森林环境文物建筑集中区域灭火救援能力评估

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.09.0103

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对森林环境文物建筑集中区域环境复杂,难以准确评估区域灭火救援能力等问题,基于层次分析法(AHP),提出耦合森林因素的单体文物建筑灭火救援能力评估方法,涵盖建筑材料、森林防火隔离带、消防水源等19个二级指标;在单体评估基础上,从区域视角建立一种基于变权法的森林环境文物建筑集中区域灭火救援能力评估模型;并引入惩罚占主导的混合型变权函数,设置评价策略,确定惩罚与激励区间,区分文物建筑保护等级,提出风险等级划分方法;通过实地调研和数据收集,结合定权法和变权法评价森林环境文物建筑集中区域(岳麓山风景名胜区)的灭火救援能力。结果表明:单体文物建筑评级为优、良、中、次、差的数量占比分别为12%、20%、32%、20%、16%。区域定权法得分为75.27(Ⅲ级,不需采取提升措施),变权法得分为69.97(Ⅳ级,需采取提升措施);建议采取增设电气火灾预警系统、增加森林防火隔离带等措施来提升灭火救援能力。

关键词: 森林火灾, 文物建筑, 集中区域, 灭火救援, 能力评估, 变权

Abstract:

Aiming at the problem that the regional environment of cultural relic buildings in a forest environment is complex, and it is difficult to accurately evaluate the regional firefighting and rescue ability, an evaluation method of firefighting and rescue ability of a single cultural relic building coupled with forest factors was constructed based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which covered 19 secondary indicators such as building materials, forest fire separation zones, and fire water sources. Based on single-unit assessment, a firefighting and rescue capacity assessment model based on the variable-rights method was established from the regional perspective for the centralized area of cultural relics buildings in the forest environment. A mixed-type variable-rights function dominated by penalties was introduced. The model was established by setting up the evaluation strategy, determining the penalties and incentives intervals, differentiating the protection level of cultural relics buildings, and putting forward the risk level division method. The firefighting and rescue capacity of the forest environment heritage building concentration area (Yuelu mountain scenic spot) was evaluated by combining the fixed-rights method and variable-rights method through field research and data collection. The results show that the number of individual heritage buildings rated as 'excellent, good, moderate, substandard, poor' accounted for '12%, 20%, 32%, 20% and 16%'. For the centralized area, the fixed-rights method scored 75.27 (Level III, no need to take upgrading measures), while the variable-rights method scored 69.97 (Level IV, need to take upgrading measures). Therefore, it is recommended that measures such as installing additional electrical fire warning systems and increasing forest fire breaks be taken to enhance firefighting and rescue capabilities.

Key words: forest fire, cultural relics and buildings, concentrated area, firefighting and rescue capability, capacity assessment, variable-rights

中图分类号:

X928.7火灾与爆炸事故

颜龙, 李琪, 郑佳欣, 徐志胜, 刘顶立. 森林环境文物建筑集中区域灭火救援能力评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(9): 234-240.

YAN Long, LI Qi, ZHENG Jiaxin, XU Zhisheng, LIU Dingli. Assessment of firefighting and rescue capacity in concentrated area of built heritage in forest environments[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(9): 234-240.

