| Literature DB >> 34820355 |
Xizan Jin1, Tianzhou Ren1, Nuannuan Mao1, Lili Chen1.
Abstract
As a vital source of the demographic dividend, migrant workers living in urban villages have positively contributed to urban economic development and the improvement of urbanization. Although urban villages have had a great impact on public health due to the shabby environments and poor public safety, the large-scale demolition of the urban villages, the supply of affordable housing for migrant workers has decreased drastically, which may lead to the outflow of many migrant workers and consequently affects the sustainable operations of cities. Therefore, this paper takes Hangzhou as an example to study the impact of urban village redevelopment on migrant workers and their migration decisions during urban village redevelopment process. The finding indicates that migrant workers are significantly impacted by large-scale demolition. (1) The number of affected migrant workers is huge. For example, 657,000 migrant workers who lived in around 178 urban villages are affected in Hangzhou (34,468 households). (2) The increase in rent is obvious. (3) Strong expulsion effect: nearly 1/3 migrant workers will decide to leave the city because of the demolition. Furthermore, our binary logistic regression model suggests that the commuting time, living satisfactory, and the rent affordability are factors significantly affecting migration workers' decision to leave and stay in the city. The housing quality and comfort indicators are not significant. This indicates that convenience for employment and high rent avoidance are the major characteristics of migrant workers' housing choice. Hence, in addition to considering whether the harsh environment is harmful to the public health of urban and residents, the interest and characteristics of migrant workers should be considered during the current urban village demolition process. While simply demolishing urban villages, government needs to provide a relatively sufficient amount of low-cost and affordable housing for migrant workers in case migrant workers leave the city in large numbers due to lack of suitable housing in the city.Entities:
Keywords: housing choice; housing demolition; migrant worker; migration decision; urban village redevelopment
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34820355 PMCID: PMC8606570 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.782251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
The number of the local residents and migrant workers in urban village we surveyed.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local residents | About 2,800 | About 2,500 | About 2,000 | About 3,110 | About 4,982 |
| Migrant works rent in urban village | About 27,840 | About 22,800 | About 16,000 | About 25,000 | About 42,000 |
The rents of the urban village change we surveyed during centralized urban village redevelopment.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original rent ¥ | 700–800¥ | 600–700¥ | 700–800¥ | 800¥ | 600–700¥ |
| After rent ¥ | 1,200–1,500¥ | 1,000–1,200¥ | 1,300–1,400¥ | 1,200¥ | 1,100–1,300¥ |
Sample distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 54.6 | ≤ 30 | 40.6 | Single | 28.2 | ≤ 2,000 | 14.2 | <15 min | 46.5 | Highly satisfactory | 5.2 |
| Female | 45.4 | 31–45 | 31.6 | Married | 71.8 | 2,001–4,000 | 35.8 | 15–30 min | 23.6 | Partly satisfactory | 14.8 |
| 46–60 | 25.6 | 4,001–6,000 | 28.4 | 30–45 min | 14.5 | Satisfactory | 43.8 | ||||
| ≥61 | 2.2 | 6,001–8,000 | 11.8 | 45–60 min | 9.7 | Unsatisfactory | 28.2 | ||||
| 8,001–10,000 | 5.0 | >60 min | 5.7 | Highly unsatisfactory | 8.0 | ||||||
| ≥10,001 | 4.8 | ||||||||||
| Total | 100 | Total | 100 | Total | 100 | Total | 100 | Total | 100 | Total | 100 |
The urban village we surveyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban village | Wulian community | Zongguantang community | Dongguan Community | Huafeng community | Sanjiaocun community |
| Local residents | About 2,800 | About 2,500 | About 2,000 | About 3,110 | About 4,982 |
| Total houses | 573 | 588 | 713 | 860 | 991 |
We adopt the principle of only one migrant worker per tenant (choose only one person in the same room).
