福建省龙岩市岩溶塌陷风险评估
|
摘要
龙岩市是典型的岩溶盆地,主要用水来源于地下岩溶水,开采岩溶水会对地下水位产生影响,进而诱发塌陷。城区人口密集,岩溶塌陷对人类生产生活形成巨大隐患。因此,如何对岩溶塌陷所造成的风险进行评估是本文的研究重点,对整个龙岩市生产生活具有重大的社会意义。本文在收集了大量的区域水文地质工程地质资料,经过资料分析及整理建立了相应的数据库,在此基础上主要做了以下两方面内容：
一、岩溶塌陷危险性评价
通过对龙岩市地质背景资料收集,野外调查,选取了地下水位埋深、水位基岩面距离、岩溶类型、土层厚度、土层结构、线岩溶率、地质构造、水力联系及开采井密度9个因子作评价指标,运用GIS空间插值法,根据不同专题图的精度,分别采用泰森网格法、距离加权平均法、普通克里格法和指示克里格法等空间插值法对点文件进行处理,生成区文件进行评价。在模型方面,本文首次尝试信息量法与层次分析法的结合。在进行两两比较时,层次分析法往往根据自己主观的判断,评价主体不同,所给的权重也会不同。信息量法考虑了各影响因素组合所产生的影响,可以弥补层次分析法主观因素的随意性。本文在计算出各因素信息量的基础上,给出层次分析法权重判定的依据,并利用GIS空间分析中的叠加分析,对该地区岩溶塌陷危险性做出合理评价。结果大部分已发生塌陷位置都落在中高危险区中,说明本方法可以达到评价目的。
通过结果分析,可以看出龙岩盆地危险性较大区域集中在龙岩市西城区及东城区的东兴村和东宫下村以及西陂镇的大洋村、小洋村和曹溪镇的东山村,其中极易发生塌陷的区域占整个评价区域的2.7%；较易发生塌陷的地区比例为8.8%；稳定区占比例为15.7%；大部分区域为较稳定区和中等易发区,分别占46.9%和25.9%。在影响岩溶塌陷发生的因素方面：水位与基岩面的距离及抽水活动对其影响较大,在评价中权重相对较高。
二、对抽水岩溶塌陷保险进行了初探
抽水引发塌陷属于人为灾害,按照我国地质灾害防治条例等法律规定,对于人为因素引起的地质灾害,按照谁诱发谁治理的原则进行处理。本文参照美国佛罗里达州岩溶塌陷保险体系,提出抽水岩溶塌陷保险风险评估指数：一是基于岩溶塌陷发生可能性大小的危险性指数PI,根据已有塌陷点及危险性评价结果计算出不同危险性分区下岩溶塌陷发生的概率；另一个是对抽水井造成的损失进行量化的QI值,首先根据开采井的开采量划分影响范围及按照影响强度进行分带。在承灾体方面,本文选取了房屋、道路、地下管线及三大产业间接损失等指标,依据调查统计灾害的治理费用作为评估损失标准,对抽水井影响范围内的经济损失进行定量评估,得出QI值。在两个指数确定的基础上计算出期望损失值,进而探讨了保险费的厘定问题。本文意在对抽水岩溶塌陷保险提出一个思路,为今后的保险用于人为塌陷的补偿方面提供参考。
Longyan city is a typical karst basin, its main water comes from underground karst water. Pumping will affect the water table, which induces karst collapse. Population concentrates in urban areas, karst collapse is a tremendous risk for production and life of people. Therefore, this research focuses on how to assess the region's karst collapse risk more effectively. It will produce great social significance. In this paper, we collect a large number of regional hydrogeological engineering geological data and estabilish database by analysis and sorting. The main job is the following two aspects:
The first part is risk assessment of karst collapse.
