首页 >  广东海洋大学学报 >  我国海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性评估

2022, 42(5): 88-93. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9159.2022.05.011

我国海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性评估

1. 青岛理工大学商学院, 山东 青岛 266555;

2. 中国海洋大学管理学院, 山东 青岛 266100

收稿日期:2022-07-25
修回日期:2022-07-25

基金项目:   山东省社会科学规划研究项目(19CHYJ16);山东省人文社科项目(2021-YYGL-38)  青岛市社科基金项目(QDSKL2001210) 

关键词: 海洋生态灾害 , 承灾体脆弱性 , 障碍因子

Vulnerability Assessment of Marine Ecological Disaster Bearers in China

1. Business School, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266555, China;

2. College of Management, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China

Received Date:2022-07-25
Accepted Date:2022-07-25

Keywords: marine ecological disaster , vulnerability of bearers , obstacle factors

【目的】探讨海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性的演变趋势和主要障碍因子,在此基础上提出降低海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性的对策建议。【方法】运用层次分析法、熵权法和综合评价模型评估海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性,选用障碍度模型剖析影响海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性的关键因子。【结果和结论】1)2000-2017年沿海地区海洋生态灾害社会承灾体脆弱性指数呈现波动下降趋势,由0.76 下降至0.38,从较高脆弱水平下降到较低脆弱水平。2)2000-2017 年海洋生态灾害经济承灾体脆弱性指数由0.86 波动下降至0.35,从高脆弱水平下降至较低脆弱水平。3)生态环境承灾体脆弱性指数波动较大,大致可分为三个阶段:2000-2005 年生态环境脆弱性指数由0.23 增至0.73,呈现持续上涨趋势;2005-2011年生态环境脆弱性指数由0.73下降至0.43,呈现持续下降趋势;2011-2017年生态环境脆弱性指数呈现陡升又骤降趋势。4)总体来看,2000-2017年海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性指数总体呈现下降趋势,于2005 年和2012 年出现两次峰值。5)海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性准则层指标障碍度大小排序为生态环境承灾体脆弱性> 社会承灾体脆弱性> 经济承灾体脆弱性,平均得分为58.21%、45.32%和41.56%。海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性指标层障碍因子排名前5位的指标是海洋生态灾害重灾比例、单位面积工业废水排放量、严重污染海域面积比例、海水养殖面积密度、渔业产值占GDP比例。

【Objective】This paper discusses the evolution trend and main obstacle factors of the vulnerability of marine ecological disaster bearers to put forward countermeasures and suggestions to reduce the vulnerability of marine ecological disaster bearers.【Method】AHP, entropy weight method and comprehensive evaluation model are used to evaluate the vulnerability of marine ecological disaster bearers, and the barrier model is used to analyze the key factors affecting the vulnerability of marine ecological disaster bearers.【Result and conclusion】1) From 2000 to 2017, the vulnerability index of social disaster bearers of marine ecological disasters in coastal areas showed a fluctuating downward trend, from 0.76 to 0.38, and from a little high vulnerability to low vulnerability.2)From 2000 to 2017, The vulnerability index of economic disaster bearers of marine ecological disasters decreased from 0.86 to 0.35, and from higher vulnerability to low vulnerability.3) The vulnerability index of ecological environment disaster bearers fluctuates greatly, which can be roughly divided into three stages: from 2000 to 2005, the ecological environment vulnerability index increased from 0.23 to 0.73, showing a continuous upward trend; From 2005 to 2011, the ecological environment vulnerability index decreased from 0.73 to 0.43, showing a continuous downward trend; From 2011 to 2017, the ecological environment vulnerability index showed a steep rise but then a sharp decline.4) In general, the vulnerability index of marine ecological disaster bearers showed a downward trend from 2000 to 2017, with two peaks in 2005 and 2012.5) The order of obstacle degree of indicators in the vulnerability criteria layer of marine ecological disaster bearers is: ecological environment disaster bearers'vulnerability > social disaster bearers' vulnerability > economic disaster bearers' vulnerability, with an average score of 58.21%, 45.32% and 41.56% respectively.The top five indicators in the vulnerability indicator layer of marine ecological disaster bearers are the proportion of serious marine ecological disasters, the discharge of industrial wastewater per unit area, the proportion of seriously polluted sea area, the density of mariculture area, and the proportion of fishery output value in GDP.

参考文献

[1] 杨林,李渊.海洋灾害脆弱性综合评价指标体系的设计[J].海洋技术, 2013, 32(3):133-137.
[2] 彭飞,韩增林,杨俊,等.基于BP神经网络的中国沿海地区海洋经济系统脆弱性时空分异研究[J].资源科学, 2015, 37(12):2441-2450.
[3] 王妍,高强,吴梵.海洋生态灾害处置能力系统流程构成实证检验:基于有序Logit模型[J].数理统计与管理, 2018, 37(5):778-784.
[4] KRISHNAMURTHY P K, LEWIS K, CHOULARTON R J.A methodological framework for rapidly assessing the impacts of climate risk on national-level food security through a vulnerability index[J].Global Environmental Change, 2014, 25:121-132.
[5] MIMI Z A, ASSI A.Intrinsic vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping for Karst aquifers:a case study[J].Journal of Hydrology, 2009, 364(3/4):298-310.
[6] KOMENDANTOVA N, MRZYGLOCKI R, MIGNAN A, et al.Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance:Feedback from civil protection stakeholders[J].International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2014, 8:50-67.
[7] 彭坤杰,贺小荣,许春晓,等.长江经济带旅游-经济-生态系统脆弱性的时空演变特征[J].统计与决策, 2022, 38(14):90-94.
[8] 刘雪琴,张淑芳,于丹竹,等.海洋动力灾害承灾体脆弱性评价分析:以海口市为例[J].海洋环境科学, 2022, 41(2):161-166.
[9] 杨艳茹,王士君,陈晓红.石油城市经济系统脆弱性动态演变及调控途径研究:以大庆市为例[J].地理科学, 2015, 35(4):456-463.
[10] 李博,苏飞,杨智,等.脆弱性视角下辽宁沿海地区人海关系地域系统特征演化及可持续发展模式[J].地域研究与开发, 2017, 36(4):32-36.
[11] 赵昕,肖凡.沿海地区经济系统海洋灾害脆弱性评价研究:以山东省台风灾害为例[J].海洋经济, 2013, 3(3):21-25.
[12] 茹少峰,马茹慧.黄河流域生态环境脆弱性评价、空间分析及预测[J].自然资源学报, 2022, 37(7):1722-1734.
[13] 尹鹏,刘曙光,段佩利.海岛型旅游目的地脆弱性及其障碍因子分析:以舟山市为例[J].经济地理, 2017, 37(10):234-240.
[14] 苏飞,林惠慧,童磊,等.海洋渔业脆弱性研究评述与展望[J].海洋环境科学, 2022, 41(1):154-160.

相关文章

[1] 陈晶, 聂青, 刘妍. 《WHO基本药物示范目录》与我国《国家基本药物目录》动态调整程序比较与借鉴.水产学报,2015(3): 289-293.doi:10.3866/PKU.WHXB201503022
  • 导出引用
  • 下载XML
  • 收藏文章
计量
  • 文章下载量()
  • 文章访问量()

目录

我国海洋生态灾害承灾体脆弱性评估