震区社会易损性对比分析:以芦山与鲁甸地震为例

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.04.030

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (4): 169-174.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.04.030

• 公共安全 • 上一篇

震区社会易损性对比分析:以芦山与鲁甸地震为例

庙成¹, 丁明涛² 教授

1 中山大学地理科学与规划学院,广东广州 510275
2 西南科技大学环境与资源学院,四川绵阳 621010

收稿日期:2017-01-04 修回日期:2017-03-12 发布日期:2020-11-22
通讯作者: 丁明涛(1981—),男,山东日照人,博士,教授,主要从事地质灾害风险控制与聚落减灾研究。E-mail: mingtaoding@163.com。
作者简介:庙成 (1989—),男,宁夏银川人,博士研究生,研究方向为地质灾害风险控制与管理。E-mail: miaocheng19890922@163.com。
丁明涛 (1981—),男,山东日照人,博士,教授,主要从事地质灾害风险控制与聚落减灾研究。E-mail: mingtaoding@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(41371185);四川省青年科技基金资助(2017JQ0051);教育部人文社会科学研究专项任务项目(工程科技人才培养研究)(15JDGC019)。

Comparative analysis of social vulnerability of seismic areas: a case study of Lushan earthquake and Ludian earthquake

MIAO Cheng¹, DING Mingtao²

1 School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou Guangdong 510275, China
2 School of Environment and Resource, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang Sichuan 621010, China

Received:2017-01-04 Revised:2017-03-12 Published:2020-11-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为揭示区域社会易损性对地震灾害造成的损失的影响,以芦山和鲁甸地震灾区为研究区,根据统计资料和实地考察结果,构建包括10个指标的社会易损性评价指标体系,并利用熵值法综合评判2震区的社会易损性,进而证明震区社会易损性与地震灾害损失的因果关系。结果表明,低震级、波及范围小的鲁甸地震死亡人数大于高震级、波及范围大的芦山地震死亡人数,其原因之一是鲁甸地震灾区的社会易损性大于芦山地震灾区的。

关键词: 社会易损性, 对比分析, 熵值法, 芦山地震, 鲁甸地震

Abstract: In order to reveal the effect of regional social vulnerability on the losses caused by the earthquakes, Lushan earthquake stricken area and Ludian earthquake stricken area were selected as the study object. Based on the statistical data and field investigations, an evaluation indicator system of social vulnerability was established. Using the entropy value method, the social vulnerability of Lushan earthquake stricken area and that of Ludian earthquake stricken area were comprehensively evaluated. The results showed that the social vulnerability of Ludian earthquake-stricken area was greater than that of Lushan earthquake-stricken area, and that one of the reasons why the small magnitude of Ludian earthquake causedHeavier casualties was the greater regional social vulnerability.

Key words: social vulnerability, comparative analysis, entropy method, Lushan earthquake, Ludian earthquake

中图分类号:

X915.5
X43

庙成, 丁明涛. 震区社会易损性对比分析:以芦山与鲁甸地震为例[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(4): 169-174.

MIAO Cheng, DING Mingtao. Comparative analysis of social vulnerability of seismic areas: a case study of Lushan earthquake and Ludian earthquake[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(4): 169-174.