Groundwater depth, water-rock distance, karst type, soil thickness, soil stucture, linear karstification rate, geological structure, hydraulic connection and pumping well are selected as 9 factors through collecting geological background of Longyan city and field investigation. According to different accuracy of thematic map, point files are interpolated into zone files separately by voronoi, IDW, ordinary Kriging and indicator Kriging interpolation methods. GIS spatial analyst is used to assess karst collapse risk. And the paper firstly attempts to take a combination of information quantity and AHP as the evaluation model. When making comparisons between the two, AHP is often based on their own subjective assessment and different people will give different weights. While information quantity method takes into account of the impact coming from combination of different factors. AHP subjective arbitrariness can be made up by the use of information quantity method. On the basis of information quantity, the weights of AHP criteria are determined and overlay analysis of ArcGIS is used to make a reasonable prediction. Most sinkhole points fall into high-risk areas, which shows this method can achieve the purpose of assessment.
Through the results, we can find that the greatest risk area of Longyan basin concentrated in Xicheng district and Dongxing village, Donggongxia village of Dongcheng district and Dayang village, Xiaoyang village of Xipi town and Dongshan village, Caoxi town. And 2.7% of the total area is very easily collapsed; The region where is more prone to collapse compared to 8.8%; Stable region make a ratio of 15.7%; Most area is more stabler region and the middle-prone areas, accounting for 46.9% and 25.9%. Distance between water level and the bedrock surface and pumping activities make greater affect on karst collapse than others. The weights of these factors are relatively higher.
The second one is initial study of the insurance for pumping karst collapse.
Sinkhole caused by pumping is man-made disaster. According to《Prevention and Control of Geological Disasters Regulation》:a person who caused geohazard should be charged of this damage. This article try to propose insurance risk assessment indexes of pumping karst collapse referencing to sinkhole insurance system of Florida, the United States:Risk index PI is based on probability of sinkhole occurrence, it can be calculated by the occurrence probability of karst collapse in different risk zoning; The other index is QI, which can quantify the value of pumping losses. We can decide sphere of influence and divide different strength zones of the pumping well according to its exploitation number of groundwater. About the disaster bodies, housings, roads, underground pipelines and indirect losses of three major industries are took as main evaluation indicators. Disaster management costs investigated is the standard for damage assessment. And QI is obtained through quantitative assessment of economic loss within the sphere of influence.
After the two indexes are determined, we can calculate expected loss value, and next we can calculate premium. This article is intended to formulate an idea of insurance for pumping karst collapse, and also wants to give a reference for insurance used for compensation of karst collapse man-made in the future.
一、岩溶塌陷危险性评价
通过对龙岩市地质背景资料收集,野外调查,选取了地下水位埋深、水位基岩面距离、岩溶类型、土层厚度、土层结构、线岩溶率、地质构造、水力联系及开采井密度9个因子作评价指标,运用GIS空间插值法,根据不同专题图的精度,分别采用泰森网格法、距离加权平均法、普通克里格法和指示克里格法等空间插值法对点文件进行处理,生成区文件进行评价。在模型方面,本文首次尝试信息量法与层次分析法的结合。在进行两两比较时,层次分析法往往根据自己主观的判断,评价主体不同,所给的权重也会不同。信息量法考虑了各影响因素组合所产生的影响,可以弥补层次分析法主观因素的随意性。本文在计算出各因素信息量的基础上,给出层次分析法权重判定的依据,并利用GIS空间分析中的叠加分析,对该地区岩溶塌陷危险性做出合理评价。结果大部分已发生塌陷位置都落在中高危险区中,说明本方法可以达到评价目的。
通过结果分析,可以看出龙岩盆地危险性较大区域集中在龙岩市西城区及东城区的东兴村和东宫下村以及西陂镇的大洋村、小洋村和曹溪镇的东山村,其中极易发生塌陷的区域占整个评价区域的2.7%；较易发生塌陷的地区比例为8.8%；稳定区占比例为15.7%；大部分区域为较稳定区和中等易发区,分别占46.9%和25.9%。在影响岩溶塌陷发生的因素方面：水位与基岩面的距离及抽水活动对其影响较大,在评价中权重相对较高。
二、对抽水岩溶塌陷保险进行了初探
抽水引发塌陷属于人为灾害,按照我国地质灾害防治条例等法律规定,对于人为因素引起的地质灾害,按照谁诱发谁治理的原则进行处理。本文参照美国佛罗里达州岩溶塌陷保险体系,提出抽水岩溶塌陷保险风险评估指数：一是基于岩溶塌陷发生可能性大小的危险性指数PI,根据已有塌陷点及危险性评价结果计算出不同危险性分区下岩溶塌陷发生的概率；另一个是对抽水井造成的损失进行量化的QI值,首先根据开采井的开采量划分影响范围及按照影响强度进行分带。在承灾体方面,本文选取了房屋、道路、地下管线及三大产业间接损失等指标,依据调查统计灾害的治理费用作为评估损失标准,对抽水井影响范围内的经济损失进行定量评估,得出QI值。在两个指数确定的基础上计算出期望损失值,进而探讨了保险费的厘定问题。本文意在对抽水岩溶塌陷保险提出一个思路,为今后的保险用于人为塌陷的补偿方面提供参考。
Longyan city is a typical karst basin, its main water comes from underground karst water. Pumping will affect the water table, which induces karst collapse. Population concentrates in urban areas, karst collapse is a tremendous risk for production and life of people. Therefore, this research focuses on how to assess the region's karst collapse risk more effectively. It will produce great social significance. In this paper, we collect a large number of regional hydrogeological engineering geological data and estabilish database by analysis and sorting. The main job is the following two aspects:
The first part is risk assessment of karst collapse.
