基于主观感受的宜居北京评价变化研究

STUDY ON EVALUATION OF LIVABLE BEIJING BASED ON SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS

构建宜居城市主观评价指标体系,基于三次大规模抽样调查问卷,对北京市居住环境从2005年至2013年的变化进行评价,重点分析居住环境的生活方便性、安全性、自然环境舒适度、人文环境舒适度、出行便捷度、健康性六大方面在不同城区及不同人群之间评价的差异。主要得到以下结论:居民比较认可宜居北京的生活方便性,对舒适度的评价逐渐上升,对健康性的评价持续下降;主城区居民满意度高于郊区大型居住区;年轻群体、高收入高学历人群、商品房居民以及本地居民对居住环境的评价更高。

Based on three large-scale surveys in 2005, 2009 and 2013, respectively, this paper sets up a subjective evaluation indicator system on livable Beijing which includes six main elements, living convenience,safety, nature environment amenity, human environment amenity, traffic and health, which can be further deconstructed into 32 sub- indicators（34 in 2013）, then analyzes the change of evaluation on living environment in Beijing from 2005 to 2013. We focus on the changes of subjective evaluation and difference of residents＇ subjective feeling between urban sub-districts and between various groups. Our main conclusions are as follows：（1） Residents＇ subjective evaluation on living environment increased from 2005 to 2009, which can be explained by the Olympic Games in 2008, then decreased from 2009 to 2013.（2） Comparing the six elements, residents are more satisfied with living convenience, and increasingly satisfied with amenity. However, residents＇ evaluation on health has been falling during our research period, especially the evaluation on automobile exhaust and PM2.5 pollution.（3） The evaluation on central urban area is higher than large-scale residential area in suburb, here the main reason is that the public facilities, especially primary school, hospital and shopping mall, are more complete in central area than in suburb.（4） During the last ten years, the evaluation on children and senior people entertainment facility has always been very low, which reflects the shortage of the two kinds of facilities did not get attention from government.（5） Young group, high-income group, high-educated group, commercial housing residents and local residents are more satisfied with living environment in Beijing, in opposite, old group, low-income group, low-educated group, affordable and unit housing residents are not satisfied.