地震遗迹景观研究进展及其分类方案探讨
|
摘要
国内外地震遗迹景观研究经历了地震事件识别、概念创新、分类体系重构、资源开发利用等多个过程。对地震遗迹景观的研究活动已不再局限于对其科学价值的讨论上,而是在交叉学科的指导下,将研究的视角延伸至基于保护前提下的合理开发利用的层面。前期研究对地震遗迹景观分类体系存在较大争议。文中在前人研究的基础上,以龙门山地震遗迹景观类型划分为案例,尝试构建地震遗迹景观科学合理的分类方案,以期为地震遗迹景观的保护以及高烈度山区地震专项旅游产品的开发提供科学依据。
Seismic landscape research has evolved from earthquake event recognition to the fields of definition renovation, classification improvement and resource development.The concept that earthquake trace belongs to the category of geological heritage or geological site has been widely accepted by Chinese scholars,as synonymous word "seismic landscape" is used abroad.Earthquake Vestige Landscape for tourism is formulated if seismic landscape is conceptually defined in the context of Inter-disciplinary Methodology.Seismic landscapes in those areas like Andaman and Nicobar Islands,Toscana Umbria Marche,and Tangshan were used as a vital tool in recognition of paleoseismic events.Recently,research tends to take full advantage from the geological evidence of earthquakes in the sense of protection and exploitation of seismic landscapes, particularly tourism development.A large number of seismic landscapes has emerged since the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12th,2008, it is widely recognized that seismic landscapes are not only key objects for scientific research but also potential attractions for tourism development in quake-stricken areas.Considering the fact that the seismic landscape’s role for revitalizing local tourist economy after the quake has been even less noticed and the previous studies on classification of the landscapes have failed to reach any consensus,the authors make a case study of Longmen Shan region, where the seismic landscapes are classified into 4 groups,10 subgroups and 25 basic units.The findings would hopefully provide some scientific references for the development of disaster tourism and ultimately for the revitalization of tourism industry in the quake-hit mountainous regions in west Sichuan.
Seismic landscape research has evolved from earthquake event recognition to the fields of definition renovation, classification improvement and resource development.The concept that earthquake trace belongs to the category of geological heritage or geological site has been widely accepted by Chinese scholars,as synonymous word "seismic landscape" is used abroad.Earthquake Vestige Landscape for tourism is formulated if seismic landscape is conceptually defined in the context of Inter-disciplinary Methodology.Seismic landscapes in those areas like Andaman and Nicobar Islands,Toscana Umbria Marche,and Tangshan were used as a vital tool in recognition of paleoseismic events.Recently,research tends to take full advantage from the geological evidence of earthquakes in the sense of protection and exploitation of seismic landscapes, particularly tourism development.A large number of seismic landscapes has emerged since the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12th,2008, it is widely recognized that seismic landscapes are not only key objects for scientific research but also potential attractions for tourism development in quake-stricken areas.Considering the fact that the seismic landscape’s role for revitalizing local tourist economy after the quake has been even less noticed and the previous studies on classification of the landscapes have failed to reach any consensus,the authors make a case study of Longmen Shan region, where the seismic landscapes are classified into 4 groups,10 subgroups and 25 basic units.The findings would hopefully provide some scientific references for the development of disaster tourism and ultimately for the revitalization of tourism industry in the quake-hit mountainous regions in west Sichuan.
引文
[1]赵汀,赵逊.地质遗迹分类学及其应用[J].地球学报,2009,30(3):309-324.
[2]Serva L,Blumetti A M,Guerrieri L,Michetti A M.The Apennine intermountain basins:the result of repeated strong earthquakes over a geological time interval[J].Bollettino della Societa`Geologica Italiana,2001,Special Volume1:939-946.
[3]Slemmons D B,dePolo C M.Evaluation of active faulting and associated hazard[M]//Wallace R E.Proceedings of Geophysics Research Forum(U.S.).Washington D.C.:National Academy Press,1986:45-62.
[4]Michetti A M,Franck A,Audemard M,Shmuel M.Future trends in paleoseismology:Integrated study of the seismic landscape as a vital tool in seismic hazard analysis[J].Tectonophysics,2005,408:3-21.
[5]李同德.地质公园规划概论[M].北京:中国建筑工业大学出版社,2007.
[6]郭建强.汶川Ms8.0地震遗迹景观初析[J].四川地质学报,2009,29(专辑):256-260.
[7]唐勇,覃建雄,李艳红,等.汶川地震遗迹旅游资源分类及特色评价[J].地球学报,2010,31(4):575-584.
[8]Michetti A M,Hancock P L.Paleoseismology:understanding past earthquakes using quaternary geology[J].Journal of Geodynamics,1997,24(1):3-10.
[9]Michetti A M,Brunamonte F,Serva L,Vittori E.Trench investigations of the1915Fucino earthquake fault scarps(Abruzzo,Central Italy):geological evidence of large historical events[J].Journal of Geophysical Research,1996,101(B3):5921-5936.
[10]Malik J N,Murty C V R.Landscape changes in Andaman and Nicobar Islands(India)due to Mw9.3tsunamigenic Sumatra earthquake of26December2004[J].Current science,2005,88(9):1384-1386.
