4.7 Article

Flood Risk Assessment of Metro System Using Improved Trapezoidal Fuzzy AHP: A Case Study of Guangzhou

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13245154

关键词

flood risk; metro system; improved trapezoidal fuzzy AHP; flood prevention measures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a method for assessing the flood risk of metro systems, showing that high-risk areas of the Guangzhou Metro are concentrated in central urban areas. Recommendations for raising exits, installing watertight doors, and early warning strategies are suggested as measures to resist metro floods.
Metro systems have become high-risk entities due to the increased frequency and severity of urban flooding. Therefore, understanding the flood risk of metro systems is a prerequisite for mega-cities' flood protection and risk management. This study proposes a method for accurately assessing the flood risk of metro systems based on an improved trapezoidal fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP). We applied this method to assess the flood risk of 14 lines and 268 stations of the Guangzhou Metro. The risk results validation showed that the accuracy of the improved trapezoidal fuzzy AHP (90% match) outperformed the traditional trapezoidal AHP (70% match). The distribution of different flood risk levels in Guangzhou metro lines exhibited a polarization signature. About 69% (155 km(2)) of very high and high risk zones were concentrated in central urban areas (Yuexiu, Liwan, Tianhe, and Haizhu); the three metro lines with the highest overall risk level were lines 3, 6, and 5; and the metro stations at very high risk were mainly located on metro lines 6, 3, 5, 1, and 2. Based on fieldwork, we suggest raising exits, installing watertight doors, and using early warning strategies to resist metro floods. This study can provide scientific data for decision-makers to reasonably allocate flood prevention resources, which is significant in reducing flood losses and promoting Guangzhou's sustainable development.

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

4.7
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