Groundwater depth, water-rock distance, karst type, soil thickness, soil stucture, linear karstification rate, geological structure, hydraulic connection and pumping well are selected as 9 factors through collecting geological background of Longyan city and field investigation. According to different accuracy of thematic map, point files are interpolated into zone files separately by voronoi, IDW, ordinary Kriging and indicator Kriging interpolation methods. GIS spatial analyst is used to assess karst collapse risk. And the paper firstly attempts to take a combination of information quantity and AHP as the evaluation model. When making comparisons between the two, AHP is often based on their own subjective assessment and different people will give different weights. While information quantity method takes into account of the impact coming from combination of different factors. AHP subjective arbitrariness can be made up by the use of information quantity method. On the basis of information quantity, the weights of AHP criteria are determined and overlay analysis of ArcGIS is used to make a reasonable prediction. Most sinkhole points fall into high-risk areas, which shows this method can achieve the purpose of assessment.
Through the results, we can find that the greatest risk area of Longyan basin concentrated in Xicheng district and Dongxing village, Donggongxia village of Dongcheng district and Dayang village, Xiaoyang village of Xipi town and Dongshan village, Caoxi town. And 2.7% of the total area is very easily collapsed; The region where is more prone to collapse compared to 8.8%; Stable region make a ratio of 15.7%; Most area is more stabler region and the middle-prone areas, accounting for 46.9% and 25.9%. Distance between water level and the bedrock surface and pumping activities make greater affect on karst collapse than others. The weights of these factors are relatively higher.
The second one is initial study of the insurance for pumping karst collapse.
Sinkhole caused by pumping is man-made disaster. According to《Prevention and Control of Geological Disasters Regulation》:a person who caused geohazard should be charged of this damage. This article try to propose insurance risk assessment indexes of pumping karst collapse referencing to sinkhole insurance system of Florida, the United States:Risk index PI is based on probability of sinkhole occurrence, it can be calculated by the occurrence probability of karst collapse in different risk zoning; The other index is QI, which can quantify the value of pumping losses. We can decide sphere of influence and divide different strength zones of the pumping well according to its exploitation number of groundwater. About the disaster bodies, housings, roads, underground pipelines and indirect losses of three major industries are took as main evaluation indicators. Disaster management costs investigated is the standard for damage assessment. And QI is obtained through quantitative assessment of economic loss within the sphere of influence.
After the two indexes are determined, we can calculate expected loss value, and next we can calculate premium. This article is intended to formulate an idea of insurance for pumping karst collapse, and also wants to give a reference for insurance used for compensation of karst collapse man-made in the future.
引文
[1]雷明堂,李瑜,蒋小珍等.岩溶塌陷灾害监测预报技术与方法初步研究——以桂林市柘木村岩溶塌陷监测为例[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2004,15(增刊)：142-145.
[2]国土资源部地质环境司.地质灾害防治条例释义[M].北京：中国大地出版社,2004,5：2-8.