[11]Guerrieri L,Blumetti A M,Esposito E,et al.Seismicity and extensional tectonics in the northern Umbria-Marche Apennines[J].Soc.Geo.,1998,52(12):539-555.
[12]黄兴根,焦振兴,张英礼.北京宣武门古地震遗迹的发现及其意义[J].地质论评,1981,27(3):3-13.
[13]梁定益,宋志敏,赵崇贺,等.河北省白石山中元古代地震遗迹的发现[J].地质通报,2002,21(10):625-631.
[14]周绪纶.叠溪地震的今昔——为建立叠溪地质公园进言[J].四川地质学报,2003,23(3):188-192.
[15]刘娜,覃建雄.四川茂县叠溪地质公园旅游开发探讨[J].资源开发与市场,2003,19(4):264-265.
[16]杜海忠,刘坤梅,丰志美.灾变景观旅游地开发研究——以小南海地震遗址景区开发为例[J].桂林旅游高等专科学校学报,2006(4):430-434.
[17]伍长云,王淑娟.关于唐山地震旅游资源开发的思考[J].唐山师范学院学报,2007,29(6):112-113.
[18]张加庆,常振广,王赞军.昆仑山8.1级地震遗址的开发[J].柴达木开发研究,2004(2):35-37.
[19]卢云亭,侯爱兰.震迹、震记游旅资源的研究[J].资源开发与保护,1989,5(3):51-53.
[20]阚兴龙,李辉,周永章.汶川地震旅游资源开发研究[J].热带地理,2008,28(5):478-482.
[21]姜建军.中国国家地质公园建设工作指南[M].北京:中国大地出版社,2006.
[22]杨世瑜,吴志亮.旅游地质学[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2006.
[23]许林,孙祖桐.我国地震旅游资源及开发利用[J].国际地震动态,2000(9):11-15.
[2]Serva L,Blumetti A M,Guerrieri L,Michetti A M.The Apennine intermountain basins:the result of repeated strong earthquakes over a geological time interval[J].Bollettino della Societa`Geologica Italiana,2001,Special Volume1:939-946.
[3]Slemmons D B,dePolo C M.Evaluation of active faulting and associated hazard[M]//Wallace R E.Proceedings of Geophysics Research Forum(U.S.).Washington D.C.:National Academy Press,1986:45-62.
[4]Michetti A M,Franck A,Audemard M,Shmuel M.Future trends in paleoseismology:Integrated study of the seismic landscape as a vital tool in seismic hazard analysis[J].Tectonophysics,2005,408:3-21.
[5]李同德.地质公园规划概论[M].北京:中国建筑工业大学出版社,2007.
[6]郭建强.汶川Ms8.0地震遗迹景观初析[J].四川地质学报,2009,29(专辑):256-260.
[7]唐勇,覃建雄,李艳红,等.汶川地震遗迹旅游资源分类及特色评价[J].地球学报,2010,31(4):575-584.
[8]Michetti A M,Hancock P L.Paleoseismology:understanding past earthquakes using quaternary geology[J].Journal of Geodynamics,1997,24(1):3-10.
[9]Michetti A M,Brunamonte F,Serva L,Vittori E.Trench investigations of the1915Fucino earthquake fault scarps(Abruzzo,Central Italy):geological evidence of large historical events[J].Journal of Geophysical Research,1996,101(B3):5921-5936.
[10]Malik J N,Murty C V R.Landscape changes in Andaman and Nicobar Islands(India)due to Mw9.3tsunamigenic Sumatra earthquake of26December2004[J].Current science,2005,88(9):1384-1386.
[11]Guerrieri L,Blumetti A M,Esposito E,et al.Seismicity and extensional tectonics in the northern Umbria-Marche Apennines[J].Soc.Geo.,1998,52(12):539-555.
[12]黄兴根,焦振兴,张英礼.北京宣武门古地震遗迹的发现及其意义[J].地质论评,1981,27(3):3-13.
[13]梁定益,宋志敏,赵崇贺,等.河北省白石山中元古代地震遗迹的发现[J].地质通报,2002,21(10):625-631.
[14]周绪纶.叠溪地震的今昔——为建立叠溪地质公园进言[J].四川地质学报,2003,23(3):188-192.
[15]刘娜,覃建雄.四川茂县叠溪地质公园旅游开发探讨[J].资源开发与市场,2003,19(4):264-265.
[16]杜海忠,刘坤梅,丰志美.灾变景观旅游地开发研究——以小南海地震遗址景区开发为例[J].桂林旅游高等专科学校学报,2006(4):430-434.
[17]伍长云,王淑娟.关于唐山地震旅游资源开发的思考[J].唐山师范学院学报,2007,29(6):112-113.
[18]张加庆,常振广,王赞军.昆仑山8.1级地震遗址的开发[J].柴达木开发研究,2004(2):35-37.
[19]卢云亭,侯爱兰.震迹、震记游旅资源的研究[J].资源开发与保护,1989,5(3):51-53.
[20]阚兴龙,李辉,周永章.汶川地震旅游资源开发研究[J].热带地理,2008,28(5):478-482.
[21]姜建军.中国国家地质公园建设工作指南[M].北京:中国大地出版社,2006.
[22]杨世瑜,吴志亮.旅游地质学[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2006.
[23]许林,孙祖桐.我国地震旅游资源及开发利用[J].国际地震动态,2000(9):11-15.
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