Analysis of spatial accessibility and supply & demand types of emergency shelters in Guangzhou

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2026.01.20240259

Abstract

Abstract:

Urban safety is a cornerstone of urban construction. With accelerating urbanization, how to build safe and livable cities has attracted growing attention. The emergency risk avoidance system, as a critical spatial component for urban safety, plays a vital role in enhancing comprehensive disaster prevention and mitigation capacity. Taking Guangzhou—a megacity—as an example, this study integrates population data, emergency shelter locations, and transportation networks to calculate the accessibility of different shelter types under varying thresholds using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the two-step floating catchment area method. Furthermore, we analyze supply-demand patterns and their characteristics through K-means clustering and Z-score normalization. The results indicate that: (1) Emergency shelter types in Guangzhou are relatively homogeneous, predominantly comprising parks and green spaces, with limited diversity and low contributions from other categories. (2) The overall accessibility of shelters is moderately high, yet spatial distribution of comprehensive accessibility varies significantly, exhibiting higher levels in the city center and lower levels in peripheral suburbs. (3) Supply-demand imbalance can be categorized into five main types, with medium supply–medium demand areas representing the most common pattern in Guangzhou. The overall relative service population gap is substantial, particularly in the urban-rural fringe, where suburban districts show a high proportion of unmet demand. This study offers insights for Guangzhou to adapt to new development patterns, address public safety challenges, and optimize land use, while providing policy references for building a "resilient city."

Key words: emergency shelter, accessibility, two-step floating catchment area method, supply and demand, Guangzhou

摘要：

城市安全是城市建设的试金石，随着城市化进程的不断加快，自然灾害对城市系统的冲击和影响呈现出动态、复杂和不确定的特性，因此如何建设安全宜居的城市越来越受到关注。应急避险系统是维护城市安全的重要空间载体，对提升城市综合防灾减灾能力有着重要作用。文章以特大城市广州为例，基于人口、应急避难场所和交通道路网等数据，利用地理信息系统和两步移动搜寻法，计算不同阈值下不同类型的应急避难场所的可达性，并在此基础上，通过K均值聚类与Z分数法分析其供需类型及特征。结果表明：①广州应急避难场所类型较为单一，以公园绿地类设施为主，其他类型贡献率较低；②应急避难场所可达性水平整体较好，综合可达性空间分布差异显著，呈现出“中心城区可达性高、远郊区可达性较低”的空间特征；③应急避难场所供需关系不平衡，5个供需匹配类型中，中供给中需求是广州应急避难场所综合可达性供需关系分布占比最高的地区。应急避难场所整体服务人口缺口大，市中心与郊区之间的过渡区域服务缺口大，郊区型市辖区服务缺口占比高。本研究为广州市适应新发展格局、应对公共安全风险和国土空间优化提供新思路，为建设“韧性城市”提供了政策借鉴。

关键词: 应急避难场所, 可达性, 两步移动搜寻法, 供需关系, 广州市

Bo TANG, Hao HE, Yongtao YAN, Lin LIN. Analysis of spatial accessibility and supply & demand types of emergency shelters in Guangzhou[J]. World Regional Studies, 2026, 35(1): 95-108.

唐波, 何灏, 闫永涛, 林琳. 广州应急避难场所空间可达性及供需类型分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2026, 35(1): 95-108.

