基于斜坡单元的定性—半定量地质灾害易发性评价研究——以四川遂宁市安居区为例

    Qualitative-semi-quantitative evaluation of geological hazard susceptibility based on slope units: A case study of Anju District, Suining City, Sichuan Province

    • 摘要:
      研究目的 基于斜坡单元的地质灾害调查评价是近年来中国针对地质灾害高发、频发区精细化调查评价的重要手段,合理划定斜坡单元数量,对后续地质灾害调查评价及日常管理有重要意义。
      研究方法 在分析调查层、管理层最大和理想状态下可有效调查管理有人斜坡数量的基础上,结合改进的曲率分水岭法提出了斜坡单元综合划定方案。在此基础上,按岩质斜坡/土质斜坡分别选取了8/7个二级评价因子,以定性—半定量的评价模型探索了基于斜坡单元的地质灾害易发性评价方法。
      研究结果 基于斜坡单元综合划定方案,在遂宁市安居区划分了斜坡单元14480个,其中有人斜坡单元13071个,无人斜坡单元897个,平地单元512个;基于AHP的定性—半定量评价模型,逐斜坡单元对安居区进行了易发性评价,其中中易发斜坡单元196个,低易发斜坡单元14284个,中、低易发区面积占比为1.24%和98.76%。
      结论 基于斜坡单元进行地质灾害易发性评价时应顾及调查管理层主观承受力和理论模型之间的对立统一性,以谋求评价结果更好更充分地服务县域斜坡地质灾害的防治工作;基于斜坡单元采用AHP定性—半定量模型评价结果质量优于基于栅格单元采用信息量模型的评价结果,该方法可用于县域1∶10000斜坡单元地质灾害评价中。

       

      Abstract:
      Objective Geological hazard investigation and evaluation based on slope units have emerged as a crucial approach in China in recent years for detailed surveys in high−incidence and frequent−occurrence areas. The rational delineation of the number of slope units holds significant importance for subsequent hazard investigation, evaluation, and routine management.
      Methods This study proposes an integrated slope unit delineation scheme based on an analysis of the maximum and ideal number of inhabited slopes that can be effectively investigated and managed by survey administrators, combined with an improved curvature watershed method. Subsequently, 8 and 7 secondary evaluation factors were selected for rock slopes and soil slopes, respectively. A qualitative−semi−quantitative evaluation model was employed to explore a geological hazard susceptibility evaluation method basedon slope units.
      Results Using the integrated slope unit delineation scheme, 14480 slope units were identified in Anju District, Suining City, including 13,071 inhabited slope units, 897 uninhabited slope units, and 512 flat land units. Applying an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)−based qualitative−semi−quantitative evaluation model, susceptibility was assessed for each slope unit. Results indicate 196 medium−susceptibility units and 14284 low−susceptibility units, accounting for 1.24% and 98.76% of the total area, respectively.
      Conclusions When conducting geological hazard susceptibility evaluations based on slope units, it is essential to balance the subjectivity of survey management capacity with the objectivity of theoretical models, ensuring evaluation outcomes better serve slope hazard prevention at the county level. The AHP−based qualitative−semi−quantitative model using slope units outperforms grid−based information value models in result quality. This method is suitable for county−level 1∶10000 slope unit geological hazard evaluations.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回