基于GIS的关中地区农业生产自然灾害风险综合评价研究

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2012.012.1465

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

旱灾、洪灾等自然灾害对农业生产有重要影响,通过分析关中地区主要自然灾害类型,选择各类型灾害的主要影响因素,建立评价模型,对关中地区农业生产中可能遭受的自然灾害风险进行综合分析评价,结果表明：关中地区农业生产自然灾害综合风险总体较高,高、中、低级别风险区分别占研究区面积的28.2%、46.6%和25.2%,其中高风险区主要分布在凤县、太白县、麟游县以及陇县的北部地区,中风险区主要分布在台塬边缘区和低山地区,低风险区主要分布在关中盆地地区,从具体灾害类型上看,高风险区域主要面临地质灾害和水土流失的威胁,中风险区域主要灾害是水土流失和生态环境恶化,低风险区域则是干旱和洪涝灾害。

关键词: 自然灾害, 风险评价, GIS, 关中地区

Abstract:

China is one of the few countries severely affected by natural hazards. Since 1990s, the economic losses caused by natural disasters have been an obvious upward trend. According to the statistics, the farmland area which affected by various natural disasters each year reaches to 34 × 10⁶hm², natural disasters caused great economic losses which take up 3%~6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Guanzhong region locates in the Loess Plateau and belongs to the arid and semiarid area, Because of the vulnerable ecological environment and complex topography of the region, soil erosion, debris flow and other disasters happened frequently. Meanwhile, drought, flood and other natural disasters have great impact on the agricultural production. Therefore, assessment, especially comprehensive assessment of natural disaster for agricultural production is very significant. The main influence factors of each disaster were selected based on the analysis of the type and character of natural disaster in the present paper. Furthermore, comprehensive assessment model is developed to analyze and evaluate the natural disaster risk which the agricultural production of Guanzhong region may suffer. The results show that agricultural production natural disaster risk in Guanzhong region is generally high. The corresponding area of different risk grade for higher-grade, medium-grade and lower-grade is 28.2%, 46.6%and 25.2% , respectively. The higher-grade risk area is mainly located in Fengxian County, Taibai Country, Linyou County and the northern part of Longxian Country, medium-grade risk area is mainly distributed in the tableland edge of the area and low mountain areas, while lower-grade risk area is mainly distributed in the Guanzhong basin. The main type of disaster in higher-grade risk area is geological disaster and water and soil erosion, the main type of disaster in medium-grade risk area is water and soil erosion and ecological environment, while the main type of disaster in lower-grade risk area is drought and flood.

Key words: natural disasters, risk assessment, GIS, Guanzhong region

中图分类号:

周寅康, 金晓斌, 王千, 杜心栋. 基于GIS的关中地区农业生产自然灾害风险综合评价研究[J]. 地理科学, 2012, 32(12): 1465-1472.

Yin-kang ZHOU, Xiao-bin JIN, Qian WANG, Xin-dong DU. Comprehensive Assessment of Natural Disaster Risk for Agricultural Production in Guanzhong Region Based on GIS[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2012, 32(12): 1465-1472.