The characteristics and descriptions of variables.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal characteristics | Y | Choice | 0 = stay, 1 = leave |
| X1 | Gender | 0 = male; 1 = female | |
| X2 | Marriage | 0 = single; 1 = married | |
| X3 | Age | 1 = under 30; 2 = 31–45; 3 = 46–60; 4 = above 61 | |
| X4 | Duration of stay in Hangzhou | 1 = within 1 year; 2 = 1–3 years; 3 = 3–5 years; 4 = more than 5 years | |
| X5 | Average monthly income | 1 = under 2,000 yuan; 2 = 2,001–4,000 yuan; 3 = 4,001–6,000 yuan; 4 = 6,001–8,000 yuan; 5 = 8,001–10,000 yuan; 6 = above 10,001 yuan | |
| X6 | Whether the person signed a labor contract | 0 = NO; 1 = YES | |
| Housing characteristics | X7 | Commuting time (one way) | 1 = within 15 min; 2 = 15–30 min; 3 = 30–45 min; 4 = 45–60 min; 5 = more than 60 min |
| X8 | Per-capita rent area | Actual value | |
| X9 | Private kitchen and bathroom | 1 = with private kitchen and bathroom; 2 = with private bathroom, no kitchen; 3 = with private kitchen, no bathroom (as a reference) | |
| X10 | Living satisfaction | 1 = highly satisfactory; 2 = partly satisfactory; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = unsatisfactory; 5 = highly unsatisfactory | |
| Housing expenditure | X11 | Current monthly rental expense | 1 = under 500 yuan; 2 = 501–1,000 yuan; 3 = 1,001–1,500 yuan; 4 = 1,501–2,000 yuan; 5 = above 2,001 yuan |
| X12 | Rent affordability | 1 = under 500 yuan; 2 = 501–1,000 yuan; 3 = 1,001–1,500 yuan; 4 = 1,501–2,000 yuan; 5 = above 2,001 yuan | |
| Social housing support | X13 | Knowing the government's housing security policy for migrant workers | 0 = NO; 1 = YES |
| X14 | Housing subsidy | 0 = NO; 1 = YES |
Ordered logit regression results for factors influencing migrant workers' choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Personal characteristics | Gender | −0.398* | 0.067 | −0.537** | 0.022 | −0.522** | 0.027 | −0.505** | 0.034 |
| Marriage | 1.256*** | 0.000 | 1.412*** | 0.000 | 1.415*** | 0.000 | 1.472*** | 0.000 | |
| Age | 0.073 | 0.599 | 0.037 | 0.808 | 0.009 | 0.956 | 0.033 | 0.835 | |
| Duration of stay in Hangzhou | 0.080 | 0.438 | 0.052 | 0.634 | 0.058 | 0.594 | 0.048 | 0.666 | |
| Average monthly income | −0.309*** | 0.001 | −0.326*** | 0.001 | −0.323** | 0.002 | −0.329*** | 0.001 | |
| Whether signed a labor contract | −0.278 | 0.207 | −0.339 | 0.142 | −0.346 | 0.137 | −0.248 | 0.297 | |
| Housing characteristics | Commuting time (one way) | 0.184** | 0.037 | 0.178** | 0.045 | 0.186** | 0.038 | ||
| Per-capita rent area | −0.026 | 0.819 | 0.012 | 0.917 | 0.017 | 0.887 | |||
| Private kitchen and bathroom | 0.793 | 0.865 | 0.827 | ||||||
| Private kitchen and bathroom (1) | −0.393 | 0.421 | −0.307 | 0.535 | −0.360 | 0.468 | |||
| Private kitchen and bathroom (1) | −0.310 | 0.529 | −0.235 | 0.637 | −0.288 | 0.566 | |||
| Private kitchen and bathroom (1) | −0.817 | 0.385 | −0.731 | 0.447 | −0.797 | 0.407 | |||
| Living satisfaction | 0.426** | 0.000 | 0.383** | 0.002 | 0.385** | 0.002 | |||
| Housing expenditure | Current monthly rental expense | −0.010 | 0.905 | −0.006 | 0.943 | ||||
| Rent affordability | −0.250** | 0.009 | −0.243** | 0.012 | |||||
| Social housing support | Knowing the government's housing security policy for migrant workers | −0.973** | 0.026 | ||||||
| Housing subsidy | 0.212 | 0.626 | |||||||
| Model fitting and effect index | Nagelkerke | 0.144 | 0.214 | 0.233 | 0.247 | ||||
| Hosmer–Lemeshow test | 0.064 | 0.695 | 0.525 | 0.529 | |||||
| Forecast accuracy | 0.668 | 0.718 | 0.735 | 0.728 | |||||
*indicates P ≦ 0.1, **indicates P ≦ 0.05, and *** indicates P ≦ 0.001.