中国3A级及以上景区地震风险评估

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2020.03.2019058

世界地理研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 642-649.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2020.03.2019058

中国3A级及以上景区地震风险评估

石勇¹^,²^,³(), 王文华¹, 张飞³, 姚前¹, 席建超³(), 张丽甜¹, 毕雪梅⁴

^1.郑州大学旅游管理学院，郑州 450001
^2.上海体育学院经管学院，上海 200438
^3.中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所，北京 100101
^4.江苏省地震局，南京 210014

收稿日期:2019-02-16 修回日期:2019-03-01 出版日期:2020-05-30 发布日期:2020-06-12
通讯作者: 席建超
作者简介:石勇（1980-），女，博士后，副教授，硕士生导师，主要从事旅游风险管理研究，E-mail：yongshi@zzu.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41601566);中国科学院区域可持续发展分析与模拟重点实验室开放基金项目(KF2018-06);国家重点研发计划(2018YFC0406505)

Seismic risk assessment of 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots in China

Yong SHI¹^,²^,³(), Wenhua WANG¹, Fei ZHANG³, Qian YAO¹, Jianchao XI³(), Litian ZHANG¹, Xuemei BI⁴

^1.School of Tourism Management, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
^2.Department of Economics and Management, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
^3.Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research，Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
^4.Jiangsu Earthquake Administration, Nanjing 210014, China

Received:2019-02-16 Revised:2019-03-01 Online:2020-05-30 Published:2020-06-12
Contact: Jianchao XI

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

中国的地震频率高，旅游景区分布广泛，地震的发生常常给震源附近的景区带来风险，景区的地震风险评估研究就尤为必要。在地震及风险相关理论研究和3A级及以上景区分布特征分析的基础上，利用地震动峰值加速度这一参数表征地震危险性，运用ArcGIS软件将地震动峰值加速度区划图和中国3A级及以上景区分布图叠加分析景区的暴露性，并采用风险评估的基本模型计算得到中国3A级及以上景区的地震风险评估结果。最终表明，从各省域的角度看，我国大部分地区的景区地震风险等级较低，江苏省、甘肃省景区地震风险较高，北京市景区地震风险最高。根据评估结果从三个角度分析了3A级及以上景区的地震风险分布态势并有针对性地提出应对策略。

关键词: 地震, 景区, 暴露, 风险评估

Abstract:

In China, the frequency of earthquakes is very high and tourist attractions are widely distributed. The occurrence of the earthquake will bring risks to the scenic spots close to the earthquake source, so it is particularly necessary to study the seismic risk assessment of scenic spots in China. The study was conducted on the basis of theoretical research on earthquake and related risks and analysis on the distribution characteristics of 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots. In this study, the parameter of peak acceleration of ground motion was used to analyze the seismic risk. ArcGIS software was used to overlay the zoning map of peak acceleration of ground motion and the distribution map of China's 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots to analyze the exposure of the scenic spots. The basic model of risk assessment was used to calculate the seismic risk assessment results of China's 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots. The results show that from the perspective of various provinces, the earthquake risk level of most scenic spots in China is low, the earthquake risk evel of scenic spots in Jiangsu Province and Gansu Province is higher， and the earthquake risk level of scenic spots in Beijing is highest. According to the assessment results, the seismic risks of the China's 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots were analyzed from three perspectives, and the corresponding countermeasures were proposed.

Key words: earthquake, scenic spot, risk, risk assessment

石勇, 王文华, 张飞, 姚前, 席建超, 张丽甜, 毕雪梅. 中国3A级及以上景区地震风险评估[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(3): 642-649.

Yong SHI, Wenhua WANG, Fei ZHANG, Qian YAO, Jianchao XI, Litian ZHANG, Xuemei BI. Seismic risk assessment of 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots in China[J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(3): 642-649.