图/表 7

图1

表1

图2

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 36

[7]	史培军. 四论灾害系统研究的理论与实践[J].自然灾害学报,2005,14(6):1~7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2005.06.001
[8]	刘晓琼,赵景波.关中地区旱涝灾害研究[J].陕西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2002,30(4):102~106. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-4291.2002.04.025
[9]	刘引鸽. 西北干旱灾害及其气候趋势研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(4):113~116. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7578.2003.04.021
[10]	Moreira E E,Paulo A A,Pereira L S,et al.Analysis of SPI drought class transitions using loglinear models[J].Journal of Hydrology,2006,331(1-2):349-359. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.05.022
[11]	Livada I,Assimakopoulos V D.Spatial and temporal analysis of drought in Greece using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI)[J].Theoretical and Applied Climatology,2007,89(3-4):143-153. doi: 10.1007/s00704-005-0227-z
[12]	Escaleras M P,Register C A.Mitigating natural disasters through collective action: The effectiven-ess of tsunami early warnings[J].Southern Economic Journal,2008,74(4):1017-1034.
[13]	Chen K,Blong R.Towards an integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment using GIS: With reference to bushfires[J].Environmental Management,2003,31(4):546-560. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2747-y pmid: 12677299
[14]	Takahashi S.Social geography and disaster vulnerability in Tokyo[J]. Applied Geography,1998,18(1):17-24. doi: 10.1016/S0143-6228(97)00042-8
[15]	Cutter S L,Finch C.Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2008,105(7):2301-2306. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710375105 pmid: 18268336
[16]	张会,张继权,韩俊山.基于GIS技术的洪涝灾害风险评估与区划研究——以辽河中下游地区为例[J].自然灾害学报,2005,14(6):141~146. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2005.06.025
[1]	郝璐,王静爱,满苏尔,等. 中国雪灾时空变化及畜牧业脆弱性分析[J].自然灾害学报,2002,11(4):42~48.
[2]	刘兰芳,彭蝶飞,邹君.湖南省农业洪涝灾害易损性分析与评价[J].资源科学,2006,28(6):60~67.
[17]	宫清华,黄光庆,郭敏,等.基于GIS技术的广东省洪涝灾害风险区划[J].自然灾害学报,2009,18(1):58~63. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2009.01.009
[18]	黄崇福. 自然灾害风险评价——理论与实践[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[3]	梁书民. 中国雨养农业区旱灾风险综合评价研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2011,25(7):39~44.
[4]	曹永强,李香云,马静,等. 基于可变模糊算法的大连市农业干旱风险评价[J]. 资源科学, 2011,33(5):983~988.
[19]	Blaikie P,Cannon T,Davis I,et al.At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters[M]. London, UK: Routledge, 1994.
[20]	殷杰,尹占娥,许世远.上海市灾害综合风险定量评估研究[J].地理科学,2009,29(3):450~454.
[21]	王静静,刘敏,权瑞松,等.沿海港口自然灾害风险评价[J].地理科学,2012,32(4):516~520.
[5]	史培军. 再论灾害研究的理论与实践[J].自然灾害学报,1996,5(4):6~17. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2002.03.001
[6]	史培军. 三论灾害研究的理论与实践[J].自然灾害学报,2002,11(3):1~9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2002.03.001
[22]	商彦蕊. 自然灾害综合研究的新进展——脆弱性研究[J].地域研究与开发,2000,19(2):73~77. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2363.2000.02.019
[23]	赵文吉. ENVI遥感影像处理专题与实践[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2007.
[24]	潘耀忠,史培军.区域自然灾害系统基本单元研究: 理论部分[J].自然灾害学报,1997,6(4):1~9.
[25]	Bakr N,Weindorf D C,Bahnassy M H,et al.Multi-temporal assessment of land sensitivity to desertification in a fragile agro-ecosystem: Environmental indicators[J].Ecological Indicators,2012,15(1):271-280. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.034
[26]	张玉芳,邢大韦,刘明云,等.关中地区历史特大干旱探讨[J].西北水资源与水工程,2002,13(3):15~18, 22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-643X.2002.03.005
[27]	翁白莎,严登华.变化环境下中国干旱综合应对措施探讨[J].资源科学,2010,32(2):309~316.
[28]	黄晚华,杨晓光,李茂松,等.基于标准化降水指数的中国南方季节性干旱近58a演变特征[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(7):50~59.
[29]	潘懋,李铁峰.灾害地质学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
[30]	刘希林,陈宜娟.泥石流风险区划方法及其应用——以四川西部地区为例[J].地理科学,2010,30(4):558~565.
[31]	唐川,朱静.基于GIS的山洪灾害风险区划[J].地理学报,2005,60(1):87~94.
[32]	魏一鸣. 洪水灾害风险管理理论[M].科学出版社,2002.
[33]	史培军,刘新立.区域水灾风险评估模型研究的理论与实践[J].自然灾害学报,2001,10(2):66~72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4574.2001.02.011
[34]	涂军平,黄贤金,刘杨.土地生态环境评价指标体系研究及区划应用[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(12):247~252.
[35]	鄂竟平. 中国水土流失与生态安全综合科学考察总结报告[J].中国水土保持,2008,(12):3~6.
[36]	蔡强国,王贵平,陈永宗.黄土高原小流域侵蚀产沙过程与模拟[M].北京:科学出版社,1998.

