滨海城市竖向避难场所选址可靠性评价与若干问题探讨

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.11.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

关注滨海城市竖向避难场所的选址可靠性问题，首先深化确立“竖向避难场所”概念；然后构建竖向避难场所选址可靠性评价模型，综合自然地理要素和建成环境要素，从与灾害直接作用相关的选址暴露性、与应急交通相关的选址敏感性、与应急服务相关的选址适应性3个维度展开，搭建3级评价指标体系；再以天津滨海新区为例、聚焦滨海城市潮洪灾害和人口安全矛盾的集核——临港城区展开实证研究，借助ArcGIS分类与可视化发现：高低可靠性选址之间具有明显的空间分异，可以分解为灾害暴露性的“近岸高?远岸低”分异、交通敏感性的“外围高?中心低”分异、服务适应性的“中心与沿河高?外围低”兼“近港高?远港低”分异。同时发现：商业设施用地选址价值较高，在高可靠性选址中占比第一；中小学和社会福利设施用地选址价值最高，在高可靠性选址中占比第二；文化科研和娱乐康体设施用地在高可靠性选址中占比最小。针对临港城区实证研究结果，提出滨海城市竖向避难场所选址及可靠性提升对策。

关键词: 滨海城市, 临港城区, 潮洪灾害, 竖向避难场所, 选址可靠性, 天津滨海新区

Abstract:

‘vertical shelters’ is deeply explored on the summary of vertical shelters’ construction demands. Secondly, a vertical shelter siting reliability evaluation model is derived from the IPCC vulnerability conceptual model. Based on this model, physical geography factors and built environment factors are integrated to build a 3-level evaluation index system. There are 3 dimensions involved in this index system: sitting exposure related to the direct effects of disasters, sitting sensitivity related to emergency transportation, and sitting adaptability related to emergency services. There are 3 primary indexes, 9 secondary indexes, and 17 tertiary indexes forming this system. Thirdly, taking Tianjin Binhai New District as an example, and focusing on the most population located and worst disaster effected area—port-urban area, an empirical research is explored. Using classification and visualization in ArcGIS, it is found that there is an obvious spatial differentiation between higher and lower sitting reliability. It can be decomposed into 3 aspects: Sitting exposure shows ‘offshore is higher and far from the shore is lower’. Traffic sensitivity shows ‘marginal is higher and central is lower’. Service adaptation shows both ‘central and riverine is higher and marginal is lower’ and ‘close to port is higher and far from port is lower’. Meanwhile, it is found that the land for primary and secondary schools and land for social welfare facilities are the backbone of vertical shelter’s sittings with high reliability. The land for commercial facilities is a strong supporter of high-reliability sittings. The lands for cultural and research facilities and for recreation and sport facilities are important supplements of high-reliability sittings. The internal high reliability ratio of all types of land use is less than 20%, so it is very important to promote multiple participation in vertical shelters’ sitting. Among all the sittings, the lower reliability is the most, so it is imperative to improve the reliability of sitting. Finally, this paper proposes the vertical shelters’ sitting and sitting reliability’s improvement strategies in coastal cities.

Key words: coastal cities, port-urban area, tide-flood disaster, vertical shelters, sitting reliability, Tianjin Binhai New District

中图分类号:

TU982

张威涛, 任利剑, 运迎霞. 滨海城市竖向避难场所选址可靠性评价与若干问题探讨[J]. 地理科学, 2020, 40(11): 1899-1908.

Zhang Weitao, Ren Lijian, Yun Yingxia. Siting Reliability Evaluation and Discussion of Vertical Shelter in Coastal Cities: A Case of Port-urban Area in the Binhai New District, Tianjin[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2020, 40(11): 1899-1908.

