首页> 外文期刊>Urban Studies >Barriers and (im)mobility in Rio de Janeiro
【24h】

Barriers and (im)mobility in Rio de Janeiro

机译:里约热内卢的障碍和行动不便

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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.
机译:在里约热内卢,一天中没有出行或没有出行的人口比例很高(46%)。在偏僻的城市中,不动产具有明显的地理意义。但是收入只有有限的解释力。人口结构中没有劳动力的大量人口和失业的人口,造成了贫困地区的高流动性。尽管普遍存在人口结构效应,但诸如遣散效应之类的空间因素也说明了地区之间的差异。的确,里约热内卢具有许多不同类型的障碍,这些障碍影响着几个地区和几个人口群体的动静。这些障碍可能是物理上的或象征性的和可感知的。因此,本研究建议确定那些影响固定性的障碍的范围。我们从里约热内卢都会区(2003年)的最新家庭出行调查中得出的结果表明,有形障碍或有形障碍和有感性障碍这两种类型的障碍对不动产的影响,更具体地指出了某些类别的个人,例如家庭主妇,老年人,失业或贫困工人。相反,较富裕的活跃人口似乎几乎不受所研究的两种障碍的影响。最后,我们的结果表明,社会分裂并不会导致富裕地区中心地带的贫民窟人口更大的流动性,而与流动性的增加相反,特别是对于正在工作或正在寻找工作的劳动年龄人口。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号