评价指标	等级	分值	范围
春旱频率	1	1.0	< 10.0%
	2	1.2	10.1% ~ 20.0%
	3	1.5	20.1% ~30.0%
	4	1.7	30.1% ~40.0%
	5	2.0	> 40.0%
夏旱频率	1	1.0	< 10.0%
	2	1.2	10.1% ~20.0%
	3	1.5	20.1% ~30.0%
	4	1.7	30.1% ~40.0%
	5	2.0	> 40.0%
秋旱频率	1	1.0	< 10.0%
	2	1.2	10.1% ~20.0%
	3	1.5	20.1% ~30.0%
	4	1.7	30.1% ~40.0%
	5	2.0	> 40.0%
地表湿润指数	1	1.0	> 1.30
	2	1.2	1.11~1.30
	3	1.5	0.91~1.10
	4	1.7	0.71~0.90
	5	2.0	< 0.70

影响因素	等级	分值	范围/类型
地貌类型	1	1.0	河流阶地
	2	1.2	洪积扇
	3	1.5	丘陵
	4	1.7	苔塬
	5	2.0	梁峁
坡度	1	1.0	< 5.0°
	2	1.2	5.1° ~10.0°
	3	1.5	10.1° ~15.0°
	4	1.7	15.1° ~20.0°
	5	2	> 20.0°
地质条件	1	1.0	硬质岩石
	2	1.2	软质岩石
	3	1.5	砂/粉类土
	4	1.7	粘类土
	5	2	黄土
距地质隐患点距离	1	1.0	> 3000 m
	2	1.5	1000 ~3000 m
	3	2.0	< 1000 m
降水量	1	1.0	< 500 mm
	2	1.5	500 ~600 mm
	3	2.0	> 600 mm

影响因素	等级	分值	范围
历史洪灾频率	1	1.0	0.5% ~2.5%
	2	1.2	2.6%~5.0%
	3	1.5	5.1% ~7.5%
	4	1.7	7.6% ~10.0%
	5	2.0	> 10.0%
高程标准差	1	1.0	> 70.0 m
	2	1.2	50.1 ~70.0 m
	3	1.5	30.1 ~50.0 m
	4	1.7	10.0 ~30.0 m
	5	2.0	< 10.0 m
日降暴雨	1	1.0	< 100 mm
	2	1.2	101~120 mm
	3	1.5	121~140 mm
	4	1.7	141~160 mm
	5	2.0	> 160 mm
距河流距离	1	1.0	< 500 m
	2	1.5	500 ~2000 m
	3	2.0	> 2000 m

影响因素	等级	分值	范围
化肥投入强度	1	1	< 1500.0 kg/hm²
	2	2	1500.0 ~2250.0 kg/hm²
	3	3	> 2250.0 kg/hm²
农药投入强度	1	1	< 3.0 kg/hm²
	2	2	3.0~7.5 kg/ hm²
	3	3	> 7.5 kg/ hm²
COD 排放量	1	1	< 2000.0 t
	2	2	2000.0~4000.0 t
	3	3	> 4000.0 t
二氧化硫排放量	1	1	< 1000.0 t
	2	2	1000.0 ~2000.0 t
	3	3	> 2000.0 t
固体废弃物排放量	1	1	< 20000.0 t
	2	2	20000.0 ~40000.0 t
	3	3	> 40000.0 t

影响因素	等级	分值	范围
第一产业GDP	1	1.0	> 40 亿元
	2	1.5	20 ~40 亿元
	3	2.0	< 20 亿元
农民人均收入	1	1.0	> 6000.0元
	2	1.5	4000.0~6000.0元
	3	2.0	< 4000.0元
坡度	1	1.0	< 5.0°
	2	1.2	5.1°~10.0°
	3	1.5	10.1°~15.0°
	4	1.7	15.1°~20.0°
	5	2.0	> 20.0°
水资源量	1	1.0	> 5.0×10⁴m³
	2	1.5	1.0~5.0×10⁴m³
	3	2.0	< 1.0×10⁴m³