[3]Magdalene, S. and Alecander, E. C. Sinkhole distribution in Winona County, Minnesota, rebistited[J]. Karst Geohazards.1995:43-51.
[4]Orndorff, R.C., Weary, D. J. and Lagueux, K.M.. "Geographic Information Systems analysis of geologic controls on the distribution of dolines in the Ozarks of South-Central Missouri, USA." Acta Carsologica.2000,29:2-11.
[5]Zhou, W., Beck, B. F., Adams. A. L. "Application of Matrix Analysis in Delineating Sinkhole Risk Areas along Highway(I-70 near Fredrick, Maryland)." Environ-mental Geology.2003,44:834-842.
[6]Day, M. J. An assessment of karstic collapse hazards at Mount Rooser, Ewarton, Jamaica[J]. American Society Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Pubication, 2003,122:40-49.
[7]Tony Waltham, Fred Bell and Martin Culshaw. 《Sinkholes and Subsidence—Karst and Cavernous Rocks in Engineering and Construction》.Praxis Publishing, chichester, UK,2005.
[8]Zisman, E.D. A standard method for sinkhole detection in the Tampa, Florida, area[J]. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience,2001,7:31-55.
[9]Yongli Gao, E. Calvin Alexander, Robert G. Tipping. The development of a karst feature database for southeastern Minnesota[J]. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies. April 2002, 64(1):51-57.
[10]Katarina Z.Doctor, Daniel H.Doctor.Predicting Sinkhole Susceptibility in Frederick Valley, Maryland Using Geographically Weighted Regression[C]. Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Eleventh Multidisciplinary Conference,2008,11:243-255.
[11]雷明堂,蒋小珍,李瑜,等.城市岩溶塌陷灾害风险评估方法——以贵州六盘水市为例[J].火山地质与矿产,2000,21(2)：118-127.
[12]张丽霞,熊大军,王集宁等.莱芜市岩溶塌陷原因分析与评价[J].山东地质,2002,18(2)：32-35.
[13]胡成,陈植华,陈学军.基于ANN与GIS技术的区域岩溶塌陷稳定性评价——以桂林西市区为例[J].地球科学：中国地质大学学报,2003,28(5)：557-562.
[14]朱庆杰,苏幼坡,刘廷全.唐山市岩溶塌陷安全评价[J].中国安全科学学报,2004,14(2)：61-94.
[15]邓有平,胡明安,吴美仁.岩溶区城市建设地面塌陷易发性研究——以井冈山市新市区岩溶地面塌陷为例[J].安全与环境工程,2005,12(1)：78-81.
[16]李光辉,潘懋,杨志双等.基于灰色聚类法的鞍山城区岩溶塌陷危险性区划[J].吉林大学学报(地 球科学版),2006,36(增刊)：75-79.
[17]李公岩,李元仲等.山东省枣庄市岩溶塌陷的层次模糊评价评判[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2008,19(2)：87-90.
[18]陈学军,罗元华.GIS支持下的岩溶塌陷危险性评价[J].水文地质工程地质,2001,28(4)：15-18.
[19]邱向荣.岩溶塌陷稳定性的灰色模糊综合评判[J].水文地质工程地质.2004,31(4)：58-61.
[20]陈静,马亚杰,朱庆杰.人工神经网络模型在岩溶塌陷安全评价中的应用[J].地质灾害与环境保护,2005,16(2)：139-146.
[21]杨健,佴磊,刘斌.鞍山岩溶地面塌陷环境地质质量模糊综合评判[J].中国岩溶,1999,18(1)：1-10.
[22]金江军,李光辉,潘懋等.人工神经网络在鞍山城区岩溶塌陷危险性评价中的应用[J].灾害与防治工程,2006,2：48-53.
[23]赖永标,乔春生.基于支持向量机岩溶塌陷的智能评价模型[J].北京交通大学学报,2008,32(1)：36-39.
[24]张业成,郑学信.云南省东川市泥石流灾害灾情评估[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1995,6(2)：67-76.
[25]罗元华,张梁,张业成等.地质灾害风险评估方法[M].北京,地质出版社,1998.
