Through the Eyes of the “Strangers”: Residential Satisfaction of Temporary Migrants in Chengzhongcun (Villag

e in the City) in Guangzhou

Siu Yat-mingDepartment of Sociology

Hong Kong Baptist University

The Stranger

• The “self” and “other” in ethnography• But subjective interpretation can also be bi

ased• Georg Simmel’s concept of “the stranger”:• who comes today and may stay tomorrow • Because of their bipolar characteristics of

both nearness and remoteness, strangers can provide an objective evaluation of the group environment.

Objective 1:

• To study the physical aspects of residential satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) from a subjective “self” and an objective “other” points of view.

Assimilation of Rural Migrants into the Local Community

• Dorothy Solinger (1999): collapse of opposition and obliteration of boundaries

• Zhou Daming (2000): the dual community

• Wang Xiaoyi (2000): economic sphere can be open, but social sphere is closed

• Wang Chunguang (2006): migrants are “half-urbanized”

Objective 2:

• To see if social interaction can promote neighbourliness (the social aspect of residential satisfaction)

Data and Measurement

• Guangzhou Housing and Mobility Survey in 2005

• Main sample: 25 samples each in 40 resident committees (communities)

• Migrant subsamples: 25 samples each in 12 villages in the city (chengzhongcun)

• Out of which 10 villages with 500 samples were matched

Characteristics of the 10 Villages

• Tianhe (5), Haizhu (3), Baiyun (2)

• Area: 0.05 – 1.1 Km2

• No. of Households: 1709 – 8644

• %Migrants: 39% – 93%

Selected Community

Selected Community

Selected Community

Selected Community

Selected Community

Measurements• Local: Local residents with household r

egistration in Guangzhou• Migrant: Temporary residents who do n

ot have household registration in Guangzhou

• Residential Dissatisfaction-own building: measured by 15 individual items in a 4-point Likert scale

• Residential Dissatisfaction-community: measured by 14 individual items in a 4-point Likert scale

Measurements

• Neighbourly Interaction: Measured by 7 4-point Likert scale

• Local-Migrant Interaction: Measured by 2 5-point Likert scale

• Neighbourliness: Measured by 4 7-point Semantic Differential scale

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

Local Migrant

Number of Cases 222 278

Percent Male 58.1% 72.7%

Mean Age 38.6 32.6

Percent Urban Resident 95.5% 25.5%

Percent Owner 78.4% 0.7%

Mean Household Income 55,095 24,180

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

Education Local Migrant

No Schooling 0.5% 1.5%

Primary 7.7% 9.0%

Junior Secondary 15.3% 38.8%

Senior Secondary 41.4% 37.1%

Tiertiary 35.1% 13.6%

Residential Dissatisfaction: Own Building

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Migrant

Local

Residential Dissatisfaction: Community

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Migrant

Local

Neighbourly Interaction

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Migrant

Local

Local-Migrant Interaction

3

3.2

3.43.6

3.8

1 2

Migrant

Local

Neighbourliness

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

1 2 3 4

MigrantLocal

1: Residential Satisfaction: Own Building 4: Local-Migrant Interaction 2: Residential Satisfaction: Community 5: Neighbourliness 3: Neighbourly Interaction

Indices by Local-Migrant

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3 4 5

Migrant

Local

The Model

Residential

Dissatisfaction

Neighbourly

Interaction

Demographic and

Socioeconomic

Charactistics

Neighbourliness

Factors influencing NeighbourlinessR2 = .162, n = 499

Coefficientsa

4.454 .393 11.343 .000.326 .109 .172 2.988 .003

-.445 .107 -.271 -4.163 .000

.212 .085 .150 2.484 .013

.351 .072 .213 4.850 .000-.161 .085 -.081 -1.890 .059.011 .005 .108 2.249 .025.723 .407 .077 1.776 .076-.039 .174 -.012 -.224 .823-.101 .126 -.048 -.801 .424.030 .112 .015 .267 .789-.004 .003 -.161 -1.626 .105

1.10E-006 .000 .011 .125 .901

(Constant)Local ResidentResidential Dissatisfaction:HouseResidential Dissatisfaction:CommunityNeighbourly InteractionMALEageNO_EDPRIMARYJUNIORSENIORHINCOMEHINCOMSQ

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Neighbourlinessa.

Full Model Regression:R2 = .272 n=405

Coefficientsa

3.440 .494 6.958 .000.515 .121 .243 4.262 .000

-.437 .109 -.233 -4.012 .000

.230 .092 .137 2.500 .013

.114 .083 .068 1.373 .170

.452 .068 .342 6.677 .000-.287 .095 -.134 -3.029 .003.009 .005 .082 1.652 .099

1.065 .406 .120 2.622 .009-.017 .185 -.005 -.091 .927-.051 .139 -.024 -.365 .716.074 .130 .037 .571 .568.001 .003 .036 .386 .700

-2.38E-005 .000 -.121 -1.438 .151

(Constant)Local ResidentResidential Dissatisfaction:HouseResidential Dissatisfaction:CommunityNeighbourly InteractionLocal-Migrant InteractionMALEageNO_EDPRIMARYJUNIORSENIORHINCOMEHINCOMSQ

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Neighbourlinessa.

Local Residents OnlyR2 = .213 n = 127

Coefficientsa

4.964 .719 6.906 .000

-.644 .192 -.400 -3.352 .001

.373 .140 .303 2.659 .009

.049 .130 .041 .377 .707

.098 .109 .095 .898 .371-.153 .144 -.094 -1.062 .291.002 .008 .030 .301 .764

1.733 .761 .196 2.277 .025.107 .275 .043 .388 .699.089 .240 .042 .370 .712.163 .174 .103 .941 .349.013 .009 .438 1.559 .122.000 .000 -.449 -1.688 .094

(Constant)Residential Dissatisfaction:HouseResidential Dissatisfaction:CommunityNeighbourly InteractionLocal-Migrant InteractionMALEageNO_EDPRIMARYJUNIORSENIORHINCOMEHINCOMSQ

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Neighbourlinessa.

Migrants OnlyR2 = .298 n = 278

Coefficientsa

2.386 .684 3.490 .001

-.336 .133 -.166 -2.518 .012

.191 .119 .103 1.598 .111

.182 .110 .094 1.658 .098

.636 .088 .428 7.209 .000-.283 .123 -.123 -2.303 .022.009 .008 .064 1.166 .244

1.166 .487 .135 2.397 .017.189 .246 .052 .767 .444.018 .178 .008 .099 .922.095 .178 .045 .535 .593.002 .005 .044 .408 .683

-2.36E-005 .000 -.128 -1.221 .223

(Constant)Residential Dissatisfaction:HouseResidential Dissatisfaction:CommunityNeighbourly InteractionLocal-Migrant InteractionMALEageNO_EDPRIMARYJUNIORSENIORHINCOMEHINCOMSQ

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Neighbourlinessa.

Conclusion

• There are discrepancies between “self” and “other” in residential satisfaction.

• Migrants’ feeling of neighbourliness can be enhanced by interaction between local residents and migrants.

Thank you!