Figures/Tables 11

References 28

[1]	翟国方. 城市公共安全规划.北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2016.
	ZHAI G. Urban Public Safety Planning. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press,2016.
[2]	唐波,邱锦安.基于WoS和Citespace的应急避难场所知识图谱和进展分析.世界地理研究,2019,28(4):85-95.
	TANG B, QIU J. Knowledge structure of emergency shelters research: An analysis based on WoS and Citespace map.World Regional Studies,2019,28(4):85-95.
[3]	DAVIS A. Targeting the vulnerable in emergency situations: Who is vulnerable?.The Lancet, 1996, 348(9031):868-871.
[4]	钟光淳,翟国方,陈伟,等.基于循环疏散分配的避难场所布局优化研究——以南京新街口为例.灾害学,2022,37(2):204-211.
	ZHONG G, ZHAI G, CHEN W,et al. Optimization of shelter location in high-density urban area based on circular evacuation allocation:A case study in Xin Jiekou District of Nanjing,China. Journal of Catastrophology,2022,37(2):204-211.
[5]	KAR B, HODGSON M.A GIS-Based Model to Determine Site Suitability of Emergency Evacuation Shelters. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, 12 (2) :227-248.
[6]	姜乃力,李刚,郑晓非,等.日本城市防灾减灾的经验与启示——以城市防灾公园建设为例.世界地理研究,2004(4):46-50.
	JIANG N, LI G, ZHENG X,et al. Lessons of urban disaster prevention from Japanese experience: A Case of Urban Park. World Regional Studies, 2004(4):46-50.
[7]	DAVIS I. What have we learned from 40 years' experience of disaster shelter? Environmental Hazards, 2011,10(3):193-212.
[8]	陈志芬,周健,王家卓,等.应急避难场所规划中避难人口预测的简便方法——以地震灾害为例.城市规划,2016,40(9):105-112.
	CHEN Z, ZHOU J, WANG J,et al. A simple way to predict the evacuation population in the emergency shelter planning: Exemplified by earthquake disasters. City Planning Review, 2016,40(9):105-112.
[9]	DRABCZYK, ANNE L. Review of shelter from the storm: Repairing the national emergency management system. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management,2011,3(4): 547–556.
[10]	周爱华,张景秋,张远索,等.GIS下的北京城区应急避难场所空间布局与可达性研究.测绘通报,2016(1):111-114.
	ZHOU A, ZHANG J, ZHANG Y,et al.Study on the emergency shelter accessibility and distribution in Beijing based on the GIS. Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping, 2016(1):111-114.
[11]	ANHORN J, KHAZAI B. Open space suitability analysis for emergency shelter after an earthquake. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science,2015,15(4):789-803.
[12]	SAADATSERESHT M, MANSOURIAN A, TALEAI M. Evacuation planning using multi-objective evolutionary optimization approach. European journal of operational research,2009,198(1):305-314.
[13]	唐波,黄嘉颖,邱锦安.城市商圈应急疏散空间布局与路径优化——以广州上下九商圈为例.地域研究与开发,2018,37(4):92-97.
	TANG B, HUANG J, QIU J.Spatial layout and path optimization of emergency shelter in urban business district: Taking Shangxiajiu business circle in Guangzhou city as an example. Areal Research and Development, 2018,37(4):92-97.
[14]	钟少颖,杨鑫,陈锐. 层级性公共服务设施空间可达性研究——以北京市综合性医疗设施为例. 地理研究,2016,(4):731-744.
	ZHONG S, YANG X, CHEN R. The accessibility measurement of hierarchy public service facilities based on multi-mode network dataset and the two-step 2SFCA:A case study of Beijing's medical facilities. Geographical Research,2016,(4):731-744.
[15]	朱慧儒,张金炳,张鹏岩,等.基于POI和OSM路网的住宅生活便利度评价——以郑州市主城区为例.地域研究与开发,2022,41(6):81-87.
	ZHU H, ZHANG J, ZHANG P, et al. Evaluation of residential living convenience based on POI and OSM road network:A case study of main urban area in Zhengzhou city. Areal Research and Development, 2022,41(6):81-87.
