Trends and risk evolution of drought disasters in Tibet Region, China

doi:10.1007/s11442-019-1993-z

Abstract

Abstract:

The risk posed by natural disasters can be largely reflected by hazard and vulnerability. The analysis of long-term hazard series can reveal the mechanisms by which risk changes. Drought disasters are one of the main types of disaster in the Tibet Region (TR) of China. In this study, using statistical drought disasters data in the TR from 1912 to 2012 and socio-economic statistics for five periods between 1965 and 2015, and adopting standard statistical analyses, a wavelet analysis, and a risk assessment model, we first construct the index system for drought disaster risk assessment, and then assess the risk of drought disasters and analyze the mechanisms of changes in risk. The results showed that the occurrence of drought in the TR had three distinct cycles during this study periods, with durations of 5, 15, and 27 years respectively. The frequency of drought in the TR showed increasing trends, and the cycle of drought had been prolonged. From 1965 to 2015, the risk of drought disaster in the TR is significantly increased with the growth rate of 6.8% in high-risk area. In addition, the severity of drought had enhanced, especially in Qamdo. The increased vulnerability locally and significantly enhanced hazard of drought disaster, with a shrinkage of 16.3% in the low-value area and an expansion of 7.4% in the high-value area, being the determinants of drought disaster risk. Therefore, agricultural areas of the TR are the focal locations where risk of drought disaster needs to be managed.

Key words: Tibet, TR, Tibetan Plateau, drought disaster, risk evolution

CHEN Qiong, LIU Fenggui, CHEN Ruijie, ZHAO Zhilong, ZHANG Yili, CUI Peng, ZHENG Du. Trends and risk evolution of drought disasters in Tibet Region, China[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(11): 1859-1875.