图/表 6

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图1

参考文献 24

[1]	陈君子, 周勇, 刘大均. 中国古建筑遗产时空分布特征及成因分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2018, 32(2): 194-200.
	CHEN Junzi, ZHOU Yong, LIU Dajun. Analysis of spatio temporal distribution characteristics of ancient architecture heritage in China[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2018, 32(2): 194-200.
[2]	韩瑛, 贾林雨, 张成莉, 等. 山西省古建筑文化旅游资源空间分布特征及影响因素研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(1): 196-202.
	HAN Ying, JIA Linyu, ZHANG Chengli, et al. Spatial distribution characteristics of ancient architecture cultural tourism resources in Shanxi[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2021, 35(1): 196-202.
[3]	刘晓, 张曼曼, 刘玉超. 空间规划体系中风景名胜区整合与边界优化路径研究:以庐山风景名胜区为例[J]. 中国园林, 2023, 39(10): 69-75.
	LIU Xiao, ZHANG Manman, LIU Yuchao. Research on the path of integration and boundary optimization of scenic and historic area in the spatial planning system:taking Lushan scenic area as an example[J]. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2023, 39(10): 69-75.
[4]	刘智兴, 马耀峰, 高楠, 等. 山岳型旅游目的地形象感知研究:以五台山风景名胜区为例[J]. 山地学报, 2013, 31(3): 370-376.
	LIU Zhixing, MA Yaofeng, GAO Nan, et al. A research on tourism destination image perception of mountain resorts:a case study of mountain Wutai scenery area in China[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2013, 31(3): 370-376.
[5]	兰虹. 青城山道教资源的保护与开发[J]. 西南民族大学学报: 人文社科版, 2007, 28(12): 99-101.
[6]	周恩毅, 谭露, 胡金荣. 城市建筑物消防安全评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(3):179-185. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0201
	ZHOU Enyi, TAN Lu, HU Jinrong. Fire safety assessment of urban building[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3):179-185. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0201
[7]	蒋琴, 钟少波, 朱伟. 京津冀地区森林火灾综合风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10): 119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
	JIANG Qin, ZHONG Shaobo, ZHU Wei. Research on comprehensive risk assessment of forest fire in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(10): 119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
[8]	IBRAHIM M N, ABDUL-HAMID K, IBRAHIM M S, et al. The development of fire risk assessment method for heritage building[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2011, 20: 317-324.
[9]	XIN Jing, HUANG Chongfu. Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on fire statistics from China[J]. Fire Technology, 2014, 50(5): 1147-1161.
[10]	NETO J T, FERREIRA T M. Assessing and mitigating vulnerability and fire risk in historic centres: a cost-benefit analysis[J]. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2020, 45: 279-290.
[11]	HU Jun, XIE Xuecai, SHU Xueming, et al. Fire risk assessments of informal settlements based on fire risk index and bayesian network[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19 (23): DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315689.
[12]	付强, 张和平, 熊永祥, 等. 基于层次分析法的消防中队灭火救援能力评估[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2008, 8(1): 156-159.
	FU Qiang, ZHANG Heping, XIONG Yongxiang, et al. A renovated method for assessing the fire fighting and rescuing capability by taking the fire brigade as a unit[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2008, 8(1): 156-159.
[13]	赵永昌, 闫怀林, 朱国庆. 基于防火性能多因素耦合文物建筑火灾风险评估方法及应用:以平遥古城为例[J]. 劳动保护, 2023(5): 87-90.
[14]	徐志胜, 刘顶立, 曹欢欢, 等. 基于AHP的古建筑火灾风险评估方法研究[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2015, 12(3): 690-694.
	XU Zhisheng, LIU Dingli, CAO Huanhuan, et al. Study on fire risk assessment of historic buildings based on AHP[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2015, 12(3): 690-694.
[15]	颜峻, 左哲. 自然灾害风险评估指标体系及方法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(11): 61-65.
	YAN Jun, ZUO Zhe. Research on natural disaster risk assessment index system and method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(11): 61-65.
[16]	刘启源, 刘金程. 自然灾害视角下区域韧性评价方法及影响因素[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 174-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1892
	LIU Qiyuan, LIU Jincheng. Regional resilience evaluation methods and influencing factors from perspective of natural disasters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 174-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.1892
[17]	闫子卉, 万杰. 基于组合赋权法的文物建筑火灾风险评估[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2019, 38(5): 718-721.
	YAN Zihui, WAN Jie. Cultural relic building fire risk assessment based on combination weighting approach[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2019, 38(5): 718-721.
[18]	王磊磊, 雷鹏奎, 邓军, 等. 区域性文物建筑消防安全评估方法研究[J]. 武警学院学报, 2021, 37(8): 20-23.
	WANG Leilei, LEI Pengkui, DENG Jun, et al. Study on fire safety evaluation methods of regional historic buildings[J]. Journal of the Armed Police Academy, 2021, 37(8): 20-23.
[19]	戚振彪, 郭晓雪, 寿宇铭, 等. 林区架空配电线路诱发森林火灾风险评估[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2023, 42(6): 829-834.
	QI Zhenbiao, GUO Xiaoxue, SHOU Yuming, et al. Risk assessment of fire induced by overhead distribution lines across forest areas[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2023, 42(6): 829-834.
[20]	唐士润, 周涛, 张建军, 等. 基于惩罚型变权模型的高速公路路面性能评价[J]. 公路交通科技: 应用技术版, 2020, 16(8): 170-173.
[21]	李春好, 孙永河, 贾艳辉, 等. 变权层次分析法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2010, 30(4): 723-731. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2010)4-723
	LI Chunhao, SUN Yonghe, JIA Yanhui, et al. Analytic hierarchy process based on variable weights[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2010, 30(4): 723-731.
[22]	李坦, 陈天宇, 米锋, 等. 基于变权理论和DPSIRM的中国森林生态安全评价[J]. 中国环境科学, 2021, 41 (5): 2411-2422.
	LI Tan, CHEN Tianyu, MI Feng, et al. Evaluation of China's forest ecological security based on variable weight theory and DPSIRM[J]. China Environmental Science, 2021, 41(5): 2411-2422.
[23]	刘顶立, 徐志胜, 王飞跃. 基于后果概率估计的地铁集群火灾风险评估[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18 (3): 813-820.
	LIU Dingli, XU Zhisheng, WANG Feiyue. Fire risk evaluation of subway group based on consequence probability estimation[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18(3): 813-820.
[24]	熊鹰, 杨雪白. 城市山岳型旅游地旅游资源空间承载力分析:以岳麓山风景区为例[J]. 中国人口资源与环境, 2014, 24(增1): 301-304.
	XIONG Ying, YANG Xuebai. Research on the carrying capacity of resources space of city-mountain resorts: a case study of Yuelu mountain[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(S1): 301-304.

