4.4 Article

Moraine-dammed lake distribution and outburst flood risk in the Chinese Himalaya

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 225, 页码 115-126

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3189/2015JoG14J097

关键词

applied glaciology; glacier hazards; glaciological natural hazards; subglacial lakes

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CBA01808]
  2. National Social Science Foundation of China [14BGL137]
  3. Innovative Research Group National Natural Science Foundation of China [41121001]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M530436]
  5. Foundation for Excellent Youth Scholars of the Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y451141001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To better understand the risk of disasters due to glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), we synthetically analyze the spatial distribution and evolution of moraine-dammed lakes and potentially dangerous glacial lakes (PDGLs) in the Chinese Himalaya. Our county-based assessment of GLOF disaster risk combines PDGL outburst hazard, regional exposure, vulnerability of exposed elements and adaptation capability (risk management) using the analytic hierarchy process. We synthetically analyze the disaster risk using the weighted comprehensive method. Remote-sensing data show there are 329 moraine-dammed lakes (>0.02 km(2); total area 125.43 km(2)) in the Chinese Himalaya, of which 116 (total area 49.49 km(2)) are identified as PDGLs. The zones at highest risk of GLOF disaster are mainly located in Nyalam, Tingri, Dinggye, Lhozhag, Kangmar and Zhongba, in the mid-eastern Himalaya. Lowest-risk zones are located in the eastern Himalaya. On the county scale, Lhozhag and Lhunze have the highest hazard degrees and exposure, while Zhongba and Zando have the highest degree of vulnerability and lowest adaptation capacity. Our regionalization results for GLOF disaster risk are consistent with the distribution of historical disaster sites across the Chinese Himalaya.

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

4.4
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