-
The measurement results of commuting distances show that many public janitors have an extremely short journey-to-work distance. As the commuting distances are not normally distributed, the median commuting distance was calculated to represent the average commuting distance. It was calculated that the median commuting distance is 1.55 km. As the commuting distance increases, the number of public janitors decreases accordingly (Fig. 4). The figure shows that there are 130 public janitors whose commuting distances are less than 1.2 km, a ratio of almost 38.24%. As the commuting distance increases to 2.4 km, the ratio grows up to 67.06%. That is to say, more than half of the public janitors travel a very short distance, usually under 2.4 km, to their place of work. When the commuting distance exceeds 2.4 km, the number of public janitors drops sharply.
As Fig. 5 shows, almost half of the public janitors only take 10 to 20 min to arrive at their workplace. The proportion of public janitors traveling less than 10 min accounts for about 20% of the total number of public janitors; nearly the same number of public janitors spends 20 to 30 min traveling to work. However, very few public janitors commute for more than 30 min.
-
It is found that 60.59% of the public janitors’ commuting directions point toward the city center. Therefore, it can be stated that the great majority of public janitors live farther away from the city center than the location of their workplaces (Fig. 6). This conclusion also conforms to the usual pattern of a general decline in house price from the city center to the periphery.
According to the median distances to the city center, public janitors whose commuting directions point toward the city center (8.23 km) live farther away from the city center than those with commuting directions moving away from the city center (5.14 km). Furthermore, the median commuting distance of public janitors whose commuting directions move away from the city center is 1.52 km, shorter than that of public janitors whose commuting directions point toward the city center (the median commuting distance is 1.62 km).
The above research shows that the mean journey-to-work distance for public janitors is only 1.55 km. More than half of the public janitors spend less than 20 min on the journey to work. Additionally, most public janitors walk or cycle to work. However, according to some existing research, the average travel distance for the general public in Xi’an is now 5.1 km (Zhou et al., 2013). More than 52.8% of the residents have to commute over 33 min to work (Zhu et al., 2015). Additionally, the residents in Xi’an have to use public transport (i.e., subway, bus) or private cars to commute a long distance (Zhu et al., 2015). These findings indicate that public janitors in Xi’an have almost no jobs-housing spatial mismatch.
-
In short, there is no obvious jobs-housing spatial mismatch for public janitors in Xi’an due to the short commuting distance and the small amount of time involved. Furthermore, there are three important reasons (i.e., housing choice, commuting time, and sensitivity to commuting distance) for the short commuting distance and the small amount of time, resulting in a good spatial bond between jobs and housing for public janitors.
-
Housing choice is one of the most critical reasons for jobs-housing bond. Analyses indicate that, due to their low wages, the vast majority of public janitors in Xi’an are not homeowners. Also, most public janitors are migrant workers who, as a result of China’s hukou registration system, have limited access to government-subsidized accommodation.
Therefore, renting is the inevitable choice for most public janitors. The number of public janitors who rent is 256, roughly 75.29% of the sample (Fig. 7). Among the 256 public janitors who rent, 42.97% do so because of low rent, and 49.61% do so to shorten commuting distances, thereby reducing commuting expenses. So, where do public janitors find low-rent housing close to their workplaces?
The answer lies in two types of communities. The first is villages-in-the-city (chengzhongcun in Chinese). The second is the old residential quarters. According to our survey, all but 56.64% of the 256 public janitors live in the Xi’an villages-in-the-city (Fig. 8a). The proportion of public janitors who rent in the old residential quarters is 35.16%. The median commuting distances for public janitors who rent in villages-in-the-city and in the old residential quarters are 1.46 and 1.2 km. Both figures are significantly lower than the average level (1.55 km as calculated). Fig. 8b indicates that the mean center for public janitors renting in the old residential quarters is located almost in the city center. In contrast, the mean center for those who live in Xi’an villages tends to be situated in the southwest, relatively far from the city center.