[26]金晓媚,刘金韬.四川省万县市滑坡群灾害灾情评估[J].工程地质学报,1999,7(1)：25-29.
[27]樊运晓等.区域承灾体脆弱性评价指标体系研究[J].现代地质,2001,15(1)：113-116.
[28]Fell, R., Hartford, D. Landslide risk management[J]. Proceedings Inter-national Workshop Landslide Risk Assement, Honolulu,1997, pp:51-109.
[29]Debilbiss, R. A., Wargo, R. H. A local government approach to mitigating impacts of karst[J].Karst Geohazards,1995, pp:499-504.
[30]胡瑞林,王思敬,李焯芬等.唐山市岩溶塌陷区域风险评价[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2001,20(2)：180-189.
[31]张涛,韩晔,刘中业.岩溶塌陷地质灾害经济损失评估探讨[J].西部探矿工程,2008,3：75-78.
[32]卢晓华.福建省龙岩盆地地下水资源评价及水资源供需平衡分析[J].福建建设科技,2007,13：23-24.
[33]曹春玲.龙岩盆地地下水超采环境影响调查分析[J].水利科技,2000,3：14-15.
[34]罗均宇.龙岩市区栖霞组地层的工程地质特征及基础施工[J].中国西部科技,2007,10：13-16.
[35]陈泉霖.龙岩市地质灾害的主要类型、成因及预防对策[J].西部探矿工程,2005,5：204-205.
[36]廖光平.龙岩城区灰岩区的主要地质灾害与处理[J].西部探矿工程,2006,9.
[37]黄杏元,马劲松,汤勤.地理信息系统概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2002.
[38]Bunge W. Theoretical Geography[M]. Lund:Lund Studies in Geography,1966.
[39]李翠平,李仲学,余东明.基于泰森多边形法的空间品位插值[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报,2007,26(4)：488-491.
[40]Maplnfo Corporation. MapInfo Professional User's Manual.2002.
[41]罗云启,曾琨等.数字化地理信息系统与MapInfo高级应用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[42]AungeW. Theoretical Geography (M).Lund:Lund Studiesin Geography,1966.
[43]Journelag, HuijaregtsCh.矿业地质统计学(M).侯景儒,黄竞先,译.北京：冶金工业出版社, 1982.
[44]DeutschCV,Journelag.GSLIA,Geostatistical Software Liarary and User's Guide[M].NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
[45]李新,程国栋,卢玲.空间内插方法比较[J].地球科学进展,2000(3)：260-265.
[46]王政权.地质统计学及在生态学中的应用(M).北京：科学出版社,1999.
[47]邱士利.基于GIS的岩溶地下水富水性评价方法研究：[学位论文].北京,中国地质科学院,2006.
[48]向贤礼,余未来,姚国川.岩溶地区抽水引起地面塌陷的注浆治理探讨[J].岩土工程界,2007,10(11)：78-80.
[49]岳跃.基于GIS的崩塌地质灾害危险性评价研究：[学位论文].上海,同济大学,2008.
[50]邢丽霞,阔列东.我国的地面塌陷及其危害[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1997,8：23-25.
[51]The Florida Legislature.The 2009 Florida Statutes. Http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute＆Search_String =＆URL=Ch0627/PART10.HTM.
[52]SDII Global Registry.Http://www.sdii-global.com/registry.
[53]张伟.抽水岩溶地面塌陷的形成及防治[J].河北地质学院学报,1996,19(1)：46-51.
[54]杨德财.水城盆地抽水塌陷初探[J].地下水,1994,16(3)：117-119.
[55]邹铁牛,尹辉,熊建安.岳阳市地质灾害经济损失评估[J].地质学报,2009,29(2)：184-187.
[56]刘小勇.基于火灾风险评估的火灾保险费率厘定：[学位论文].安徽,中国科学技术大学,2006.
[57]卞艺杰,陈建军,李良辰等.我国工程保险中的风险分级评价方法研究[J].建筑经济,2007,12：106-109.
[58]关卓,李春华,吴朝阳.地质灾害治理及费用分析[J].科技信息,2008,31：48-49.
