泥石流易发区灾害可接受程度对比研究——以云南东川和甘肃舟曲为例

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.01.019

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以云南东川和甘肃舟曲两个泥石流易发区为例,通过问卷调查和统计分析,对比两地区公众对泥石流灾害后果关注程度和对泥石流灾害可接受程度及其影响因素的异同。研究结果表明：① 东川公众最关注财产损失,舟曲公众最关注疾病发生,两地区公众对环境破坏和房屋损失的关注程度都较高。② 东川公众对泥石流灾害发生次数（简称次数）和每年愿意支付的防灾保险费用（简称保险费用）可接受程度高的人数百分比高于舟曲公众;舟曲公众对泥石流灾害提前预告时间（简称预告时间）、居住地到泥石流灾害点距离（简称距离）可接受程度高的人数百分比高于东川公众。③ 两地区公众对 “次数”的可接受程度最低,对“保险费用”的可接受程度最高,对“预告时间”和“距离”的可接受程度中等。④ 两地区公众对泥石流灾害可接受程度有共同影响的因素包括：年龄对“距离”的影响,性别对“次数”和“距离”的影响,文化程度对“预告时间”和“保险费用”的影响,收入对“次数”“距离”和“保险费用”的影响。其它影响泥石流可接受程度的因素,两地区公众各有差异。

关键词: 泥石流灾害, 灾害可接受程度, 云南东川, 甘肃舟曲, 防灾减灾

Abstract:

People are the direct recipients of disaster risk and the executors of risk management. To understand the acceptability of disaster for people is a necessary part of risk management. Taking Dongchuan of Yunnan and Zhouqu of Gansu where debris flows are prone to occur as case studies, through questionnaire investigation and statistical analysis, the similarities and differences of the consequence and acceptability of debris flow disaster and their influencing factors were approached. The conclusions are as follows: 1) The people in Dongchuan were most concerned about property loss, while the disease occurrence received the most attention of the people in Zhouqu, and the people’s concerns to environment destructions and house loss were high in both areas. 2) For the population percentages of the numbers of debris flow occurrence (Frequency) and the willingness to pay for annual disaster insurance (Insurance premium), the acceptability with very high grade in Dongchuan was more than that in Zhouqu; for the population percentages of the warning time for debris flow disaster (Warning time) and the distance from residence to debris flow hazard location (Distance), the acceptability with very high grade in Zhouqu was more than that in Dongchuan. 3) In both areas, the acceptability of Frequency was the lowest, while the acceptability of Insurance premium was the highest, and the acceptabilities of Warning time and Distance were moderate. 4) There were common influential factors on debris flow acceptability in both areas, including the factors of age on Distance, sex on Frequency, Distance, educational level on Warning time and Insurance premium, and income on Frequency, Distance and Insurance premium. The other influencing factors are different in the two areas. This study may provide references for risk management in debris flow prone areas.

Key words: debris-flow disaster, disaster acceptability, Dongchuan in Yunnan, Zhouqu in Gansu, disaster prevention and mitigation

中图分类号:

刘希林,郭梨花. 泥石流易发区灾害可接受程度对比研究——以云南东川和甘肃舟曲为例[J]. 地理科学, 2019, 39(1): 164-172.

Xilin Liu,Lihua Guo. Comparisons of the Acceptability of Debris Flow Disasters in the Hazard-prone Areas: Case Studies in Dongchuan and Zhouqu[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2019, 39(1): 164-172.