[16]	HANSEN W. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1959(25): 73-76.
[17]	RADKE J, MU L.Spatial decomposition, modeling and mapping service region to predict access to social programs.Geographic Information Sciences, 2000(6):105-112.
[18]	叶明武,王军,刘耀龙,等.基于GIS的上海中心城区公园避难可达性研究.地理与地理信息科学,2008(2):96-98.
	YE M.WANG J,LIU Y,et al. Study on refuge accessibility of park in inner-city of Shanghai based on GIS technique. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2008(2):96-98.
[19]	吴超,王其东,李珊.基于可达性分析的应急避难场所空间布局研究——以广州市为例.城市规划,2018,42(4):107-112.
	WU C, WANG Q, LI S. Spatial distribution of emergency shelters based on accessibility: A case of Guangzhou. City Planning Review, 2018,42(4):107-112.
[20]	唐波,关文川,王丹妮,等.基于两步移动搜寻法和OD矩阵的城市社区应急避难场所可达性研究——以广州市荔湾区为例.防灾科技学院学报,2018,20(3):59-66.
	TANG B, GUANG W, WANG D,et al. Research on the accessibility of emergency shelters in urban communities based on two-step floating catchment area method and OD matrix: Taking Liwan district of Guangzhou as an example. Journal of Institute of Disaster Prevention, 2018,20(3):59-66.
[21]	闫永涛,唐勇,魏宗财. 地震应急避难场所专项规划编制探索——以广州市地震应急避难场所专项规划纲要为例//中国城市规划学会,重庆市人民政府.规划创新:2010中国城市规划年会论文集.重庆:重庆出版社,2010.
	YAN Y, TANG Y, WEI Z. Exploration on the preparation of special planning for earthquake emergency sheltering places:Taking the outline of the special planning for earthquake emergency sheltering places in Guangzhou as an example//China Society of Urban Planning, Chongqing Municipal People's Government. Planning Innovation: Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference on Urban Planning in China. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing Press,2010.
[22]	唐波,黄嘉颖,闫永涛,等.广州应急避难场所资源空间格局评价和优化.地理信息世界,2018,25(4):19-23.
	TANG B, HUANG J, YAN Y,et al.Spatial pattern and optimization of emergency shelter in Guangzhou. Journal of Spatio-temporal Information, 2018,25(4):19-23.
[23]	陶卓霖,程杨.两步移动搜寻法及其扩展形式研究进展.地理科学进展,2016,35(5):589-599.
	TAO Z, CHENG Y.Research progress of the two-step floating catchment area method and extensions. Progress in Geography, 2016,35(5):589-599.
[24]	陶卓霖,程杨,戴特奇.北京市养老设施空间可达性评价.地理科学进展,2014,33(5):616-624.
	TAO Z, CHENG Y, DAI T.Measuring spatial accessibility to residential care facilities in Beijing. Progress in Geography, 2014,33(5):616-624.
[25]	魏冶, 修春亮, 高瑞, 等. 基于高斯两步移动搜索法的沈阳市绿地可达性评价.地理科学进展, 2014, 33(4):479-487.
	WEI Y, XIU C, GAO R, et al. Evaluation of green space accessibility of Shenyang using Gaussian based 2-step floating catchment area method. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(4):479-487.
[26]	韩晓红, 胡彧. K-means 聚类算法的研究. 太原理工大学学报, 2009(3): 236-239.
	HAN X, HU Y. Research of K-means Algorithm. journal of Taiyuan university of technology. 2009(3): 236-239.
[27]	仝德, 孙裔煜, 谢苗苗. 基于改进高斯两步移动搜索法的深圳市公园绿地可达性评价. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(7): 1113-1126.
	TONG D, SUN Y, XIE M. Evaluation of green space accessibility based on improved Gaussian two-step floating catchment area method:A case study of Shenzhen City. Progress in Geography, 2021, 40(7): 1113-1126.
[28]	苏浩然. 基于GIS的城市应急避难场所空间布局评价方法研究.兰州:中国地震局兰州地震研究所,2021.
	SU H. Research on the evaluation method of spatial layout of urban emergency shelter based on GIS. Lanzhou: China Earthquake Administration Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, 2021.