图/表 6

参考文献 18

1	万红莲，张咪，宋海龙，等. 1990—2016年国内旅游安全研究述评. 经济地理, 2018, 38(02): 213-219.
	Wan H，Zhang M，Song H, et al. A summary of the domestic research and characteristics on tourism security in 1990-2016. Economic Geography, 2018, 38(02): 213-219.
2	Frolova N I, Larionov V I, Bonnin J, et al. Seismic risk assessment and mapping at different levels. Natural Hazards, 2017, 88: 1-20.
3	Okada N, Amendola A. Research challenges for integrated disaster risk management. Presentation to the First Annual IIASA-DPR IM meeting on Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Reducing Socio-Economic Vulnerability, at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. August 1-4，2001.
4	何晓红. 基于地震风险评估的山地小城市避灾空间选址研究-以耿马县城为例. 昆明:云南大学, 2016.
	He X. Study on the location of escaping space in small mountain city based on earthquake risk assessment—taking Gengma County for an example, Kun Ming: Yunnan University, 2016.
5	吴凡，汪明，刘宁. 美国地震风险评估中灾害模型的探讨. 灾害学, 2012, 27(02): 109-113.
	Wu F, Wang M, Liu N. Discussion of the geo-hazard model in US earthquake risk assessment. Journal of Catastrophology, 2012, 27(02): 109-113.
6	Paa Yooku Yawson, Lombardi Domenico. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of nuclear reactor in a hypothetical UK site. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018: 278-285.
7	Foulser-Piggott R, Bowman G, Hughes M. A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Assessment Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2017.
8	侯遵泽. 城市地震火灾风险评估研究. 第二届城市与工业安全国际会议论文集, 2005．
	Hou Z. Study on risk assessment of urban earthquake fire. Proceedings of The Second International Conference on City and Industrial Safety, 2005
9	王志涛，苏经宇，马东辉，等. 城市地震灾害风险区划的研究. 中国安全科学学报. 2008(09): 5-10.
	Wang Z, Su J, Ma D, et al. Research on risk zoning of urban seismic disasters. China Safety Science Journal. 2008(09): 5-10.
10	袁海红，高晓路，戚伟. 城市地震风险精细化评估——以北京海淀区为例. 地震地质. 2016, 38(1): 197-210.
	Yuan H, Gao X, Qi W. Assessing the seismic risk of cities at fine-scale: a case study of Haidian District in Beijing, China. Seismology and Geology, 2016, 38(01): 197-210.
11	韩兴，崔圣爱，崔恩旗，等. 基于失效概率法的桥梁地震风险评估. 西南交通大学学报. 2018, 53(04): 696-703.
	Han X, Cui S, Cui E, et al. Earthquake Risk assessment of bridge based on failure probability method. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2018, 53(04): 696-703.
12	王静. 城市承灾体地震风险评估及损失研究. 大连：大连理工大学, 2014.
	Wang J. Research on urban disaster carrying-bodies earthquake risk assessment and losses. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology, 2014.
13	温家洪，石勇，杜士强，等. 自然灾害风险分析与管理导论. 北京:科学出版社, 2018.
	Wen J, Shi Y, Du S, et al. Introduction to natural disaster risk analysis and management. Beijing: Science Press, 2018.
14	陈力波，张建经，卓卫东. 汶川地区公路桥梁系统地震风险评估. 土木工程学报, 2013, 46(S2): 242-248.
	Chen L, Zhang J, Zhuo W. Seismic risk assessment for highway bridge system in the Wenchuan region. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2013, 46(S2): 242-248.
15	李鹏，虞虎，王英杰. 中国3A级以上旅游景区空间集聚特征研究. 地理科学, 2018,38(11):1883-1891.
	Li P, Yu H, Wang Y. Spatial Agglomeration Char- acteristics of from 3A-class to 5A-class Scenic Spots in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018, 38(11):1883-1891.
16	中国地震局. 中国地震动参数区划图(GB18306-2015). 北京:中国标准出版社, 2015.
	China Seismological Bureau. Mapping method of seismic ground motion parameter zonation map of China (GB18306-2015). Beijing: China Standards Press, 2015.
17	滕雅琦，马维军.基于广义线性模型的水稻种植风险评估.数学的实践与认识, 2019,49(2):1-17.
	Teng Y, Ma W. Risk assessment of rice planting based on generalized linear modelbh. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2019, 49(02): 1-17.
18	Athmani A, Ferreira T M, Vicente R. Seismic risk assessment of the historical urban areas of Annaba city, Algeria. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 2018.

