长江流域资源与环境 >> 2014, Vol. 23 >> Issue (11): 1580-.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201411014

• 生态环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于GIS和AHP的芦山地震灾区泥石流危险性评价

王 骏,丁明涛,庙 成,周 鹏,黄 英   

  1. (西南科技大学环境与资源学院,四川 绵阳 621010)
  • 出版日期:2014-11-20

HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF DEBRIS FLOW BASED ON GIS AND AHP IN LUSHAN EARTHQUAKE DISASTER AREA

WANG Jun, DING Mingtao, MIAO Cheng, ZHOU Peng, HUANG Ying   

  1. (School of Environment and Resource, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)
  • Online:2014-11-20

摘要:

采用层次分析法,通过判断矩阵建立起各要素之间的数量关系,选取坡度、地层岩性、断裂带、植被覆盖、地震烈度及年降雨量作为评价指标,并阐明了各指标与泥石流之间的相互关系。建立以地理信息系统为平台的泥石流危险性评价模型,得到地震灾区泥石流危险等级分区图。通过评价,初步认识到研究区内芦山县、天全县、名山区、雨城区位于泥石流极高危险区,且评价分区结果与区内地灾点分布特征相吻合

Abstract:

A seven magnitude earthquake occurred in Lushan County, Yaan City, Sichuan Province on April 20, 2013, which caused 193 deaths or missing and with a loss amounting to RMB 1.4 billion. The structure of mountains, rock and soil was severely damaged by the Lushan earthquake, which induced a series of geological disasters including landslide, collapse, debris flow and so on. The serious geological disasters threatened the life, the property of the local people, the significant infrastructure and even the ecological condition. Exhaustive study and hazard assessment of debris flow in Lushan earthquake were of important realistic significance. Using the AHP method, we selected six assessment factors, namely terrain slope, lithology, fracture zone, vegetation cover, earthquake intensity and annual rainfall. In the application of AHP method, the weight of each factor was determined. The weight is 0.186 for seismic intensity, is 0.284 for rainfall factor, 0.176 for slope, 0.169 for lithology, 0.108 for fracture zone, and 0.077 for vegetation cover. The study area was eventually classified into five categories (extremely low, low, moderate, high, extremely high), which were determined according to the views of experts as well as the understanding of the regional development of geological hazards. Grade 1 to 5 were used to indicate the different hazard levels. Grade 5 represented the most dangerous, while Grade 1 represented the least dangerous. The choice of GIS technology for spatial analysis completed the study using the weighted superposition model. Applying the spatial analysis tool in GIS, a zoning map of debris flow hazard assessment was obtained. The result showed a regular pattern that the study area such as Lushan County, Tianquan County, Mingshan District, and Yucheng District located in the extremely high hazard area, and its level of hazard zoning was mainly affected by the earthquake and rainfall factors. We draws a conclusion that the division of the study area and the feature of geological hazard point distribution were in substantial agreement.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 许峰, 祁士华, 高媛, 邢新丽. 绵阳市代表性点位土壤多环芳烃剖面分布特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(2): 192 .
[2] 陶建平,雷海章. 长江中游平原农业水灾风险管理的制度建设[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2004, 13(6): 621 -625 .
[3] 郑明媚,李满春,毛 亮,黎韶光. GIS支持的县域人口迁移空间模型研究——以浙江省临安市为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(3): 281 -286 .
[4] 王红丽,| 刘 健 | 况雪源. 四种再分析资料与长江中下游地区降水观测资料的对比研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(5): 703 .
[5] 王云琦,王玉杰,朱金兆. 重庆缙云山典型林分林地土壤抗蚀性分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(6): 775 -780 .
[6] 常青山,马祥庆,王志勇. 南方重金属矿区重金属的污染特征及评价[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(3): 395 .
[7] 张林, 王礼茂, 王睿博,. 长江中上游防护林体系森林植被碳贮量及固碳潜力估算[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(2): 111 .
[8] 周 静, 杨桂山, 戴胡爽. 经济发展与环境退化的动态演进——环境库兹涅茨曲线研究进展[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(4): 414 .
[9] 曹 昀,王国祥. 水生高等植物对悬浮泥沙的去除研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(3): 340 .
[10] 谢春花,王克林,陈洪松,张明阳. 土地利用变化对洞庭湖区生态系统服务价值的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(2): 191 -195 .