图/表 5

Table 1

The construction demands of vertical shelters"

机能	建设形制		简述
抗洪防浪	1	外部结构：外挂楼梯或空中连廊	①连接屋顶平台的建筑外用阶梯，使避难者从室外直达竖向避难场所的上层或屋顶平台；②建筑之间架设空中避难通道，从安全性低的建筑向竖向避难场所建筑直接转移
	2	内部结构：底层抬高并且多楼层	①预测最大浸水深度为2 m或3 m，分别向高于3或4层的建筑疏；②宜在3层以上保留集会室等大开间建筑避难空间；③竖向避难场所安全高度=（最大浸水深度×1.3）+3 m；④因竖向避难场所还要具备抗震和防风能力，不宜为高层建筑，多层建筑为宜；⑤一层楼板局部或全部抬高
	3	基础设施：生命线控制设备抬高	①灾用水、暖、电、信设备位于高楼层、浸水线之上；②采用容积率奖励政策，增设顶层设备用房
	4	生活设施：避难生活类物资抬高	①灾用储备仓库位于高楼层、浸水线之上；②采用容积率奖励政策，增设顶层设备用房
	5	海绵设施：渗水蓄水	①绿色基础设施；②地下蓄水空间提供洪水和吸纳和缓冲
防风	1	屋顶结构：歇山顶等类三角结构	能够承受①风荷载和②风振引起的动力作用
防风	2	内部结构：地下空间	在台风?风暴潮/特大暴雨灾害链中灵活转移， ①嵌入地下式建筑或者地下室对于防风保护性能较好；②尽量减少地下空间的孔隙结构
抗震	1	非承重结构：隔墙和天花板加固	加固①隔墙与②天花板，防止倒塌和掉落
抗震	2	内部结构：软质或轻质单元	相对独立的①软质和②轻质单元空间，具有明显抗冲击能力
综合	1	建筑用途：公共服务类设施优先	①一般而言，教育、文化、体育、社会福利等城市公共服务设施具有高建筑质量、高安全设计标准、高可达性、强开放性，在投资建设和运营管理中由政府主导，为民众提供福利、共享、公益性质的社会服务，作为竖向避难场所具有前期操作性和后期保障性；②与相关利益者协商后，商业服务业设施也可作为备选；③行政办公设施在确立应急使用预案、不影响行政指挥工作的前提下，也可作为备选；④医疗设施因承担大规模救治功能，应与混乱的人口疏散活动隔离以保证医疗活动的有序，不宜作为备选
	3	建筑体量：大且规则	①更大的建筑体量在抵御强烈的地震动和海浪冲击时具有更稳定的结构；②建筑的横向和纵向结构越规则，受冲击时的稳定性越强
	4	建筑材质：混凝土或钢筋混凝土	要求承受最大可能的①地震动、②风振、③浪涌引起的动力作用，能够有效预防裂缝和弯曲
	5	外部空间：地面空间与屋顶平台	在不同灾害情景下，室外室内、地下地上灵活转移：①附带较大室外开敞空间，便于人口集中、车辆与机械进出、物资集散；②开放屋顶平台，设临时停机坪或供直升机救助的设施
	6	无障碍设计和标识警报系统	满足老年人残疾人等脆弱人群和游客等陌生人群的使用

Table 1

Table 2

The assessment index system of vertical shelters’ siting reliability"

