Barriers and (im)mobility in Rio de Janeiro
Barriers and (im)mobility in Rio de Janeiro
复制标题
里约热内卢的障碍和流动性
DOI：
10.1177/0042098015603290
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
L. Belton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Benjamin Motte;O. Bonin;Carlos David Nassi;L. Belton
在里约热内卢，不动或在任何一天都没有旅行的人的比例非常高（46%）。在一个隔离的城市里，不流动性有一个明显的地理维度。但收入的解释力有限。贫困地区人口流动性高的原因是人口结构中不属于劳动力和失业人口比例高。虽然人口结构的影响占主导地位，空间因素，如分离效应也占各区之间的差异。事实上，里约热内卢有许多不同类型的障碍，影响到几个地区和几个人口群体的不流动性。这些障碍可能是有形的，也可能是象征性的和感知性的。因此，本研究建议确定这些障碍的范围，因为它们影响到不动性。我们对里约热内卢大都市地区进行的最新家庭旅行调查（2003年）的结果说明了两类障碍-物理或象征性障碍和感知障碍-对不动性的影响，这更具体地表明了某些类别的个人，如家庭主妇、老年人、失业者或贫穷工人。相反，较富裕的在业人口似乎很少受到所研究的两类障碍的影响。最后，我们的研究结果表明，社会分化并没有导致富裕地区中心贫民窟人口的流动性增加，相反，流动性增加，特别是对于就业或寻找就业的工作年龄人口。
In Rio de Janeiro, immobility or the share of people with no journeys on any given day is very high (46%). Immobility has a marked geographical dimension in what is a segregated city. But income has only limited explanatory power. The population structure, with high proportions of people who are not in the labour force and who are unemployed, accounts for the high levels of immobility in the poor districts. Although population structure effects prevail, spatial factors such as the severance effect also account for differences between districts. Indeed, Rio de Janeiro features many different types of barriers that affect immobility in several districts and for several population groups. These barriers may be physical or symbolic and perceptive. This study proposes therefore to identify the scope of those barriers as they affect immobility. Our findings from the latest household travel survey available for the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro (2003) illustrate the effects of the two types of barrier, physical or symbolic and perceptive, on immobility that more specifically mark out certain categories of individuals such as housewives, the elderly, the unemployed or poor workers. Conversely, the wealthier active population seems to be little affected by the two types of barriers under study. Lastly, our results show that social fragmentation does not lead to greater immobility of favela populations in the heart of rich districts, but on the contrary to increased mobility, especially for the working age population in employment or looking for employment.