Figures/Tables 11

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

References 34

[1]	An Z S, Kutzbach J E, Prell W L et al., 2001. Evolution of Asian monsoons and phased uplift of the Himalaya-Tibetan Plateau since Late Miocene times. Nature, 411(6833):62-66.
[2]	Andrey J, Mills B, Leahy M et al., 2003. Weather as a chronic hazard for road transportation in Canadian cities. Natural Hazards, 28(2/3):319-343.
[3]	Ashok K M, Vijay P S , 2010. A review of drought concepts. Journal of Hydrology, 391(1/2):202-216.
[4]	Birkmann J , 2013. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 26-45.
[5]	Du Jun, Hu Jun, Chen Hua et al., 2006. Trend of surface humid index in the middle reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River over Tibet in recent 40 years. Journal of Natural Resources, 21(2):196-203. (in Chinese)
[6]	Du Jun, Ma Yucai , 2004. Climatic trend of rainfall over Tibetan Plateau from 1971 to 2000. Acta Geographica Sinica, 59(3):375-382. (in Chinese)
[7]	Du Jun, Xiang Yuyi , 2000. Research on climatic character and defensive measures against summer drought in Tibet. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 18(1):101-107. (in Chinese)
[8]	Gao Maofang, Qiu Jianjun , 2011. Characteristics and distribution law of major natural disasters in Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 25(8):101-106. (in Chinese)
[9]	Ge Quansheng, Zou Ming, Zheng Jingyun et al., 2008. Integrated Assessment of Natural Disaster Risks in China. Beijing: Science Press, 2-275. (in Chinese)
[10]	Geriving S , 2006. Multi-risk assessment of Europe’s regions. In: Birkmann J (ed). Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of National Origin. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 210-226.
[11]	Houghton J T, Ding Y H , 2001. The scientific basis. In: IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Summary for Policy Maker and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. London: Cambridge University Press, 98.
[12]	IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-151.
[13]	Kutzbach J E, Prell W L, Ruddiman W F , 1993. Sensitivity of Eurasian climate to surface uplift of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geology, 101(2):177-190.
[14]	Li Sisi, Yao Zhijun, Liu Zhaofei et al., 2019. The spatio-temporal characteristics of drought across Tibet, China: Derived from meteorological and agricultural drought indexes. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 1-16.
[15]	Liang Jingjing, Zhang Bo, Ma Bin et al., 2018. Drought evolution characteristics on the Tibetan Plateau based on daily standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 40(6):1100-1109. (in Chinese)
[16]	Liu Guangxuan, Wen Kegang , 2008. Chinese Meteorological Disasters Ceremony (Tibet Volume). Beijing: China Meteorological Press, 8-25. (in Chinese)
[17]	Liu Xiaodong, Cheng Zhigang, Zhang Ran , 2009. The A1B scenario projection for climate change over the Tibetan Plateau in the next 30-50 years. Plateau Meteorology, 28(3):475-484. (in Chinese)
[18]	Liu Xiaodong, Li Li, An Zhisheng , 2001. Tibetan Plateau uplift and drying in Eurasian interior and Northern Africa. Quaternary Sciences, 21(2):114-122. (in Chinese)
[19]	Manabe S, Broccoli A J , 1990. Mountains and arid climates of middle latitudes. Science, 247(4939):192-194.
[20]	Manabe S, Terpstra T B , 1974. The effects of mountains on the general circulation of the atmosphere by numerical experiments. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 31(1):3-42.
[21]	Sun Honglie , 1998. Formation and Evolution of the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, 152-194.
[22]	Tenzin Zuozha , 2008. Civil Administration in Tibet for 30 years (1978-2008). Beijing: China Society Press, 5-98. (in Chinese)
[23]	Tibet Statistical Yearbook Editorial Committee (TSYEC), 1989. Tibet Social Economy Statistical Yearbook(1988). Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese)
[24]	Tibet Statistical Yearbook Editorial Committee (TSYEC), 1996. Tibet Statistical Yearbook(1995) . Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese)
[25]	Tibet Statistical Yearbook Editorial Committee (TSYEC), 2006. Tibet Statistical Yearbook(2005). Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese)
[26]	Tibet Statistical Yearbook Editorial Committee (TSYEC), 2016. Tibet General Survey Team of National Bureau of Statistics, Tibet Statistical Yearbook(2015). Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese)
[27]	UNYISDR, 2004. Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva: United Nations Publication.
[28]	Xiong Junnan, Liu Zhiqi, Fan Chunkun et al., 2017. Temporal and spatial distribution characteristics and changing trend of meteorologic disaster in Tibet Autonomous Region from 1983 through 2013. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 39(6):1221-1231. (in Chinese)
[29]	Xu Zongxue, Zhang Ling, Huang Junxiong et al., 2007. Long-term trend of temperature, precipitation and relative humidity in the Tibetan region. Meteorological Monthly, 33(7):82-88. (in Chinese)
[30]	Ye Duzheng, Gao Youxi , 1979. Meteorology of Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Beijing: Science Press, 1-278. (in Chinese)
[31]	Zeng Xingquan, Bai Lijun, Wei Zexiu et al., 2016. Transcriptome analysis revealed the drought-responsive genes in Tibetan hulless barley. BMC Genomics, 17(1):386.
[32]	Zhang Hezhen, Nimaji, Duojiciren, 2016. Variation characteristics of the longest continuous dry days: Tibet, 1961-2010. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 32(35):151-154. (in Chinese)
[33]	Zhao Junfang, Guo Jianping, Fang Shibo et al., 2011. Trends of Tibet’s dry-wet condition under future climate scenario. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 32(1):61-66. (in Chinese)
[34]	Zhao Zhilong, Zhang Yili, Liu Fenggui et al., 2013. Drought disaster risk analysis of Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Mountain Science, 31(6):672-684. (in Chinese)

Grade I indexes	Grade II indexes	Grade Ⅲ indexes
$H$ Risk	H_l Historical risk (0.4)	Historical drought frequency (0.500); Historical drought intensity (0.500)
$H$ Risk	H_q Potential risk (0.6)	Annual mean precipitation (0.530); Annual mean temperature (0.173); Average runoff depth (0.297)

Grade I indexes	Grade II indexes		Grade Ⅲ indexes
V	E Physical exposure (0.286)		Number of animals per unit area/cultivated area (0.173); Population density (0.297); Proportion of agricultural output/Proportion of animal husbandry output (0.530)
Vulnerability	S Susceptibility (0.286)		Dry land proportion/Grassland proportion (0.667); Grain yield/ Proportion of large domestic animals (0.333)
	D ability to cope (0.428)	D_i Basic disaster capability (0.6)	Per-capita net income of farmers and herdsmen (0.317); Per cultivated area/Per grassland area (0.091); Grain output per capita/Livestock per capita (0.091); Average cultural level of farmers and herdsmen (0.2); Topographic relief (0.091); Government emergency management capability (0.210)
	D ability to cope (0.428)	D_z Special disaster capacity (0.4)	Meteorological station density (0.167); Engineering disaster prevention ability (0.833)