[2]国土资源部地质环境司.地质灾害防治条例释义[M].北京：中国大地出版社,2004,5：2-8.
[3]Magdalene, S. and Alecander, E. C. Sinkhole distribution in Winona County, Minnesota, rebistited[J]. Karst Geohazards.1995:43-51.
[4]Orndorff, R.C., Weary, D. J. and Lagueux, K.M.. "Geographic Information Systems analysis of geologic controls on the distribution of dolines in the Ozarks of South-Central Missouri, USA." Acta Carsologica.2000,29:2-11.
[5]Zhou, W., Beck, B. F., Adams. A. L. "Application of Matrix Analysis in Delineating Sinkhole Risk Areas along Highway(I-70 near Fredrick, Maryland)." Environ-mental Geology.2003,44:834-842.
[6]Day, M. J. An assessment of karstic collapse hazards at Mount Rooser, Ewarton, Jamaica[J]. American Society Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Pubication, 2003,122:40-49.
[7]Tony Waltham, Fred Bell and Martin Culshaw. 《Sinkholes and Subsidence—Karst and Cavernous Rocks in Engineering and Construction》.Praxis Publishing, chichester, UK,2005.
[8]Zisman, E.D. A standard method for sinkhole detection in the Tampa, Florida, area[J]. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience,2001,7:31-55.
[9]Yongli Gao, E. Calvin Alexander, Robert G. Tipping. The development of a karst feature database for southeastern Minnesota[J]. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies. April 2002, 64(1):51-57.
[10]Katarina Z.Doctor, Daniel H.Doctor.Predicting Sinkhole Susceptibility in Frederick Valley, Maryland Using Geographically Weighted Regression[C]. Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Eleventh Multidisciplinary Conference,2008,11:243-255.
[11]雷明堂,蒋小珍,李瑜,等.城市岩溶塌陷灾害风险评估方法——以贵州六盘水市为例[J].火山地质与矿产,2000,21(2)：118-127.
[12]张丽霞,熊大军,王集宁等.莱芜市岩溶塌陷原因分析与评价[J].山东地质,2002,18(2)：32-35.
[13]胡成,陈植华,陈学军.基于ANN与GIS技术的区域岩溶塌陷稳定性评价——以桂林西市区为例[J].地球科学：中国地质大学学报,2003,28(5)：557-562.
[14]朱庆杰,苏幼坡,刘廷全.唐山市岩溶塌陷安全评价[J].中国安全科学学报,2004,14(2)：61-94.
[15]邓有平,胡明安,吴美仁.岩溶区城市建设地面塌陷易发性研究——以井冈山市新市区岩溶地面塌陷为例[J].安全与环境工程,2005,12(1)：78-81.
[16]李光辉,潘懋,杨志双等.基于灰色聚类法的鞍山城区岩溶塌陷危险性区划[J].吉林大学学报(地 球科学版),2006,36(增刊)：75-79.
[17]李公岩,李元仲等.山东省枣庄市岩溶塌陷的层次模糊评价评判[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2008,19(2)：87-90.
[18]陈学军,罗元华.GIS支持下的岩溶塌陷危险性评价[J].水文地质工程地质,2001,28(4)：15-18.
[19]邱向荣.岩溶塌陷稳定性的灰色模糊综合评判[J].水文地质工程地质.2004,31(4)：58-61.
[20]陈静,马亚杰,朱庆杰.人工神经网络模型在岩溶塌陷安全评价中的应用[J].地质灾害与环境保护,2005,16(2)：139-146.
[21]杨健,佴磊,刘斌.鞍山岩溶地面塌陷环境地质质量模糊综合评判[J].中国岩溶,1999,18(1)：1-10.
[22]金江军,李光辉,潘懋等.人工神经网络在鞍山城区岩溶塌陷危险性评价中的应用[J].灾害与防治工程,2006,2：48-53.
[23]赖永标,乔春生.基于支持向量机岩溶塌陷的智能评价模型[J].北京交通大学学报,2008,32(1)：36-39.
[24]张业成,郑学信.云南省东川市泥石流灾害灾情评估[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1995,6(2)：67-76.
[25]罗元华,张梁,张业成等.地质灾害风险评估方法[M].北京,地质出版社,1998.