Figure 8. Distribution of public janitors renting different housing types (a) and the mean center (b)
According to Fan et al. (2014), villages-in-the-city constitutes a reason for the spatial mismatch of migrant workers in Beijing. This is because most migrant workers in Beijing live in villages-in-the-city located in the periphery of the city center. Therefore, they have to travel a long journey to the job-concentrated city center. However, unlike Beijing, Xi’an generally does not have the strong administrative and economic power needed to remove the many villages in the city center. Therefore, Xi’an villages are more widely distributed in the city periphery and city center (Fig. 9). More importantly, Xi’an villages and the old residential quarters are not located in segregated geographical residential areas. They are generally mixed spatially with other residential spaces and job clustered areas, such as expensive residential areas, high-rise downtown office building areas, and so on. Therefore, the spatial mismatch degree for migrant workers living in the Xi’an villages and in the old residential quarters is currently much lower than in Beijing.
Villages-in-the city constitute a specific urbanization phenomenon in China. Rural land, usually collectively owned by villagers, is distributed to farmers for building houses and for cultivation. The former land-use type is considered as residence-based; the latter is considered to be farmland. The rapid urban land expansion caused rural land around cities to be occupied by built-up area. After being requisitioned by city governments to be legally state-owned, rural land can be used for urban construction by property developers. When governments and property developers experience a shortage of finance, farmland is more likely to be used for construction than residence-based land due to the lower cost. Therefore, residence-based land is gradually surrounded by urbanized areas transformed from farmland into village-in-the-city. When the farmers receive compensatory payments for their farmland from government and property developers, most of them move to other urban residential quarters with better living conditions. They then rent their previous self-built houses in villages-in-the-city at a low price. That is why many low-income groups, especially migrant workers, live in villages in the cities of China.
Villages-in-the-city are usually occupied by hundreds of thousands of low-rise housing units developed by native villagers. These low-rise buildings are always distributed at random, and they are very crowded. Their landscape is often in sharp contrast with the surrounding urbanized areas where the buildings are relatively high and are distributed regularly with more open space. These areas can be easily observed on Baidu Satellite Images (Fig. 10), similar to Google Satellite Images. Fig. 10 shows the Baidu Satellite image of one of the villages in Xi’an.
A small number of public janitors rent their current housing for other reasons. For example, 12 public janitors want to make it more convenient for their spouses to go to work or for their children to go to school.
-
By counting the number of commuters, i.e., the public janitors, during different commuting time periods, we can see that there is a considerable time difference between public janitors’ rush hour and the general public’s rush hour (Fig. 11). The Xi’an Traffic Police Detachment dataset, published in the Sanqin Metropolis Daily in 2018, shows that the general morning rush hour is from 7:30 to 8:00, with a peak at 7:50; the evening rush hour is between 17:40 and 19:00, and the peak time is 18:20. However, it is noteworthy that public janitors start work much earlier in the morning. More than 98.24% of the public janitors must be at work before 7:30 when the general public morning rush hour begins (Fig. 11a). However, there are two peaks for the evening rush hour of public janitors. One is between 17:00 and 19:00, which is relatively coincident with the general public evening rush hour. The other peak time is from 21:00 to 23:00 when the bulk of the general public has already been off work for about three hours (Fig. 11b). In short, off-peak commuting greatly reduces the time public janitors spend commuting because off-peak commuting helps them to cut down on time wasted in rush hour traffic.
-
Sensitivity to commuting distance is also a critical factor. Increased sensitivity to commuting distance means a greater possibility of living near jobs. Sensitivity to commuting distance can be summarized from the perception of commuting distance. Four kinds of qualitative measurements of distance, namely, very close, close, far, and very far (Table 1) are used to investigate public janitors’ perceptions of commuting distance. In the opinions of most public janitors, they live close or even very close to their jobs. It is noteworthy that the number of public janitors who perceive commuting distance differently changes significantly as their actual median commuting distance increases. When the median commuting distance is less than 1.41 km, most public janitors think they live close or very close to their jobs. However, it is only when the commuting distance exceeds 2.39 km that perception of commuting distance of public janitors changed to very far. Therefore, it can be said that public janitors are very sensitive to commuting distance.
Table 1. The number and proportion of public janitors with different perceptions of commuting distance and the median commuting distance
Perception of commuting distance Number of public janitors Proportion of public janitors / % Median commuting distance / km Very close 40 11.76 0.88 Close 194 57.06 1.41 Far 83 24.42 2.39 Very far 23 6.76 4.26 Total 340 100 − The high sensitivity to the commuting distance of public janitors is mainly caused by their high level of non-motorized commuting modes. Most of them walk or cycle to work. This is because public janitors generally have limited access to private cars or public transport due to their low income. Therefore, they are more likely to live close to their jobs.