地震动峰值加速度a_max分区值	地震动峰值加速度a_max范围
0.10g	0.09g<=a_max<0.14g
0.15g	0.14g<=a_max<0.19g
0.20g	0.19g<=a_max<0.28g
0.30g	0.28g<=a_max<0.38g
0.40g	0.38g<=a_max<0.75g

地震动峰值加速度a_max分区值	地震动峰值加速度a_max范围
0.10g	0.09g<=a_max<0.14g
0.15g	0.14g<=a_max<0.19g
0.20g	0.19g<=a_max<0.28g
0.30g	0.28g<=a_max<0.38g
0.40g	0.38g<=a_max<0.75g

景区级别	地震危险等级					总计（处）
景区级别	1	2	3	4	5	总计（处）
3A	111	38	90	8	0	247
4A	179	57	159	8	0	403
5A	16	4	16	1	0	37
总计（处）	306	99	265	17	0	687

景区级别	地震危险等级					总计（处）
景区级别	1	2	3	4	5	总计（处）
3A	111	38	90	8	0	247
4A	179	57	159	8	0	403
5A	16	4	16	1	0	37
总计（处）	306	99	265	17	0	687

省份	各景区价值的风险值	总风险值	省份	各景区价值的风险值	总风险值
河北	1-17，2-82，3-3	102	四川	1-14，2-46，3-0	60
山西	1-0，2-78，3-18	96	云南	1-8，2-22，3-0	30
辽宁	1-12，2-62，3-9	83	陕西	1-4，2-4，3-0	8
黑龙江	1-3，2-0，3-0	3	甘肃	1-21，2-136，3-18	175
吉林	1-1，2-12，3-0	13	青海	1-2，2-20，3-0	22
江苏	1-34，2-112，3-21	167	贵州	0	0
福建	1-1，2-42，3-6	49	上海	1-1，2-38，3-9	48
广东	1-7，2-16，3-0	23	北京	1-48，2-158，3-33	239
浙江	1-6，2-34，3-6	46	天津	1-27，2-60，3-18	105
安徽	1-2，2-6，3-0	8	重庆	0	0
江西	0	0	内蒙古	1-9，2-12，3-0	21
山东	1-67，2-54，3-6	127	西藏	1-2，2-26，3-0	28
河南	1-18，2-68，3-0	86	宁夏	1-8，2-16，3-12	36
湖北	1-2，2-0，3-0	2	新疆	1-23，2-2，3-6	31
湖南	1-5，2-6，3-0	11	广西	1-0，2-10，3-0	10
海南	1-0，2-18，3-15	33

中国3A级及以上景区地震风险评估

Seismic risk assessment of 3A, 4A and 5A scenic spots in China

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 18

相关文章 4

编辑推荐

Metrics

景区级别	地震危险等级					各级别景区的总风险值
景区级别	1	2	3	4	5	各级别景区的总风险值
3A	111	38	90	8	0	489
4A	179	57	159	8	0	1604
5A	16	4	16	1	0	228

[1]	施青雨, 章锦河, 孙枫, 王亚如. 黄山风景区旅游废弃物生态足迹历时性分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(1): 150-161.
[2]	张小青, 张建新, 刘培学, 魏瑞兵, 唐璐. 边疆省域旅游流的网络结构及影响因素[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(4): 837-848.
[3]	张芳芳, 刘慧, 宋涛, 叶尔肯·吾扎提null. 中南半岛地缘综合风险评价与机制分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(6): 1151-1162.
[4]	许亚元. 基于在线点评的黄山风景区旅游形象感知研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2016, (02): 158-168.