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标	评价依据或公式
暴露性	潮洪条件	浸水深度	模拟数据提取
	潮洪条件	近岸损失	欧式距离测算
	地质条件	工程地质条件	勘测数据提取
	地质条件	坡度	勘测数据提取
	火灾条件	城市危险源影响	Ef =Max（Le/De）：Le是某竖向避难场所附近的危险源等级，De是该竖向避难场所到该危险源距离
	火灾条件	建筑延烧影响	Sf=Max（Ls/Ds）：Ls是某竖向避难场所附近的建筑易燃性程度，Ds是该竖向避难场所到该建筑距离
敏感性	就地交通缺乏	城市级道路缺乏	Rl=1/Li：Li是某竖向避难场所服务半径内城市支路、次干路、主干路过境总长度
	就地交通缺乏	城市级道路交口缺乏	Rj=1/Ji：Ji是某竖向避难场所服务半径内城市支路、次干路、主干路交叉口总数量
	就地交通干扰	城市级道路人车混行	Rc=Lc/L：Lc是某竖向避难场所服务半径内未做人车分行设计的城市级道路长度，L是道路总长度
	就地交通干扰	沿路老旧建筑倒塌	Rs=Lr/L：Lr是某竖向避难场所服务半径内路边为棚户区和城中村的道路长度，L是道路总长度
	跨区交通远离	区域级道路远离	到高速路、快速路下道口的距离测算
	跨区交通远离	区域级道路交口远离	到高速路、快速路交叉口的距离测算
适应性	避难收容服务	占地面积	控规标准查对
	避难收容服务	容积率	控规标准查对
	生命安全救助	居住区级生命安全救助连接	Cl=（Na+Nh+Nf）/3：N是某竖向避难场所灾时步行高效距离（1000 m）内居住区级行政、医疗、消防等救助设施的有无，有则N=1，无则N=0
	生命安全救助	市区级生命安全救助连接	Ch=（Na+Nh+Nf）/3：N是某竖向避难场所灾时车行高效距离（4000 m）内市区级行政、医疗、消防等救助设施的有无，有则N=1，无则N=0
	生活重建救助	生活重建救助连接	Cr=（Nt+Ns）/2：N是某竖向避难场所灾时车行高效距离（4000 m）内交通枢纽、仓储物流等救助设施的有无，有则N=1，无则N=0