-
Abstract: Research on the spatial mismatch experienced by low-income minority residents is US-centric. However, spatial mismatch is not necessarily an appropriate term when considering the situation of low-wage workers in cities of northwestern China where there is higher proximity between jobs and housing and lower levels of residential segregation. This paper empirically examines the jobs-housing spatial relationship for one of the most typical low-wage groups, namely, public janitors, in Xi’an, China. Also, the causes of the jobs-housing spatial relationship are discussed in detail. Individual-level data based on in-depth interviews and questionnaires, as well as the GIS network analysis method, are used to provide baseline analyses of the jobs-housing spatial relationship. Results indicate that there is no jobs-housing spatial mismatch for public janitors in Xi’an. This can be implied from the short commuting distance and time. A basic cause is that most public janitors rent low-cost accommodation in villages-in-the-city, and in old residential quarters, near to their places of work. Other causes lie in off-peak commuting and high sensitivity to commuting distance due to the greater extent of non-motorized commuting modes. The conclusions, based on a large number of social surveys, are an illuminating analysis of the spatial mismatch issue among low-wage workers in Chinese cities.
-
Table 1. The number and proportion of public janitors with different perceptions of commuting distance and the median commuting distance
Perception of commuting distance Number of public janitors Proportion of public janitors / % Median commuting distance / km Very close 40 11.76 0.88 Close 194 57.06 1.41 Far 83 24.42 2.39 Very far 23 6.76 4.26 Total 340 100 − -
[1] Bi L, Fan Y, Gao Met al., 2019. Spatial mismatch, enclave effects and employment outcomes for rural migrant workers: Empirical evidence from Yunnan Province, China. Habitat International, 86: 48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.02.008 [2] Cooke T J, Shumway J M, 1991. Developing the spatial mismatch hypothesis: problems of accessibility to employment for low-wage central city labor. Urban Geography, 12(4): 310–323. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.12.4.310 [3] Covington K L, 2009. Spatial mismatch of the poor: An explanation of recent declines in job isolation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 31(5): 559–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00455.x [4] National Bureau of Statistics, 2018. Per capita disposable wage income of urban residents: Cumulative value. Available at: https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=E0105 [5] DeRango K, 2001. Can commutes be used to test the spatial mismatch hypothesis? Urban Studies, 38(8): 1521–1529. doi: 10.1080/00420980126670 [6] Fan Y, Allen R, Sun T, 2014. Spatial mismatch in Beijing, China: Implications of job accessibility for Chinese low-wage workers. Habitat International, 44: 202–210. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.002 [7] Gobillon L, Selod H, 2014. Spatial mismatch, poverty, and vulnerable populations. In: Fischer M M and Nijkamp P (eds), Handbook of Regional Science . Springer, 93−107. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9_7 [8] Gobillon L, Selod H, Zenou Y, 2007. The mechanisms of spatial mismatch. Urban Studies, 44(12): 2401–2427. doi: 10.1080/00420980701540937 [9] Gottlieb P D, Lentnek B, 2001. Spatial mismatch is not always a central-city problem: an analysis of commuting behavior in Cleveland, Ohio, and its suburbs. Urban Studies, 38: 1161–1186. doi: 10.1080/00420980124613 [10] Hellerstein J K, Neumark D, McInerney M, 2008. Spatial mismatch or racial mismatch? Journal of Urban Economics, 64: 464–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2008.04.003 [11] Holzer H J, 1991. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: what has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28: 105–122. doi: 10.1080/00420989120080071 [12] Holzer H J, Ihlanfeldt K R, 996. Spatial factors and the employment of blacks at the firm level. New England Economic Review, May/June Special Issue: 65–82. doi: 10.1.1.217.3853 [13] Hu L, 2015. Job accessibility of the poor in Los Angeles: Has suburbanization affected spatial mismatch? Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(1): 30–45. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1042014 [14] Houston D S, 2001. Spatial barriers to employment within metropolitan areas: testing the spatial mismatch hypothesis using evidence from firm relocations in the Glasgow conurbation. Scotland: University of Glasgow. [15] Houston D S, 2005. Methods to test the spatial mismatch hypothesis. Economic Geography, 81(4): 407–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2005.tb00281.x [16] Hughes M A, Madden J F, 1991. Residential segregation and the economic status of black workers: new evidence for an old debate. Journal of Urban Economics, 29: 28–49. doi: 10.1016/0094-1190(91)90024-2 [17] Ihlanfeldt K R, Sjoquist D L, 1991. The effect of job access on black youth employment: across-sectional analysis. Urban Studies, 28: 255–265. doi: 10.1080/00420989120080231 [18] Ihlanfeldt K R, 1993. Intra-urban job accessibility and Hispanic youth employment rates. Journal of Urban Economics, 33(2): 254–271. doi: 10.1006/juec.1993.1016 [19] Ihlanfeldt K R, 1997. Information on the spatial distribution of job opportunities within metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Economics, 41(2): 218–242. doi: 10.1006/juec.1996.1098 [20] Ihlanfeldt K R, Sjoquist D L, 1998. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate, 9(4): 849–892. doi: 10.1080/10511482.1998.9521321 [21] Ihlanfeldt K R, Young M V, 1996. The spatial distribution of black employment between the central city and the suburbs. Economic Inquiry, 34(4): 693–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1996.tb01405.x [22] Immergluck D, 1998. Job proximity and the urban employment problem: do suitable nearby jobs improve neighborhood employment rates? A comment. Urban Studies, 35(1): 7–23. doi: 10.1080/0042098985041 [23] Kain J F, 1968. Housing segregation, Negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82(2): 175–197. doi: 10.2307/1885893 [24] Kain J F, 1992. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: three decades later. Housing Policy Debate, 3(2): 371–460. doi: 10.1080/10511482.1992.9521100 [25] Li S M, 2010. Evolving residential and employment locations and patterns of commuting under hyper growth: The case of Guangzhou, China. Urban Studies, 47(8): 1643–1661. doi: 10.1177/0042098009356118 [26] McLafferty S, Preston V, 1992. Spatial mismatch and labor market segmentation for African-American and Latina women. Economic Geography, 68(4): 406–431. doi: 10.2307/144026 [27] Preston V, McLafferty S, 1999. Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: progress and potential. Paper in Regional Science, 78(4): 387–402. doi: 10.1007/s101100050033 [28] Sanchez T, Shen Q, Peng Z R, 2004. Transit mobility, jobs access and low-income labour participation in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 41(7): 1313–1331. doi: 10.1080/0042098042000214815 [29] Stoll M A, 1999. Spatial job search, spatial mismatch, and the employment and wages of racial and ethnic groups in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 46(1): 129–155. doi: 10.1006/juec.1998.2116 [30] Taylor D B, Ong P M, 1995. Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence, and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 32(9): 1453–1473. doi: 10.1080/00420989550012348 [31] Thompson M A, 1997. The impact of spatial mismatch on female labor force participation. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(2): 138–145. doi: 10.1177/089124249701100203 [32] Wang D, Chai Y, 2009. The jobs-housing relationship and commuting in Beijing, China: the legacy of Danwei. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(1): 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.005 [33] Wang E, Song J, Xu T, 2011. From ‘spatial bond’ to ‘spatial mismatch’: an assessment of changing jobs-housing relationship in Beijing. Habitat International, 35(2): 398–409. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.11.008 [34] Zhang C, Man J, 2015. Examining job accessibility of the urban poor by urban metro and bus: a case study of Beijing. Urban Rail Transit, 1(4): 183–193. doi: 10.1007/s40864-015-0026-5 [35] Zhou Jiangping, Chen Xiaojian, Huang Wei et al., 2013. Jobs-housing balance and commute efficiency in cities of central and western China: a case study of Xi’an. Acta Geographica Sinica, 68(10): 1316–1330. (in Chinese) [36] Zhou S, Liu Y, Kwan M, 2016. Spatial mismatch in post-reform urban China: a case study of a relocated state-owned enterprise in Guangzhou. Habitat International, 58: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.08.003 [37] Zhu Jing, Dong Xin, He Jianxiong et al., 2015. The commuting characteristics of residents in metropolis in Plain area of western China: a case study of Xi’an, Shaanxi province. Human Geography, (3)118–124. (in Chinese)