行政区	可达性				标准差
行政区	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000	平均可达性	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000
越秀区	105.46	121	84.22	103.56	145.14	61.11	10.36
黄埔区	7.06	102.35	122.64	77.35	19.74	221.86	133.76
天河区	30.72	92.52	81.12	68.12	51.44	45.02	14.38
海珠区	13.2	65.74	91.79	56.91	29.32	97.78	86.28
增城区	29.25	51.38	83.59	54.74	101.34	121.86	145.73
南沙区	14	40.09	97.17	50.42	27.24	60.21	112.68
番禺区	9.45	65.28	66.78	47.17	25.99	110.14	73.16
荔湾区	37.35	50.72	48.68	45.58	121.2	36.34	21.5
白云区	3.49	13.98	28.81	15.43	4.61	11.76	20.55
花都区	0.03	8.82	22.45	10.43	0.08	14.39	25.17
从化区	2.3	9.62	9.62	7.18	6.09	19.02	19.02
总体	22.94	56.5	66.99	48.81	78.59	101.13	79.88

行政区	可达性				标准差
行政区	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000	平均可达性	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000
越秀区	105.46	121	84.22	103.56	145.14	61.11	10.36
黄埔区	7.06	102.35	122.64	77.35	19.74	221.86	133.76
天河区	30.72	92.52	81.12	68.12	51.44	45.02	14.38
海珠区	13.2	65.74	91.79	56.91	29.32	97.78	86.28
增城区	29.25	51.38	83.59	54.74	101.34	121.86	145.73
南沙区	14	40.09	97.17	50.42	27.24	60.21	112.68
番禺区	9.45	65.28	66.78	47.17	25.99	110.14	73.16
荔湾区	37.35	50.72	48.68	45.58	121.2	36.34	21.5
白云区	3.49	13.98	28.81	15.43	4.61	11.76	20.55
花都区	0.03	8.82	22.45	10.43	0.08	14.39	25.17
从化区	2.3	9.62	9.62	7.18	6.09	19.02	19.02
总体	22.94	56.5	66.99	48.81	78.59	101.13	79.88

行政区	可达性				标准差
行政区	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000	平均可达性	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000
越秀区	0.4	0.16	0.44	0.33	0.88	0.29	0.49
黄埔区	0	0.22	0.38	0.2	0	0.88	1.51
天河区	22.86	0.50	0.56	7.98	97.63	0.68	0.55
海珠区	0.14	0.22	0.27	0.21	0.53	0.57	0.37
增城区	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
南沙区	0	0.44	1.37	0.61	0	1.25	3.14
番禺区	0	3.57	0.80	1.46	0	6.55	2.51
荔湾区	0	0.01	0.05	0.02	0	0.01	0.05
白云区	0.16	0.25	0.09	0.16	0.54	0.42	0.2
花都区	0	0.24	1.08	0.44	0	0.72	1.49
从化区	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
总体	2.14	0.51	0.45	1.125	9.05	1.03	0.94

行政区	可达性				标准差
行政区	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000	平均可达性	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000
越秀区	0.4	0.16	0.44	0.33	0.88	0.29	0.49
黄埔区	0	0.22	0.38	0.2	0	0.88	1.51
天河区	22.86	0.50	0.56	7.98	97.63	0.68	0.55
海珠区	0.14	0.22	0.27	0.21	0.53	0.57	0.37
增城区	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
南沙区	0	0.44	1.37	0.61	0	1.25	3.14
番禺区	0	3.57	0.80	1.46	0	6.55	2.51
荔湾区	0	0.01	0.05	0.02	0	0.01	0.05
白云区	0.16	0.25	0.09	0.16	0.54	0.42	0.2
花都区	0	0.24	1.08	0.44	0	0.72	1.49
从化区	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
总体	2.14	0.51	0.45	1.125	9.05	1.03	0.94

行政区	可达性				标准差
行政区	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000	平均可达性	d₀≤1 000	d₀≤3 000	d₀≤5 000
越秀区	3.98	0.47	0.32	1.59	13.51	0.12	0.15
黄埔区	0	1.1	0.04	0.38	0	3	0.06
天河区	3.14	9.9	0.74	4.59	14.05	21.12	0.45
海珠区	0.22	1.88	0.16	0.75	0.89	5.44	0.1
增城区	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
南沙区	0	0.54	0.54	0.36	0	1.53	1.53
番禺区	0.65	2.03	0.02	0.9	2.51	5.76	0.04
荔湾区	0	0.01	0.05	0.02	0	0.01	0.05
白云区	0	0.02	0.06	0.03	0	0.06	0.11
花都区	0	0.63	0.63	0.42	0	1.26	1.26
从化区	1.04	1.04	1.04	1.04	2.74	2.74	2.74
总体	0.82	1.6	0.33	0.97	3.06	3.73	0.59