Table 2

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 3

参考文献 23

[1]	Lilai X, Yuanrong H, Wei H et al. A multi-dimensional integrated approach to assess flood risks on a coastal city, induced by sea-level rise and storm tides[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2016, 11 (1): 1-12
[2]	石先武, 高廷, 谭骏. 中国滨海风暴潮灾害发生频率空间分布研究[J]. 灾害学, 2018, 33 (1): 49-52
	Shi Xianwu, Gao Ting, Tan Jun et al. Research on occurrence frequency of storm surge disaster distribution in the coastal areas of China[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2018, 33 (1): 49-52
[3]	王女英, 修春亮, 魏冶. 沈阳城市应急避难场所的识别、空间格局与服务功能[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2017, 36 (5): 75-79
	Wang Nyuying, Xiu Chunliang, Wei Ye. Identificatio, spatial pattern and service function of emergency shelters in Shenyang City[J]. Areal Research and Development, 2017, 36 (5): 75-79
[4]	季珏, 高晓路, 徐匆匆, 等. 基于疏散行为的震灾避难场所服务效率评价[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(8): 965-973.
	Ji Jue, Gao Xiaolu, Xu Chongchong et al.Evaluating method on service quality of seismic emergency shelters based on evacuation behaviors[J]. Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(8): 965-973.
[5]	马运佳, 赵秀娟, 秦连杰, 等. 多约束多目标的灾害避难所选址优化研究——以海南省文昌市为例[J]. 灾害学, 2018, 33 (1): 218-224
	Ma Yunjia, Zhao Xiujuan, Qin Lianjie et al. Multi-objective location-allocation model for earthquake emergency shelters with multiple constraints: A case study in Wenchang of Hainan Province[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2018, 33 (1): 218-224
[6]	胡周灵, 肖映辉, 但文羽, 等. 基于GIS的村镇避难场所和疏散通道规划方法研究——以神农架松柏镇区为例[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2019, 35 (2): 19-24
	Hu Zhouling, Xiao Yinghui, Dan Wunyu et al. Research on planning methods for rural emergency shelters and evacuation routes based on GIS: A case study of Songbai Town, Shennongjia[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2019, 35 (2): 19-24
[7]	黄静, 叶明武, 王军, 等. 基于GIS的社区居民避震疏散区划方法及应用研究[J]. 地理科学, 2011, 31 (2): 204-210
	Huang Jing, Ye Mingwu, Wang Jun et al. Methodology of earthquake evacuation zoning based on GIS[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2011, 31 (2): 204-210
[8]	陈静, 翟国方, 陈昭. 日本《海啸防灾地区建设法》引介[J]. 国际城市规划, 2014, 29 (1): 123-126
	Chen Jing, Zhai Guofang, Chen Zhao. Introduction of Japanese tsunami disaster prevention area construction law[J]. Urban Planning International, 2014, 29 (1): 123-126
[9]	王滢, 曾坚, 王强. 日本城镇海啸避难所规划策略研究[J]. 国际城市规划, 2017, 32 (6): 84-90. doi: 10.22217/upi.2015.385
	Wang Ying, Zeng Jian, Wang Qiang. Study on strategy of tsunami refuges planning in Japanese Towns[J]. Urban Planning International, 2017, 32 (6): 84-90. doi: 10.22217/upi.2015.385
[10]	张威涛, 运迎霞. 灾害危险叠加与分异下的避难场所配置和布局[J]. 城市问题, 2019 (8): 41-50
	Zhang Weitao, Yun Yingxia. Shelters' allocation and layout in the view of overlay and differentiation of hazards: Taking the coastal port cities of example[J]. Urban Problems, 2019 (8): 41-50
[11]	Chock G, Butler R. Evacuation planning considerations of the city of Honolulu for a Great Aleutian Tsunami[M]// Anchorage, Alaska: Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2014.
[12]	日本国土交通省. 津波防災地域づくりに関する法律案[S]. 2012.
	Japan's Ministry of Land Transport. Bill to create tsunami preparedness zones, 2012.
[13]	東京都港区防災会議. 港区地域防災計画[S]. 2016.
	Tokyo port area disaster prevention conference. Regional disaster prevention plan for the port area, 2016.
[14]	Yoo G, Hwang J H, Choi C. Development and application of a methodology for vulnerability assessment of climate change in coastal cities[J]. Ocean and Coastal Management, 2011, 54 (7): 524-534. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.04.001
[15]	Murakami H, Yanagihara S, Goto Y et al. Study on casualty and tsunami evacuation behavior in Ishinomaki City: Questionnaire survey for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake[M]//Anchorage, Alaska: Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, 2014.
[16]	Suppasri A, Shuto N, Imamura F et al. Lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami: Performance of tsunami countermeasures, coastal buildings, and tsunami evacuation in Japan[J]. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2013, 170 (6): 993-1018
[17]	Weitao Z, Jiayu W, Yingxia Y. Strategies for increasing tsunami shelter accessibility to enhance hazard risk adaptive capacity in coastal port cities: A study of Nagoya City, Japan[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2019, 19 927-940. doi: 10.5194/nhess-19-927-2019
[18]	Mas E, Adriano B, Koshimura S. Identifying evacuees’ demand of tsunami shelters using agent based simulation[M]. Berlin, Germany: Springer Netherlands, 2014: 467-472.
[19]	Prasad S. Assessing the need for evacuation assistance in the 100 year floodplain of South Florida[J]. Applied Geography, 2016, 67 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.12.005
[20]	Booysen F. An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development[J]. Society Indicator Research, 2002, 59 (2): 115-151
[21]	Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators[J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2005, 168 (2): 307 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x
[22]	段丽瑶, 解以扬, 陈靖, 等. 基于城市内涝仿真模型的天津风暴潮灾害评估[J]. 应用气象学报, 2014, 25 (3): 354-358
	Duan Liyao, Xie Yiyang, Chen Jing, et al. Tianjin coastal storm surge disaster assessment based on urban water logging simulation model[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorological Science, 2014, 25 (3): 354-358
[23]	傅赐福, 于福江, 王培涛, 等. 滨海新区温带风暴潮灾害风险评估研究[J]. 海洋学报(中文版), 2013, 35 (1): 55-62
	Fu Cifu, Yu Fujiang, Wang Peitao, et al. A study on extratropical storm surge disaster risk assessment at Binhai New Area[J]. Acta Oceanolohica Sinica, 2013, 35 (1): 55-62