4.6 Article

Measuring the resilience to floods: A comparative analysis of key flood control cities in China

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102248

关键词

Disaster resilience; Entropy-weighting TOPSIS; Floods

资金

  1. Major Project of National Social Sciences Fund of China [16ZDA047]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [71503136, 71834003, 71603127]
  3. National Social Science Fund [19BGL185]
  4. Postgraduate Research Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province of China [SJKY19_0985]
  5. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program for College Students [202010300016Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through the study of 31 key flood control cities in China, it was found that cities in the Haihe River Basin and provincial capitals have stronger resilience to floods, while cities in the Huaihe River Basin show weaker resilience. In some regions with weaker economic strength, however, there is strong resilience to floods.
Floods are among the most deadly disasters that affect people's well-being and livelihoods in China. Although improving resilience to floods is an important measure for disaster mitigation, few studies compare flood resilience in different watershed regions in China. To fill this gap, we constructed a comprehensive evaluation model that focused on revising the indicator system. We used the entropy-weighting TOPSIS method to comprehensively consider the four dimensions of economy, society, environment, and management, and then we diagnosed the resilience to flood disasters in 31 key flood control cities across China. The results showed that both cities in the Haihe River Basin and the provincial capitals had a stronger resilience to flooding than other basins, but for the cities of the Huaihe River Basin, resilience was weaker. In some regions with weak economic strength, however, the resilience to floods was strong. The levels of urban infrastructure, water conservation projects, and information about water conservation should be enhanced to improve flood resilience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据