基于应对公共健康危害的广州社区恢复力评价及空间分异

公共健康危害形势日趋严峻,综合测度社区恢复力并探寻空间分异格局,有利于摸清城市公共健康水平及社区应对健康危害的能力,对推动社区健康治理、促进健康公平具有现实意义,同时对社会—生态系统恢复力研究向公共健康领域拓展及中国化探索具有理论创新意义。以广州市社区为基本单元,从自然环境、建成环境、社会资本、经济资本和政府制度5个子维度选取23个指标、32个表征要素建立应对公共健康危害的社区恢复力评价模型,运用灰色关联TOPSIS法对其进行测度,将社区恢复力划分为优秀、良好、中等、较差和差5个等级,结果显示：恢复力中等水平社区居多,优秀级和差级社区均较少,整体呈“橄榄型”结构,且城市社区恢复力优于乡村社区;社区恢复力空间上由中部向四周,东北部向西部,南部向北部梯度递减,各子系统空间格局差异显著;不同等级恢复力的社区呈“集群化”空间分布,优秀级呈“双中心”格局、良好级呈“核心—边缘”格局、中等和较差级均呈“大分散—小集中”格局、差级呈“边缘延伸”格局;中部、南部公共健康安全,西部相对较危险因而是城市公共健康安全重点防御区域。

Comprehensive evaluation and spatial differentiation of community resilience in Guangzhou based on response of the city to public health hazards

Due to the increasingly serious public health hazards situation, it is important to explore the pattern of spatial differentiation by evaluating community resilience comprehensively. Empirically, it not only helps to figure out the level of public health and the ability of community to deal with the health hazards, but also promotes health equity and community health governance. As for the theoretical contribution, it is innovative to apply community resilience at a micro-scale and public health perspective in China. The study constructs theoretical frameworks of community resilience based on social-ecosystem resilience theory in the basic unit of Guangzhou's communities. A community resilience evaluation model with gray correlation TOPSIS method is established, which contains 23 indicators and 32 variables from five dimensions, including natural environment, built environment, social capital, economic capital and political institution. Conclusions are drawn as follows: Firstly, the community resilience of Guangzhou was identified into five ranks (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor and Fail), and the overall structure turns out to be an olive-shaped pattern, while the community resilience for the urban area is superior to the rural communities. Secondly, the spatial features of community resilience show the trend of gradient decline (from center to edges, from middle-east to west and from south to north). It is indicated that subsystems differ significantly in spatial pattern while communities in all ranks are clustered geographically. There are four types of spatial distribution, which are "double centers type", "core-periphery type", "extensive dispersion with localized concentrations type", and "edge extension type". Finally, the safe area of public health is distributed in the central and southern parts of the city while the dangerous area is in the west, which should be the focus of the defense area of public health security.