Attractiveness of Cities during Social Isolation: Views of Residents of the Silesian Voivodeship (Poland)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2020-4-18Keywords:
city, quality of life, pandemic period, attractiveness of the city, limited mobility, Mobility paradigm, mobility metaphors, cliche of the city's attractiveness, antecedence of city ratings, interdisciplinarity of mobilityAbstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to the widespread introduction of the principles of social isolation and drastically reduced the right of residents to use the city, limiting mobility and meetings. The article examines whether the temporarily limited mobility due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, reducing the quality of life in the city, also reduces its attractiveness. The city, assessed from the viewpoint of its attractiveness, aims to strengthen its appeal. We assume that the attractiveness of the city and assessment of the quality of life in the city are based on similar features. We sought answers to the following research questions. (1) Is it really possible to notice a decrease in the city’s attractiveness due to the pandemic? (2) Does a respondent’s opinion (belief) about the city as a living environment influence the assessment of the city in which the respondent lives? (3) Do factors describing the mobility of city inhabitants influence the quality of life? We revealed that the demographic characteristics of residents are to varying degrees related to the assessment of the attractiveness of the city. Gender of respondents has no significant influence on the assessment of the city and current place of residence, while age and educational level of education are important for this assessment. The older is the respondent, the lower is their assessment of the city. Simultaneously, the higher is the educational level, the higher is the propensity to assess the attractiveness of the city. The analysis of mobility revealed that not all examined mobility elements will equally improve the quality of life (measured by the assessment of the place of residence). Out of the 7 factors identified in the study, only 3 turned out to be statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that these factors improve the quality of life of city residents.
References
Bajardi, P., Poletto, C., Ramasco, J. J., Tizzoni, M., Colizza, V. & Vespignani, A. (2011). Human Mobility Networks, Travel Restrictions, and the Global Spread of 2009 H1N1 Pandemic. PLoS ONE, 6(1), 1-8. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016591
Montgomery, Ch. (2003). Happy city. Transforming our lives through urban design. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 448.
Merrifield, A. (2014). The New Urban Question. London: Pluto Press, 176.
Ellard, C. (2015). Places of the heart. The Psychogeography of everyday life. New York: Bellevue Literary Press, 256.
Hollis, L. (2013). Cities are good for you. The Genius of the Metropolis. Bloomsbury Publishing, 416.
Stevenson, D. (2013). The City. Cambridge: Polity Press Ltd, 315.
Sudjic, D. (2016). The Language of Cities. London: Penguin Books, 240.
Sadik-Khan, J. & Solomonow, S. (2016). Streetfight: Handbook for an Urban Revolution. New York: Pengiun Books, 361.
Speck, J. (2012). Walkable City. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 351.
Schwartz, S. I. (2015). Street Smart. The Rise of Cities and the Fall of Cars. New York: Public Affairs, 292.
Szołtysek, J. (Ed.). (2018). Jakość życia w mieście. Poglądy interdyscyplinarne [Quality of life in the city. Interdisciplinary views]. Warsaw: CeDeWu, 252. (In Pol.)
Berking, H. & Low, M. (2008). Die Eigenlogik der Stadte. Neue Wege ftir die Stadtforschung [The cities own logic. New ways for urban research]. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 420. (In Ger.)
Szoltysek, J. & Twarog, S. (2018). Meeting Places in the Urban Strategy to Build a Happy City: A Mixed Research Approach. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Urban and Civil Engineering, 20(6), 40-44.
Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning, 38, 207-226. DOI: 10.1068/ a37268.
Szołtysek, J. (2011). Kreowanie mobilności mieszkańców miast [Creating mobility of city dwellers]. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 212. (In Pol.)
Szoltysek, J. & Trzpiot G. (2019). Miasta przyjazne seniorom [Senior-friendly cities]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 76-95. (In Pol.)
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach. Katedra Logistyki Spolecznej (2017). Logistyka miasta w ksztaltowaniu jakosci zycia. Raport z badan statutowych [City logistics in shaping quality of life. Statutory Research Report]. Unpublished material. (In Pol.)
World Health Organisation (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 76.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 226.
Cresswell, T. (2002). Introduction: theorizing place. In: E. G. Verstraet, T. Cresswell, Mobilizing Place, Placing Mobility (pp. 15-18). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies. London: Routledge, 120.
Sassen, S. (2002). Locating cities on global circuits. Environment & Urbanization, 14(1), 13-30.
Popov, E. V. & Semyachkov, K. A. (2020). Systematisation of Approaches to Assessing the Development of Smart Cities. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of region], 16(1), 14-27. DOI:10.17059/2020-1-2 (In Russ.)
Kramers, A., Hojer, M., Lovehagen, N. & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart sustainable cities-exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environmental Modelling & Software 56, 52-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.019.
Szołtysek, J., Kauf, S. & Wieczorek, I. (Eds.) (2018). Transport zbiorowy w zaspokajaniu mobilności mieszkańców miast. Doświadczenia JST [Public transport in satisfying urban mobility. Experiences of territorial self-government units]. NIST, 146. (In Pol.)
Jabloflska, K. & Sobieraj, A. (2013). Metodyka dobierania proby badawczejw naukach spolecznych. Bezpieczenstwo i Technika Pozarnicza, 32(4), 31-36. DOI: 10.12845/bitp.32.4.2013.3.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 1-4.
Etikan, I., Alkassim, R. & Abubakar, S. (2015). Comparision of Snowball Sampling and Sequential Sampling Technique. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1), 6-7. DOI: 10.15406/bbij.2015.03.00055.
Główny Urząd Statystyczny. (2020). Ludność. Stan i struktura oraz ruch naturalny w przekroju terytorialnym w 2017 r. Stan w dniu 31 XII [Population. Size and structure and vital statistics in Poland by territorial division in 2019. As of 31st December]. Warsaw: Główny Urząd Statystyczny. (In Pol.)
Majewska, J. & Twaróg, S. (2018). W kierunku poprawy jakości życia w mieście. Czynniki konstytuujące jakość życia w świetle badañ empirycznych [Towards improving the quality of life in the city. Factors that constitute the quality of life in the light of empirical research]. In: J. Szołtysek (Ed.), Jakość życia w mieście. Poglądy interdyscyplinarne [Quality of Life in City. Interdisciplinary Approach] (pp. 181-202). Warsaw: CeDeWu. (In Pol.)
Moreno Alonso, C., Baucells Aleta, N. & Arce Ruiz, R. M. (2016). Smart mobility in smart cities. In: CIT2016 -XII Congresso de Ingeneria del Transporte (pp. 1209-1219). Valencia: Universitat Politecnica de Valenci. DOI: 10.4995/ CIT2016.2016.3485.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Jacek Szołtysek, Rafal Otręba
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
