[1]叶正伟,孙艳丽.基于AHP-Topsis的南通市环境灾害风险评价[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(04):230-234.
　YE Zheng-wei,SUN Yan-li.Risk Assessment on Environmental Disaster in Nantong City Based on AHP-Topsis Method[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2013,20(04):230-234.
点击复制

基于AHP-Topsis的南通市环境灾害风险评价

《水土保持研究》[ISSN:1005-3409/CN:61-1272/P] 卷: 20 期数: 2013年04期 页码: 230-234 栏目: 出版日期: 2013-08-28
Title:
Risk Assessment on Environmental Disaster in Nantong City Based on AHP-Topsis Method
作者:
叶正伟1,3, 孙艳丽2
1. 淮阴师范学院 城市与环境学院, 江苏 淮安 223300;
2. 许昌学院 城市与环境学院, 河南 许昌 461000;
3. 江苏省环洪泽湖生态农业生物技术重点实验室, 江苏 淮安 223300
Author(s):
YE Zheng-wei1,3, SUN Yan-li2
1. School of Urban and Evironmental Sciences, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian, Jiangsu 223300, China;
2. Department of Urban and Environmental Science, Xuchang College, Xuchang, He’nan 461000, China;
3. Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Eco-agricultural Biotechnology around Hongze Lake, Huaian, Jiangsu 223300, China
关键词:
Topsis方法; 环境灾害; 风险评价; 南通市
Keywords:
Topsis method; environmental disaster; risk assessment; Nantong City
分类号:
X820.4
摘要:
从环境灾害风险的脆弱性、暴露性与恢复能力3个方面，构建了江苏省南通市环境灾害风险评价的指标体系。基于Topsis方法，应用AHP方法赋权，对南通环境灾害风险的区域差异进行了分析。结果表明，南通市7个不同区域的环境灾害风险差异较大，海安风险最小，而如皋风险最大，风险由小到大的顺序依次为：海安 < 海门 < 通州区 < 南通市区 < 如东 < 启东 < 如皋。环境风险的主要原因在于工业化与城市化影响下工业“三废”对环境的潜在影响，以及环保投入的力度等。因此，南通市应减少人为环境影响，增加环保投入，以降低环境灾害风险。
Abstract:
Based on the three aspects of vulnerability, exposure and resilience for the environmental risks, an assessment system on environmental disaster was constructed for Nantong City. The regional disparity of environmental disaster risk was analyzed by using a combinative method of Topsis and AHP. Results show that environmental disaster risk varies greatly in the 7 different regions in Nantong city. The spatial risk can be ranged in the increasing sequenced of Haian, Haimen, Tongzou district, Main city of Nantong, Rudong and Qidong, where the minimum risk occurs in Haian while the maximum in Rugao. Potential influence factors are waste air emission, waste water and waste solid, which are caused by the industrialization and the urbanization, as well as the environmental investment are the major reason for the environmental risk. Thus, in order to reduce the environmental risk in Nantong city, the reduction of human activities on the environment and more investment on the environment could be an effective way.

参考文献/References:

[1] 刘彤,闫天池.我国的主要气象灾害及其经济损失[J].自然灾害学报,2011,20(2):90-95.
[2] 刘焱序,李春越,任志远,等.基于LUCC的生态型城市土地生态敏感性评价[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(4):125-130.
[3] 高超,朱继业,戴科伟,等.快速城市化进程中的太湖水环境保护:困境与出路[J].地理科学,2003,23(6):746-750.
[4] 赵卫权,郭跃.基于主成份分析法和GIS技术的重庆市自然灾害社会易损性分析[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(6):305-308.
[5] 李强,杨娟,徐刚,等.泉州海岸带自然灾害易损性的模糊综合分析与评判[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(6):136-138.
[6] 周成虎,万庆,黄诗峰,等.基于GIS的洪水灾害风险区划研究[J].地理学报,2000,55(1):15-24.
[7] 单树模,王庭槐,金其铭.江苏省地理[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1986.
[8] 王千,金晓斌,周寅康.江苏沿海地区耕地景观生态安全格局变化与驱动机制[J].生态学报,2011,31(20):5903-5909.
[9] 南通市统计局.南通统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2012.
[10] 江苏省统计局.江苏统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2012.
[11] Olson D L. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models[J]. Mathematical and Computer Modeling,2004,40(7/8):103-115.
[12] Saaty T L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process[M]. USA:McGraw Hill,1980.
[13] 张士锋,陈俊旭,华东,等.水资源系统风险构成及其评价:以北京市为例[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(11):1855-1863.
[14] 贾绍凤,张军岩,张士锋.区域水资源压力指数与水资源安全评价指标体系[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(6):538-544.
[15] 韩宇平,阮本清.区域水安全评价指标体系初步研究[J].环境科学学报,2003,23(2):267-272.
[16] 崔明哲,杨凤海,李佳.基于组合赋权法的哈尔滨市耕地生态安全评价[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(6):184-187,192.

相似文献/References:

[1]周武昌.人与自然的格局：SARS疫后悬念的地学思考[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(04):3.
　ZHOU Wu-chang.Setup Between Man and Nature：Geoscience Ponders Over the Suspense Left by SARS[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2003,10(04):3.

备注/Memo

收稿日期:2012-11-29;改回日期:2013-01-13。
基金项目:国家自然科学基金重点项目（40730635）；水利部公益性行业科研专项经费项目（200901042）；教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目（10YJC790342）；江苏省教育厅高校哲社科学研究（2011SJB790005）；江苏省高校“青蓝工程”优秀青年骨干教师资助项目
作者简介:叶正伟(1973-),男,安徽黄山人,博士,副教授,主要从事水文水资源与环境风险方面的研究。E-mail:leafyzw@163.com

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01