allan G Hill, et al. The fertility transition in Egypt: Intraurban patterns in Cairo. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2004, 94(1): 74~93.

[31] Wu Fulong, Li Zhigang. Sociospatial differentiation: Processes and spaces in subdistricts of Shanghai. Urban Geography, 2005, 26(2): 137~166.

[32] Gu Chaolin, Wang Fahui, Liu Guili. The structure of social space in Beijing in 1998: A socialist city in transition. Urban Geography, 2005, 26(2): 167~192.

[33] Lo C P. The evolution of the ecological structure of Hongkong: Implications for planning and future development. Urban Geography, 1986, 7(4): 311~335.

[34] Helene Belauger. The socioresidential dynamic of a Latin American city: Puebla, Mexico. Cahiers de geographie du Quebec, 2006, 50(139): 45~63.

[35] Arun Peter Lo Bo, Ronald J O Flores, Joseph J Salvo. The impact of Hispanic growth on the racial/ethnic composition of New York City neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 2002, 37: 703~727.

[36] Izhak Schnell, Yoav Benjamini. Globalisation and the structure of urban social space: The lesson from Tel Aviv. Urban Studies, 2005, 42: 2489~2510.

[37] Susan W Hardwick, James E Meacham. Heterlocalism, network of ethnicity and refugee communities in the Pacific Northwest: The Portland story. The Professional Geographer, 2005, 57(4): 539~557.

[38] Ian Gordon, Vassilis Monastiriotis. Urban size, spatial segregation and inequality in educational outcomes. Urban Studies, 2006, 43: 213~236.

[39] Deborah Wallace, Rodrick Wallace. Life and death in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx: Toward an evolutionary perspective on catastrophic social change. Environment and Planning A, 2000, 32: 1245~1266.

[40] Meagan E Cahill, Gordon F Mulligan. The determinants of crime in Tucson, Arizona. Urban Geography, 2003, 24: 582~610.

[41] Vania Ceccato, Robert Haining. Crime in border regions: The Scandinavian case of Oresund, 1998-2001. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2004, 94:807~ 826.

[42] John F McDonald. The de -concentration of poverty in Chicago: 1990 ~2000. Urban Studies, 2004, 41: 2119 ~ 2137.

[43] Jacek Malczewski, Anneliese Poetz. Residential burglaries and neighborhood socioeconomic context in London, Ontario: Global and local r egression analysis. The Professional Geographer, 2005, 57(4): 516~529.

[44] Martin A Andresen. Location quotients, ambient populations and the spatial analysis of crime in Vancouver, Canada. Environment and Planning A, 2007, 39: 2423 ~ 2444.

[45] Vania Ceccato, Robert Haining, Tulio Kahn. The geography of homicide in San Paulo, Brazil. Environment and Planning A, 2007, 39: 1632~1653.

[46] David Ley. Gentrification in recession: Social change in six Canadian inner cities 1981 -1986. Urban Geography, 1993, 13: 230~256.

[47] David Ley, Judith Tutchener, Greg Cunnigham. Immigration, polarization, or gentrification? Accounting for changing house prices and dwelling values in gateway cities. Urban Geography, 2002, 23: 703~727.

[48] Mathieu Van Criekingen, Jean-Michel Decroly. Revisiting the diversity of gentrification: Neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels and Montreal. Urban Studies, 2003, 40: 2451~2468.

[49] John Meligrana, Andrejs Skaburskis. Extent, location and profiles of continuing gentrification in Canadian metropolitan areas, 1981 -2001. Urban Studies, 2005, 42: 1569 ~ 1592.

[50] Heidkamp C Patrick, Susan Lucas. Finding the gentrification frontier using gensus data: The case of Portland, Maine. Urban Geography, 2006, 27: 101~125.

[51] Edmond Preteceille. Is gentrification a useful paradigm to analysis social changes in the Paris Metropolis?. Environment and Planning A, 2007, 39(1): 10~31.

[52] Stefan Buzar, Ray Hall, Philip E Ogden. Beyond gentrification: The demographic reurbanisation of Bologna. Environment and Planning A, 2007, 39(1): 64~85.

[53] James E Randall, Gilles Viand. A gender-sensitive urban factorial ecology: Male, female, grouped and gendered social spaces in Saskatoon. Urban Geography, 1994, 15: 741~777.

[54] Katleem Peleman. The impact of residential segregation on participation in associations: The vase of Moroccan woman in Belgium. Urban Studies, 2002, 39: 727~747.