Inequitable job accessibility across educational and hukou groups in Beijing: An analysis of transit-based accessibility to sectoral jobs

Abstract

This paper documents inequitable transit-based accessibility to sectoral jobs among population groups with different educational attainment and hukou status in Beijing, China. A cumulative transit-based job accessibility measure is applied and multiple data sources are used, including the transit travel-time data from a Chinese web mapping service and the population and employment distribution data from the 2010 Population Census and the 2013 Economic Census of Beijing. We find clear differences in transit-based job accessibility among employment sectors and among population groups in Beijing. On average, jobs in the finance sector are the most accessible by transit, and jobs in the manufacturing sector are the least accessible by transit. Despite having the highest transit dependency, the low-educated migrant population has the lowest transit-based job accessibility regardless of employment sectors. The disparities are especially large when tying specific populations with specific sectors. Within 60 minutes, the low-educated migrant population using transit, on average, can only access 4.6% of total manufacturing jobs in Beijing. In contrast, the same measure for the highly educated local population accessing jobs in the finance sector is as high as 48.3%. The findings suggest that general transit improvements and jobs and population redistribution efforts, without specific sectoral and population considerations, are unlikely to create equal access to job opportunities. In Beijing, greater attention must be paid to connect the low-educated migrant population to low-skilled and decentralized jobs in the manufacturing, construction, and transportation and storage sectors.

GPS Trajectory-Based Spatio-Temporal Variations of Traffic Accessibility under Public Health Emergency Consideration

“…Numerous accessibility measures, ranging from simple to sophisticated, can be found in the GIS-based accessibility modeling literature. e widely used accessibility measures in the research are travel time/distance measures [29], cumulative opportunity measures [30], gravity-based measures [31], two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) measures [32], etc. e cumulative opportunity model is chosen to measure the accessibility.…”

How does transit-oriented development contribute to station area accessibility? A study in Beijing

“…The relationship between TOD and the anticipated effects to people and firms might, however, not be that straightforward. Therefore, future research could aim to quantify the link between TOD and its effects other than accessibility, e.g., reduced greenhouse gas emission, lower air pollution and energy consumption (Kimball, Chester, Gino, & Reyna, 2013;Nahlik & Chester, 2014), spatial (in)equity (Fernandez & Creutzig, 2017;Jang, An, Yi, & Lee, 2017;Sun & Fan, 2018) or increased land and property rent/values (Cervero & Murakami, 2009;Duncan, 2011). Fifth, several aspects of accessibility have not been taken into consideration, including the key distance decay and competition effects (e.g., Cheng & Bertolini, 2013;Shen, 1998;Weibull, 1976) but also accessibility at other than morning-peak hours as well as the more qualitative aspects of accessibility (e.g., comfort, safety, and cleanliness of travel, types of jobs and inhabitants).…”

What the heck is a choice rider? A theoretical framework and empirical model

“…Many of these studies also reveal that those defined as transit dependent exercise a substantial amount of choice and frequently rely on cars. Although I focus on findings from the US and Canada below, the terms transit dependency and choice ridership are also used in a variety of international contexts, including China (Cai et al, 2020;Cao et al, 2018;Sun & Fan, 2018), India (Cheranchery & Maitra, 2018), Korea (Sohn & Yun, 2009), Australia (Chia et al, 2016), and Colombia (Márquez et al, 2018).…”