参考文献

[1] WESTGATE K N, O'KEEFE P O. The human and social implications of earthquake risk for developing countries: towards an integrated mitigation strategy[R]. Proceedings of Intergovernmental Conference on the Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk UNESCO,1976.
[2] World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction.Yokohama strategy and plan of action for a safer world: guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation[R], 1994.
[3] BLAIKIE P, CANNON T, DAVIS I, et al. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters[M].London: Routledge,1994: 141-156.
[4] CUTTER S L, BORUFF B J, SHIRLEY W L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards[J]. Social Science Quarterly, 2003, 84(2):242-261.
[5] RONCANCIOD J, NARDOCCIA C. Social vulnerability to natural hazards in So Paulo, Brazil[J]. Natural Hazards, 2016, 84(2): 1 367-1 383.
[6] 姜彤,许朋柱.自然灾害研究的新趋势:社会易损性分析[J].灾害学,1996,11(2):5-9.
JIANG Tong, XU Pengzhu. Community vulnerability assessment: a new approach for natural disaster studies[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 1996, 11(2):5-9.
[7] 郭跃.自然灾害与社会易损性[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2013: 1-361.
GUO Yue.Natural hazards and social vulnerability[M].Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2013: 1-361.
[8] 李陶,李付伟,李向新,等.地震灾害风险的正态云模型综合评价:以毕节市为例[J].中国安全科学学报,2015,25(10): 166-171.
LI Tao, LI Fuwei, LI Xiangxin, et al. Comprehensive assessment of earthquake hazard risk based on normal cloud model: a case study of Bijie city [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(10): 166-171.
[9] 辜智慧,王娟,葛怡,等.区域建筑群台风灾害综合脆弱性评估方法研究:以广东省为例[J].中国安全科学学报,2016,26(2): 108-113.
GU Zhihui, WANG Juan, GE Yi, et al. Assessment of region buildings' synthesized vulnerability to typhoon disaster: a case study of Guangdong [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(2): 108-113.
[10] MIAO Cheng, DING Mingtao. Social vulnerability assessment of geological hazards based on entropy method in Lushan earthquake-stricken area [J].Arabian Journal of Geosciences,2015,8(12):10 241-10 253.
[11] 周爱国,周建伟,梁合诚,等.地质环境评价[M].武汉:中国地质大学出版社,2008:32-33.
ZHOU Aiguo, ZHOU Jianwei, LIANG Hecheng, et al. Geological environment evaluation [M]. Wuhan: China University of Geosciences Press, 2008:32-33.
[12] 樊杰,王传胜,汤青,等.鲁甸地震灾后重建的综合地理分析与对策研讨[J].地理科学进展,2014,33(8):1 011-1 018.
FAN Jie, WANG Chuansheng, TANG Qing, et al. Comprehensive geographic analysis and discussion on strategies for post-earthquake recovery and reconstruction in Ludian,Yunnan province [J]. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(8):1 011-1 018.
[13] 中国地震信息网[EB/OL]. [2014-08-20].http://www.csi.ac.cn.
China Seismic Information [EB/OL]. [2014-08-20].http://www.csi.ac.cn.
[14] 国家地球系统科学数据共享平台[EB/OL].[2014-08-22].http://www.geodata.cn.
National earth system science data sharing infrastructure[EB/OL].[2014-08-22].http://www.geodata.cn.
[15] 中华人民共和国国家统计局[EB/OL]. [2014-09-23].http://www.stats.gov.cn/.
National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China [EB/OL].[2014-09-23].http://www.stats.gov.cn/.
[16] United Nations Development Program(UNDP). Reducing disaster risks: a challenge for development[R], 2004.

震区社会易损性对比分析:以芦山与鲁甸地震为例

Comparative analysis of social vulnerability of seismic areas: a case study of Lushan earthquake and Ludian earthquake

PDF

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	戢晓峰, 杨春丽, 郝京京, 覃文文. 国内外应急物流研究热点对比与展望^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12): 144-152.
[2]	靳江红, 李鑫磊, 王庆. 粉尘爆炸风险评估方法及应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(7): 164-169.
[3]	宋英华, 程灵希, 刘丹, 吕伟. 基于组合预测优化模型的交通事故预测研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(5): 31-35.
[4]	杨强, 李延来. 基于质量功能配置法的危险品运输风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(3): 65-70.
[5]	傅贵, 薛宇敬阳, 佟瑞鹏, 栗继祖. HFACS与24Model不安全动作因素对应关系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(1): 7-12.
[6]	侯茜，秦洁璇，李翠平. 安全生产预警综合分析与研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(6): 92-.
[7]	陈芳，罗云. 管制员安全能力模型研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(1): 17-.
[8]	李晋，钱秉毅. 基于格序理论的爆炸类危险化学品运输路径研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(4): 137-.
[9]	高敏，刘志强. 现代环形交叉口安全性分析和安全设计[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(4): 92-.
[10]	陈东景，李培英，刘乐军，杜军，李萍. 我国沿海城市海底地质灾害易损性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(11): 11-.
[11]	肖红飞，彭斌. 安全工程本科与研究生专业课创新教学中的对比分析与研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(6): 40-.
[12]	周刚，程卫民，诸葛福民，聂文. 人因失误与人不安全行为相关原理的分析与探讨[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(3): 10-.
[13]	罗文柯，施式亮，胡筱斌. 基于混沌、灰色理论模型,预测煤矿生产中安全状况的对比分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(10): 34-.
[14]	樊晶光，位鑫，王宇航，任颖，王宝. 注册安全工程师与企业安全管理人员现状比较分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2007, 17(7): 63-.
[15]	刘宝龙，郝秀清. 建立职业安全健康管理体系对控制伤亡事故的对比分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2004, 14(11): 48-.