社区环境因素对居民主观幸福感的影响：以上海市浦东新区为例
Influence of community environmental factors on residents' subjective well-being: A case study of Pudong, Shanghai
-
摘要:
背景 社区是人们日常活动的主要场所，适宜的居住环境会提高居民的主观幸福感。
目的 了解上海市浦东新区居民的主观幸福感现状，探究社区环境因素对居民主观幸福感的影响。
方法 采用配额抽样的方法，选取上海市浦东新区的12个街道或镇的6000位常住居民参与问卷调查。问卷内容包括受访者基本信息、社区环境因素（美观程度、健身环境、服务与治安、自然环境）、主观幸福感三部分。运用多因素logistic回归模型，分析社区环境因素对居民主观幸福感的影响。
结果 共回收问卷5887份，有效回收率为98.1%。研究对象的主观幸福感总分为（7.03±1.61）分。不同性别和婚姻状况的研究对象，主观幸福感得分差异不存在统计学意义；而年龄、文化程度、职业以及自评经济状况不同的研究对象，其主观幸福感得分差异存在统计学意义（P＜0.05）。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示：在控制一般人口学特征后，以低水平（通过截断值33.3%、66.7%，将各社区环境因素分为高、中、低组）为对照组，美观程度高、中水平组主观幸福感的OR值分别为1.393（95%CI: 1.173~1.654）和1.235（95%CI: 1.080~1.412）；健身环境高、中水平组的OR值分别为2.297（95%CI: 1.929~2.734）和1.349（95%CI: 1.166~1.560）；服务与治安高、中水平组的OR值分别为1.101（95%CI: 0.943~1.285）和1.039（95%CI: 0.905~1.193）；自然环境高、中水平组的OR值分别为4.248（95%CI: 3.321~5.434）和1.652（95%CI: 1.374~1.986）。
结论 社区环境因素会影响居民的主观幸福感，且良好的社区美观程度、健身环境、自然环境对居民的主观幸福感有积极作用。
Abstract:Background The community is the main place for people's daily activities. A livable environment will improve the subjective well-being of residents.
Objective To understand the current status of subjective well-being of residents in Pudong, Shanghai, and explore the impact of community environmental factors on residents' subjective well-being.
Methods Using quota sampling, 6000 permanent residents from 12 sub-districts or towns in Pudong, Shanghai were selected to participate in an questionnaire survey. The questionnaire included three parts: participants' basic information, community environmental factors (neighborhood aesthetics, fitness environment, public service and security, natural environment), and subjective well-being. Using a multiple regression model, the influence of community environmental factors on the subjective well-being of residents was analyzed.
Results A total of 5887 questionnaires were recovered, and the valid recovery rate was 98.1%. The subjective well-being score of the survey respondents was (7.03±1.61) points. There was no statistical difference in the subjective well-being score of study subjects of different gender and marital status groups; while those with different ages, education levels, occupations, and self-evaluated economic status showed statistical differences in their subjective well-being score (P<0.05). The multiple logistic regression analysis results showed that after controlling general demographic characteristics, with the low level as the control group (according predetermined cut-off values of 33.3% and 66.7%, the community environmental factors were divided into high-, medium-, and low-level groups), theOR values of subjective well-being of the high- and medium-level neighborhood aesthetics groups were 1.393 (95%CI: 1.173-1.654) and 1.235 (95%CI: 1.080-1.412); the OR values of the high- and medium-level fitness environment groups were 2.297 (95%CI: 1.929-2.734) and 1.349 (95%CI: 1.166-1.560); the OR values of the high- and medium-level public service and security groups were 1.101 (95%CI: 0.943-1.285) and 1.039 (95%CI: 0.905-1.193); the OR values of the high- and medium-level natural environment groups were 4.248 (95%CI: 3.321-5.434) and 1.652 (95%CI: 1.374-1.986), respectively.
Conclusion Community environment factors could affect residents' subjective well-being, and good neighborhood aesthetics, fitness environment, natural environment have positive effects.
下载:
