中国自然灾害减灾救灾标准完备性评价
|
摘要
探讨中国减灾救灾标准的现状及其完备性对健全和完善减灾救灾标准体系意义重大。基于中美两国现有的自然灾害减灾救灾相关标准,分析了两国现有减灾救灾标准数量上的差异;同时采用故障树分析方法,从综合、灾害监测预警、救灾准备、灾害应急响应、灾后恢复重建和减灾6个方面构建了自然灾害减灾救灾标准的故障树,评价了中国自然灾害减灾救灾标准的完备性。结果表明:中美两国已颁布的自然灾害减灾救灾相关标准在数量上存在较大的差异,其中中国共有减灾救灾相关标准779条,美国共有263条;中国现有标准中国标、行标、地标和企标分别有180条、358条、233条和8条;中国现行自然灾害相关标准有664条,其中强制性标准150条、推荐性标准493条和指导性文件1条;中国自然灾害减灾救灾相关标准的完备度为77.9%;地震和生物灾害减灾救灾标准的完备度较高,分别为89.1%和88.2%,海洋灾害减灾救灾标准的完备性相对较低,完备度为51.0%。目前中国在自然灾害减灾救灾领域缺失需要完善的标准内容涉及应急预案的管理、社区综合减灾、灾情信息共享、防灾减灾能力评估、次生灾害防范和处置、生态系统恢复、灾区动物疫病监测与防治等。
Exploring the inadequate and completeness of disaster mitigation and relief standards in China is of great significance to the improvement of existing disaster mitigation and relief standard systems. The difference in disaster reduction and relief standards between China and the USA, in quantity, was analyzed. Standard fault tree analysis for natural disaster mitigation and relief standards was used to evaluate the completeness of China’s standards. The standard fault tree comprised comprehensive disasters, disaster monitoring and early warnings, disaster response preparedness, disaster emergency responses, disaster recovery and reconstruction, and disaster reduction. The results reveal a significant difference between China and the USA for existing disaster mitigation and relief standards. China has 779 related disaster standards and the USA has 263. In addition to the fire and marine disaster standards, China has done more research into floods and droughts, and meteorological, biological, earthquake and geological disasters than the USA. The number of national, industry, local and enterprise standards across China was 180, 358, 233 and 8 respectively. There had 664 currently valid standards in China: the number of mandatory, recommended standards and guidance documents is 150, 493, and 1, respectively. The completeness of standards was related to the number of existing standards and the total completeness of China’s disaster mitigation and relief relevant standards was 77.9%. The completeness of flood and drought standards was 67.9%, meteorological was 75.0%, biological was 88.2%, geological was 60.3% , earthquake was 89.1%, fire was 76.5% and marine disaster standards was 51.0%. These results suggest that the disaster mitigation and relief standards for earthquake and biological disasters are relatively complete, and relatively incomplete for marine disasters. As a major maritime country, China should strengthen its research and the development of marine disaster mitigation and relief standards. Improving and perfecting related fire standards should also be done. The current lack of natural disaster standards across China should be improved and will involve aspect of the management of the emergency plan, community disaster reduction, disaster information, disaster prevention and mitigation capability assessment, prevention and disposal of secondary disasters, ecosystem production order and the social restoration, monitoring and the prevention of animal disease, emergency broadcast and natural disaster risk zoning technology, disaster monitoring networks, and disaster insurance.
Exploring the inadequate and completeness of disaster mitigation and relief standards in China is of great significance to the improvement of existing disaster mitigation and relief standard systems. The difference in disaster reduction and relief standards between China and the USA, in quantity, was analyzed. Standard fault tree analysis for natural disaster mitigation and relief standards was used to evaluate the completeness of China’s standards. The standard fault tree comprised comprehensive disasters, disaster monitoring and early warnings, disaster response preparedness, disaster emergency responses, disaster recovery and reconstruction, and disaster reduction. The results reveal a significant difference between China and the USA for existing disaster mitigation and relief standards. China has 779 related disaster standards and the USA has 263. In addition to the fire and marine disaster standards, China has done more research into floods and droughts, and meteorological, biological, earthquake and geological disasters than the USA. The number of national, industry, local and enterprise standards across China was 180, 358, 233 and 8 respectively. There had 664 currently valid standards in China: the number of mandatory, recommended standards and guidance documents is 150, 493, and 1, respectively. The completeness of standards was related to the number of existing standards and the total completeness of China’s disaster mitigation and relief relevant standards was 77.9%. The completeness of flood and drought standards was 67.9%, meteorological was 75.0%, biological was 88.2%, geological was 60.3% , earthquake was 89.1%, fire was 76.5% and marine disaster standards was 51.0%. These results suggest that the disaster mitigation and relief standards for earthquake and biological disasters are relatively complete, and relatively incomplete for marine disasters. As a major maritime country, China should strengthen its research and the development of marine disaster mitigation and relief standards. Improving and perfecting related fire standards should also be done. The current lack of natural disaster standards across China should be improved and will involve aspect of the management of the emergency plan, community disaster reduction, disaster information, disaster prevention and mitigation capability assessment, prevention and disposal of secondary disasters, ecosystem production order and the social restoration, monitoring and the prevention of animal disease, emergency broadcast and natural disaster risk zoning technology, disaster monitoring networks, and disaster insurance.
引文
[1]王广彦,马志军,胡起伟.基于贝叶斯网络的故障树分析[J].系统工程理论与实践,2004,24(6):78-83.
[2]武庄,石柱,何新贵.基于模糊集合论的故障树分析方法及其应用[J].系统工程与电子技术,2000,22(9):72-75.
[3]董玉华,高惠临,周敬恩,等.长输管线失效状况模糊故障树分析方法[J].石油学报,2002,23(4):85-89.
[4]Vaurio JK.Treatment of general dependencies in systemfault-tree and risk analysis[J].IEEE Trans on Reliability,2002,51(3):278-287.
[5]Batzias FA,Siontorou CC.Investigating the causes of biosensor SNR decrease by means of fault tree analysis[J].IEEE Trans on Instrumentation and Measurement,2005,54(4):1395-1406.
[6]蔡宗平,汤正平,闵海波.故障树分析法的专家系统在故障诊断中应用[J].微计算机信息,2006,22(2):135-137.
[7]陈志芬,陈晋,黄崇福,等.大型公共场所火灾风险评价指标体系(I):火灾事故因果分析[J].自然灾害学报,2006,15(1):79-85.
[8]刘吉夫,张盼娟,陈志芬,等.我国自然灾害类应急预案评价方法研究(I):完备性评价[J].中国安全科学学报,2008,18(2):5-11.
[9]张利华,黄宝荣,李颖明,等.对杭州市部分自然灾害应急预案完备性评价的实证研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2009,19(9):5-11.
[10]王立新,孙智勇,董新宇,等.完备性评价在陕西电网突发事故应急预案中的应用研究[J].陕西电力,2009,(7):45-50.
[11]起晓星,刘黎明,刘亚彬,等.基于故障树分析的区域粮食安全风险因子识别和分类[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(12):1-6.
[12]史定华,王松瑞.故障树分析技术方法和理论[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993.
[13]Brooke PJ,Paige RF.Fault trees for security system design and analysis[J].Computers and Security,2003,22(3):256-264.
[14]周经伦,孙权.一种故障树分析的新算法[J].模糊系统与数学,1997,11(3):74-78.
[15]廖柯熹,姚安林,张淮鑫.长输管道失效故障树分析[J].油气储运,2001,20(1):27-30.
[2]武庄,石柱,何新贵.基于模糊集合论的故障树分析方法及其应用[J].系统工程与电子技术,2000,22(9):72-75.
[3]董玉华,高惠临,周敬恩,等.长输管线失效状况模糊故障树分析方法[J].石油学报,2002,23(4):85-89.
[4]Vaurio JK.Treatment of general dependencies in systemfault-tree and risk analysis[J].IEEE Trans on Reliability,2002,51(3):278-287.
[5]Batzias FA,Siontorou CC.Investigating the causes of biosensor SNR decrease by means of fault tree analysis[J].IEEE Trans on Instrumentation and Measurement,2005,54(4):1395-1406.
[6]蔡宗平,汤正平,闵海波.故障树分析法的专家系统在故障诊断中应用[J].微计算机信息,2006,22(2):135-137.
[7]陈志芬,陈晋,黄崇福,等.大型公共场所火灾风险评价指标体系(I):火灾事故因果分析[J].自然灾害学报,2006,15(1):79-85.
[8]刘吉夫,张盼娟,陈志芬,等.我国自然灾害类应急预案评价方法研究(I):完备性评价[J].中国安全科学学报,2008,18(2):5-11.
[9]张利华,黄宝荣,李颖明,等.对杭州市部分自然灾害应急预案完备性评价的实证研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2009,19(9):5-11.
[10]王立新,孙智勇,董新宇,等.完备性评价在陕西电网突发事故应急预案中的应用研究[J].陕西电力,2009,(7):45-50.
[11]起晓星,刘黎明,刘亚彬,等.基于故障树分析的区域粮食安全风险因子识别和分类[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(12):1-6.
[12]史定华,王松瑞.故障树分析技术方法和理论[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1993.
[13]Brooke PJ,Paige RF.Fault trees for security system design and analysis[J].Computers and Security,2003,22(3):256-264.
[14]周经伦,孙权.一种故障树分析的新算法[J].模糊系统与数学,1997,11(3):74-78.
[15]廖柯熹,姚安林,张淮鑫.长输管道失效故障树分析[J].油气储运,2001,20(1):27-30.
版权所有：© 2023 中国地质图书馆 中国地质调查局地学文献中心