[26]金晓媚,刘金韬.四川省万县市滑坡群灾害灾情评估[J].工程地质学报,1999,7(1)：25-29.
[27]樊运晓等.区域承灾体脆弱性评价指标体系研究[J].现代地质,2001,15(1)：113-116.
[28]Fell, R., Hartford, D. Landslide risk management[J]. Proceedings Inter-national Workshop Landslide Risk Assement, Honolulu,1997, pp:51-109.
[29]Debilbiss, R. A., Wargo, R. H. A local government approach to mitigating impacts of karst[J].Karst Geohazards,1995, pp:499-504.
[30]胡瑞林,王思敬,李焯芬等.唐山市岩溶塌陷区域风险评价[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2001,20(2)：180-189.
[31]张涛,韩晔,刘中业.岩溶塌陷地质灾害经济损失评估探讨[J].西部探矿工程,2008,3：75-78.
[32]卢晓华.福建省龙岩盆地地下水资源评价及水资源供需平衡分析[J].福建建设科技,2007,13：23-24.
[33]曹春玲.龙岩盆地地下水超采环境影响调查分析[J].水利科技,2000,3：14-15.
[34]罗均宇.龙岩市区栖霞组地层的工程地质特征及基础施工[J].中国西部科技,2007,10：13-16.
[35]陈泉霖.龙岩市地质灾害的主要类型、成因及预防对策[J].西部探矿工程,2005,5：204-205.
[36]廖光平.龙岩城区灰岩区的主要地质灾害与处理[J].西部探矿工程,2006,9.
[37]黄杏元,马劲松,汤勤.地理信息系统概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2002.
[38]Bunge W. Theoretical Geography[M]. Lund:Lund Studies in Geography,1966.
[39]李翠平,李仲学,余东明.基于泰森多边形法的空间品位插值[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报,2007,26(4)：488-491.
[40]Maplnfo Corporation. MapInfo Professional User's Manual.2002.
[41]罗云启,曾琨等.数字化地理信息系统与MapInfo高级应用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[42]AungeW. Theoretical Geography (M).Lund:Lund Studiesin Geography,1966.
[43]Journelag, HuijaregtsCh.矿业地质统计学(M).侯景儒,黄竞先,译.北京：冶金工业出版社, 1982.
[44]DeutschCV,Journelag.GSLIA,Geostatistical Software Liarary and User's Guide[M].NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
[45]李新,程国栋,卢玲.空间内插方法比较[J].地球科学进展,2000(3)：260-265.
[46]王政权.地质统计学及在生态学中的应用(M).北京：科学出版社,1999.
[47]邱士利.基于GIS的岩溶地下水富水性评价方法研究：[学位论文].北京,中国地质科学院,2006.
[48]向贤礼,余未来,姚国川.岩溶地区抽水引起地面塌陷的注浆治理探讨[J].岩土工程界,2007,10(11)：78-80.
[49]岳跃.基于GIS的崩塌地质灾害危险性评价研究：[学位论文].上海,同济大学,2008.
[50]邢丽霞,阔列东.我国的地面塌陷及其危害[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,1997,8：23-25.
[51]The Florida Legislature.The 2009 Florida Statutes. Http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute＆Search_String =＆URL=Ch0627/PART10.HTM.
[52]SDII Global Registry.Http://www.sdii-global.com/registry.
[53]张伟.抽水岩溶地面塌陷的形成及防治[J].河北地质学院学报,1996,19(1)：46-51.
[54]杨德财.水城盆地抽水塌陷初探[J].地下水,1994,16(3)：117-119.
[55]邹铁牛,尹辉,熊建安.岳阳市地质灾害经济损失评估[J].地质学报,2009,29(2)：184-187.
[56]刘小勇.基于火灾风险评估的火灾保险费率厘定：[学位论文].安徽,中国科学技术大学,2006.
[57]卞艺杰,陈建军,李良辰等.我国工程保险中的风险分级评价方法研究[J].建筑经济,2007,12：106-109.
[58]关卓,李春华,吴朝阳.地质灾害治理及费用分析[J].科技信息,2008,31：48-49.