类别编号	领域	人数	权重系数k_n
1	消防救援	3	k₁=0.4
2	高校科研	5	k₂=0.3
3	建筑设计	1	k₃=0.2
4	建筑管理	1	k₄=0.1

一级指标	权重系数/%	二级指标	权重系数/%
自身影响因素 A₁	20.81	建筑材料B₁	2.77
		用火情况B₂	4.17
		用电情况B₃	2.73
		避雷设施B₄	1.41
		堆积可燃物B₅	4.24
		防火间距B₆	2.65
		消防车道B₇	2.84
森林影响因素 A₂	27.46	森林防火隔离带B₈	8.04
		植被类型B₉	5.16
		气候条件B₁₀	5.76
		枯叶堆积B₁₁	8.49
自身灭火救援力量 A₃	33.79	灭火设施B₁₂	9.11
		微型消防站B₁₃	6.56
		内部消防水源B₁₄	4.72
		人员灭火救援能力B₁₅	13.41
外部消防救援力量 A₄	17.94	人员到达时间B₁₆	3.91
		装备到达时间B₁₇	5.50
		室外消火栓B₁₈	5.02
		外部消防水源B₁₉	3.50

类别	名称
全国重点文物保护单位(5处)	岳麓书院、爱晚亭、禹王碑、黄兴墓、蔡锷墓
湖南省文物保护单位(15处)	麓山寺、麓山忠烈祠、麓山寺碑、长沙会战碑、北伐纪念塔、庞人铨墓、半山亭、刘道一墓、焦达峰墓、陈作新墓、禹之谟墓、姚宏业墓、谭振墓、肖伟墓、谢晋墓
长沙市文物保护单位(16处)	云麓宫、湖南省会警察纪念堂、穿石坡湖、印心石屋石刻、二南石刻、笑啼岩石刻、刘崑涛墓、胡子靖墓、白鹤泉、丁文江墓、仰云亭、齐学启墓、易本羲墓、辛亥援鄂阵亡将士公墓、中山纪念林碑、舍利塔

序号	s_i	h	s_i'	W ⁰	f (x_i)	W (x_i)	单体评级
1	95.23	1.30	116.58	0.040 0	0.748 0	0.039 1	优
2	93.54	1.30	114.51	0.040 0	0.687 4	0.036 0	优
3	93.19	1.30	114.08	0.040 0	0.676 8	0.035 4	优
4	89.85	1.10	93.07	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	良
5	89.56	1.10	92.77	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	良
6	89.54	1.10	92.75	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	良
7	88.57	0.90	75.06	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	良
8	86.72	1.30	106.16	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	良
9	79.78	1.10	82.64	0.040 0	0.600 0	0.031 4	中
10	79.32	1.30	97.10	0.040 0	0.600 5	0.031 4	中
11	78.83	1.10	81.65	0.040 0	0.601 4	0.031 5	中
12	78.12	1.10	80.92	0.040 0	0.603 5	0.031 6	中
13	77.51	0.90	65.69	0.040 0	0.606 2	0.031 7	中
14	77.32	0.90	65.53	0.040 0	0.607 2	0.031 8	中
15	77.15	0.90	65.38	0.040 0	0.608 1	0.031 8	中
16	76.88	1.10	79.63	0.040 0	0.609 7	0.031 9	中
17	69.42	0.90	58.83	0.040 0	0.711 6	0.037 2	次
18	68.37	0.90	57.94	0.040 0	0.732 6	0.038 3	次
19	67.52	0.90	57.22	0.040 0	0.749 6	0.039 2	次
20	67.45	0.90	57.16	0.040 0	0.751 0	0.039 3	次
21	67.32	0.90	57.05	0.040 0	0.753 6	0.039 4	次
22	51.15	0.90	43.35	0.040 0	1.219 2	0.063 8	差
23	50.44	0.90	42.75	0.040 0	1.247 1	0.065 2	差
24	45.12	1.10	46.74	0.040 0	1.470 0	0.076 9	差
25	43.78	0.90	37.10	0.040 0	1.530 3	0.080 1	差