图/表 11

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表2

图6

图7

图8

图9

参考文献 18

[1]	郭跃 . 灾害范式及其历史演进[J]. 地理科学, 2016,36(6):935-942. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.06.017
	[ Guo Yue . Hazard paradigms and their historical evolution. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016,36(6):935-942.] doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.06.017
[2]	Starr C . Social benefit versus technological risk[J]. Science, 1969,165(3899):1232-1238.
[3]	Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S , Slovic P et al. Acceptable risk[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[4]	尚志海, 刘希林 . 国外可接受风险标准研究综述[J]. 世界地理研究, 2010,19(3):72-80.
	[ Shang Zhihai, Liu Xilin . Overviews on foreign acceptable risk criteria. World Regional Studies, 2010,19(3):72-80.]
[5]	Fell R . Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1994,31(2):261-272.
[6]	Fell R, Cororninas J , Bonnard C et al. Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk-zoning for land planning[J]. Engineering Geology, 2008,102(3-4):85-98.
[7]	ERM-Hong Kong Ltd . Landslides and boulder falls from natural terrain: Interim risk guidelines[R]. The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 1998: 183.
[8]	Hall W J, Wiggins J H . Acceptance risk: A need for periodic review[J]. Natural Hazards Review, 2000,1(3):180-187.
[9]	Hungr O, Clague J , Morgenstern N et al. A review of landslide risk acceptability practices in various countries [M] //Aversa S et al. Landslides and engineered slopes. experience, theory and practice: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on landslides (Napoli, Italy, 12-19 June 2016). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2016: 1121-1128.
[10]	岑慧贤, 房怀阳, 吴群河 . 可接受风险的界定方法探讨[J]. 重庆环境科学, 2000,22(3):18-19.
	[ Cen Huixian, Fang Huaiyang, Wu Qunhe . Concept of acceptable risk. Chongqing Environmental Science, 2000,22(3):18-19.]
[11]	尚志海 . 泥石流灾害综合风险货币化评估及可接受风险研究[D]. 广州: 中山大学, 2012.
	[ Shang Zhihai . Monetary evaluation of debris flow disaster integrated risk and acceptable risk. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University, 2012.]
[12]	Rodrigues M A, Arezes P M, Leão C P. Risk acceptance: Perspectives of a challenging issue [C]//Proceedings of 11 ^th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference and the annual european safety and reliability conference 2012 (Helsinki, Finland, 25-29 June 2012). New York: Curran Associates Inc , 2012: 6364-6373.
[13]	昆明市统计局, 国家统计局昆明调查队. 昆明统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2016.
	[ Kunming Municipal Bureau Statistics , NBS Survey Office in Kunming. Kunming statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2016.]
[14]	陈杰, 韦方强, 崔鹏 . 小江流域泥石流堆积扇形成的制约因素及其特征[J]. 地理科学, 2005,25(6):704-708.
	[ Chen Jie, Wei Fangqiang, Cui Peng . Restricting conditions and their characteristics for debris flow fans in Xiaojiang River Valley. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2005,25(6):704-708.]
[15]	业渝光, 刁光波, 和杰 , 等. 云南东川古泥石流堆积物ESR测年的初步研究[J]. 地理科学, 1995,15(4):374-378.
	[ Ye Yuguang, Diao Guangbo , He Jie et al. Preliminary study on ESR dating of palaeo-accumulation of mod-rock flow in Dongchuan, Yunnan. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 1995,15(4):374-378.]
[16]	甘肃发展年鉴编委会. 甘肃发展年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2016.
	[ Editorial Committee of Gansu Development Yearbook. Gansu development yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2016.]
[17]	刘传正, 苗天宝, 陈红旗 , 等. 甘肃舟曲2010年8月8日特大山洪泥石流灾害的基本特征及成因[J]. 地质通报, 2011,30(1):141-150.
	[ Liu Chuanzheng, Miao Tianbao , Chen Hongqi et al. Basic feature and origin of the “2010.8.8” mountain torrent-debris flow disaster happened in Zhouqu County, Gansu, China, Aug. 8, 2010. Geological Bulletin of China, 2011,30(1):141-150.]
[18]	贾瑶瑶, 刘希林, 尚志海 . 泥石流灾害可接受风险调查问卷设计[C]//黄崇福, 等. 中国灾害防御协会风险分析专业委员会第五届年会论文集. 巴黎: 亚特兰蒂斯出版社, 2012: 405-410.
	[ Jia Yaoyao, Liu Xilin, Shang Zhihai. Questionnaire design of acceptable risk of debris flow disaster//Huang Chongfu et al. Innovation theory and method of risk Analysis and crisis response: Proceedings of the 5th annual meeting of risk analysis council of China Association for disaster prevention. Paris: Atlantis Press, 2012: 405-410.]

项目	类别	东川			舟曲
项目	类别	人数（人）	比例（%）		人数（人）	比例（%）
年龄	18~35岁	108	41.70		106	53.00
	36~45岁	88	33.98		65	32.50
	46~60岁	53	20.46		21	10.50
	60岁以上	10	3.86		8	4.00
性别	男	146	56.37		105	52.50
性别	女	113	43.63		95		47.50
文化程度	小学	51	19.69		19	9.50
	初中	96	37.07		56		28.00
	高中或中专	57	22.01		54		27.00
	大学专科或本科	40	15.44	69		34.50
	研究生	15	5.79	2		1.00
职业	农民	141	54.44	60	30.00
	工人	35	13.51	34		17.00
	学生	25	9.65	9		4.50
	事业单位人员	41	15.83	49		24.50
	个体户	17	6.57	48		24.00
月收入	1000元以下	147	56.76	58	29.00
	1000~3000元	88	33.98	117		58.50
	3000~5000元	19	7.34	21		10.50
	50000~10000元	5	1.93	2		1.00
	10000元以上	0	0.00	2		1.00
居住地是否发生泥石流	是	252	97.30	178	89
居住地是否发生泥石流	否	7	2.70	22		11

影响因素	指标	东川	舟曲
影响因素	指标	P值	P值
年龄	次数	0.11	0.72
	预告时间	0.09^*	0.51
	距离	0.02^*	0.00^*
	保险费用	0.01^*	0.66
性别	次数	0.02^*	0.00^*
	预告时间	0.03^*	0.47
	距离	0.00^*	0.00^*
	保险费用	0.69	0.81
文化程度	次数	0.34	0.47
	预告时间	0.06^*	0.02^*
	距离	0.05^*	0.28
	保险费用	0.00^*	0.02^*
职业	次数	0.40	0.04^*
	预告时间	0.46	0.04^*
	距离	0.13	0.45
	保险费用	0.11	0.24
月收入	次数	0.09^*	0.04^*
	预告时间	0.46	0.04^*
	距离	0.02^*	0.03^*
	保险费用	0.09^*	0.09^*