地理科学 ›› 2014, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (8): 946-954.doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2014.08.946

• • 上一篇    下一篇

行为同伴选择的社会文化效应研究——中国北京与荷兰乌特勒支的比较

赵莹1(), 柴彦威2   

  1. 1.中山大学旅游学院,广东 广州510275
    2. 北京大学城市与环境学院城市与经济地理学系,北京 100871
    3.乌特勒支大学城市与区域研究中心,荷兰 乌特勒支3508 TC
  • 收稿日期:2013-04-23 修回日期:2013-11-28 出版日期:2014-08-10 发布日期:2014-08-10
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:赵 莹(1985-),女,吉林通化人,讲师,博士,主要从事城市社会地理学、行为地理学、旅游地理学的研究。E-mail: zhaoy233@mail.sysu.edu.cn

  • 基金资助:
    中山大学青年教师起步资助计划(40000-3321400)、中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(40000-3161119)、国家自然科学基金海外合作研究基金(41228001)资助

Companionship Choice and Its Social-Cultural Effect: Beijing and Utrecht Compared

Ying ZHAO1(), Yan-wei CHAI2, DIJST Martin3   

  1. 1.School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510275, China
    2. College of Urban and Environmental Science, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
    3.Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht (URU), Utrecht 3508 TC, Netherlands)
  • Received:2013-04-23 Revised:2013-11-28 Online:2014-08-10 Published:2014-08-10

摘要:

从活动-移动行为的角度,基于中国北京和荷兰乌特勒支在2007年进行的活动日志调查,通过研究居民非工作活动的同伴选择机制,分析东西方文化价值观的差异而引起的行为方式差异。研究表明,北京居民倾向与家庭成员一起活动,而乌特勒支居民倾向单独或与朋友一起,一定程度表明中国社会倾向集体主义的价值观,而荷兰社会则偏向个人主义。此外,性别和年龄仅对北京居民有显著影响,女性进行较多的联合活动,年长者更倾向选择朋友作为同伴;家庭结构对两城市居民影响均显著,结婚和生子等生命事件会促进居民产生核心家庭成员陪伴的活动;以休闲为目的活动更多的是联合活动。此外,收入、驾照拥有、私家车拥有、居住空间密度等变量也对同伴选择具有一定影响。最后对从行为角度的文化差异分析的未来以及对中荷社会发展的指导意义进行了讨论,提出社会现代化进程中,个人主义可能是追求公平与效率的潜在趋势,但中国社会的良性发展应当充分考虑到儒家思想的传承以及中国人喜爱热闹、需要集体归属感的民族性格,这是建立“和谐社会”的重要方面。同时,从活动-移动行为所表现的社会文化效应分析看,城市规划与管理者需要提供较为完善的公共休闲空间及提供个性化的交往空间与平台。

关键词: 同伴, 活动-移动行为, 文化差异, 个人主义, 集体主义

Abstract:

There is a long history to draw big distinctions of cultures between West and East with the constructs of individualism and collectivism. This coincides with a growing awareness that society change diversified in the process of modernization from the perspective of activity-travel behavior, but limited attention has been paid to investigation of companionship choice for non-work activity and travel. This article contributes to the knowledge on how to examine cultural differences by presenting estimation of companionship choice in activity-travel behavior, based on activity diary surveys collected in Beijing (China) and Utrecht (the Netherlands) both in 2007. The types of companionship could be divided into 4 categories, including alone, friend, core family member and other family members, which present the ordered degree from individualized to collective tendencies. According to descriptive analysis, the companionship share shows people in Beijing perform more often with others, yet those in Utrecht tend to perform more alone. If accompanied, people in Beijing conduct more activities with family members, but people in Utrecht conduct more with friends. Other family members dominate a considerable percentage as companions in Beijing but not in Utrecht. The findings indicate that people in Beijing behave more collectively, yet people in Utrecht behave more individually. According to MNL estimation, it shows important differences observed on socio-demographic, life cycle and activity type. In Beijing, women with cars from ‘big families’ are likely to conduct more leisure and social activities with family members, while older men tend to have more joint activity with other families or friends. These results are associated with Confucian culture and strong family tradition in Chinese society. In Utrecht, high-income men with cars from single families are likely to conduct more activities alone. These respond to independent life style in the Netherlands. In both two cities, people from couple or core families with young kids tend to perform activity with core family members, which shows family-obligation is an important factor for companionship. For the influence of activity types, the result shows leisure or social purposes encourage joint activity, particularly with friends. These findings are intended to provide evidence on collectivism is popular in Eastern society but individualism is prevalent in Western society. It discusses the social integration and value tendency in Chinese and Dutch society from activity-travel behavior perspective, and also points out some shortcomings in this article supposed as a stimulant for further analysis on cultural differences.

Key words: companionship, activity-travel behavior, cultural difference, individualism, collectivism

中图分类号: 

  • K901