地理科学进展

地理科学进展 ›› 2010, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (9): 1055-1059.doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.09.005

• 能源与水资源保障风险 • 上一篇    下一篇

煤炭与石油保障风险综合评价实证研究以北京和浙江为例

魏丹青1,2, 赵建安1, 李红强1,2, 郎一环1   

  1. 1. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所|北京100101;
    2. 中国科学院研究生院|北京100049
  • 收稿日期:2010-01-01 修回日期:2010-05-01 出版日期:2010-09-25 发布日期:2010-09-25
  • 通讯作者: 赵建安.zhaoja@igsml.ac.cn.
  • 作者简介:魏丹青|女|浙江绍兴人|硕士生|主要从事资源经济与资源安全研究.E-mail: weidanqing0804@126.com.
  • 基金资助:

    国家科技支撑计划项目(2006BAD20B06)

Empirical Study for Comprehensive Appraisal of Coal and Oil Security Risk: A Case study in Beijing and Zhejiang

WEI Danqing1,2, ZHAO Jian'an1, LI Hongqiang1,2, LANG Yihuan1   

  1. 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
    2. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • Received:2010-01-01 Revised:2010-05-01 Online:2010-09-25 Published:2010-09-25

PDF (PC)

赞

被引次数

8

摘要：

在构建煤炭与石油保障风险综合评价指标体系，计算煤炭和石油保障综合风险度以及简历风险源、风险度评价模型等研究成果的基础上，采用层次分析法，划分了中国煤炭和石油保障风险的综合等级，将风险可能性划分为极低、低、中、高、极高5个级别。进一步选择了北京和浙江，结合两地煤炭石油保障的实际情况，利用这一评价体系评价了两地的煤炭和石油各风险源、风险度，集成得到综合风险度指数，进而划分了两地的煤炭与石油保障风险等级。结果表明:北京市和浙江省的煤炭综合风险级别分别为较低和中等，石油综合风险级别分别为中等和较高，研究结果基本符合现状，从而验证了该指标体系及其评价方法的适用性与合理性;同时，实证结果还对两地煤炭和石油的风险发生概率进行了预测，以期起到一定的预警参考作用。

关键词: 保障风险, 北京市, 风险度, 煤炭, 石油, 浙江省

Abstract:

On the basis of the risk appraisal index system of coal and oil, a risk appraisal model for the comprehensive risk degrees was established and the degrees of various risk sources for the coal and oil security were estimated. In this paper, we use the AHP and 14 indicators to calculate the risk indexes, and made a comprehensive grading of the coal and oil security risk, and classified the possibility of risks into the lowest, low, medium, high and very high levels. Concerning the comprehensive risk index (ECSRI), 0-0.2 is I (the lowest), 0.20.4 is Ⅱ(low), 0.4-0.6 is Ⅲ (medium), 0.6-0.8 is Ⅳ (high), and ≥0.8 is V (very high). We applied the system to the empirical research in Beijing and Zhejiang, two regions with high levels of social and economic development in eastern China, obtained the comprehensive risk degrees and the degrees of various risk sources for the coal and oil security for this two places, and then evaluated coal and oil security risk ratings. The result is that coal security risk ratings of Beijing and Zhejiang are at the lower and medium levels respectively. The rating for Beijing is 0.3160 and for Zhejiang is 0.4725. Oil security risk ratings are at medium and higher levels (Beijing is 0.4840 and Zhejang is 0.6371). Compared with the actual coal and oil security of these two places, the result is generally coincident with the reality, and thus confirmed the reliability of the index system and evaluation method. At the same time, the empirical results also predicted the risk probability of two places within the next few years. }

Key words: Beijing, coal, comprehensive risk degree, oil, security risk system, Zhejiang