Method for assessing the fragility of immovable cultural heritage

Abstract

The present application relates to the vulnerability evaluation method of immovable cultural relics, comprising the following steps: 1, determining the vulnerability evaluation index; 2, determining the evaluation index vulnerability value grading standard; 3, obtaining evaluation index data and vulnerability value assignment; 4, determining the vulnerability evaluation index weight; 5, constructing the vulnerability evaluation model; 6, dividing the vulnerability level; 7, calculating the vulnerability index; 8, determining the vulnerability level of immovable cultural relics. The method of the present application can well evaluate the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics under the influence of natural disasters such as flood, earthquake and other disasters at different scales, and has universal applicability.

Description

Technical fields:

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of disaster prevention, mitigation and preventive protection of immovable cultural relics, and involves a method for assessing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics under the influence of natural disasters. The method includes determining vulnerability assessment indicators, classifying and assigning vulnerability values ​​to assessment indicators, determining the weights of assessment indicators, constructing a vulnerability assessment model, classifying vulnerability levels and calculating vulnerability indices. Background technology:

[0002] my country possesses abundant immovable cultural relics, characterized by their large quantity, scale, high value, diverse types, and complex structure. However, due to the complex and ever-changing natural environment accompanied by numerous, widespread, and frequent disasters, the conditions surrounding immovable cultural relics are deteriorating, leading to frequent incidents of damage and natural destruction, resulting in irreparable and enormous losses. Therefore, improving prevention and protection capabilities, as well as disaster prevention and mitigation capabilities, is a crucial issue facing the current work of protecting immovable cultural relics. Conducting vulnerability assessments of immovable cultural relics under natural disasters is key to disaster prevention, mitigation, and preventative protection.

[0003] Currently, research on natural disasters affecting immovable cultural relics mainly focuses on the stability assessment of ancient buildings coupled with seismic hazards, employing methods such as damage index parameters, quasi-static calculations, and numerical simulations to analyze the seismic stability of ancient buildings. However, these methods primarily target the damage to the cultural relics themselves and do not comprehensively assess the impact of natural disasters and the vulnerability factors of immovable cultural relics. Existing assessment methods have the following problems: the assessment objects are mostly specific to specific research subjects and lack universal applicability; the assessment objects are singular, considering only individual cultural relics and failing to consider the influencing factors of the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales, which is not conducive to the overall control of the condition of cultural relics by management units at different levels; the scientific nature of the selection of assessment indicators needs to be improved, and research on the selection of indicators and the correlation between indicators is lacking.

[0004] To address the above problems, this invention provides a method for assessing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics. Based on the relevant factors affecting the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales and the correlation between immovable cultural relics and natural disasters, an assessment index system for the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at each scale is constructed, with provinces, counties, and cultural relic protection units as three assessment scales. Summary of the Invention:

[0005] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for assessing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics under the influence of natural disasters. The natural disasters refer to those caused by meteorological, hydrological, earthquake, geological, and other factors, including but not limited to floods or earthquakes. The immovable cultural relics mainly include ancient sites, ancient buildings, grottoes, and stone carvings.

[0006] This invention provides a method for assessing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics, comprising the following steps:

[0007] 1. Determine the vulnerability assessment indicators for immovable cultural relics.

[0008] Based on the factors influencing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales due to natural disasters, vulnerability assessment indicators at different scales are determined.

[0009] The assessment scale is divided into three levels: provincial, county, and cultural relic protection unit. These scales are used by cultural relic management departments at different levels to comprehensively control the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics within each scale, aiming to achieve the goals of monitoring and early warning, preventative protection, management, and research of immovable cultural relics, and to reduce damage from natural disasters. Specifically, the provincial scale uses the immovable cultural relics within a county or county-level city as the assessment unit, the county scale uses cultural relic protection units as the assessment unit, and the cultural relic protection unit scale uses individual cultural relics as the assessment unit.

[0010] The main factors influencing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales due to natural disasters include the exposure level of the relics, the sensitivity of the relics themselves, and the disaster response capabilities of the relics' protection and management. Vulnerability assessment indicators are selected by combining these key influencing factors with different assessment scales. These assessment indicators include indicators related to the attributes of immovable cultural relics, indicators related to the relics themselves, and indicators related to the protection and management of the relics.

[0011] Under different assessment scales, secondary assessment indicators are set under primary assessment indicators, tertiary assessment indicators are set under secondary assessment indicators, and so on; and assessment indicator systems of different scales are constructed from three aspects: assessment indicator classification, assessment indicator description, and assessment indicator vulnerability value classification.

[0012] (1) Provincial scale: Within the provincial scale, the entire immovable cultural relics within a county or county-level city are used as the assessment unit. Based on the three factors affecting vulnerability of immovable cultural relics—exposure, sensitivity, and coping ability—three primary assessment indicators are set up: cultural relic attributes, cultural relic itself, and protection and management (see Table 1).

[0013] Table 1: Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Provincial Scale (Based on County as the Assessment Unit)

[0014]

[0015] The evaluation criteria for cultural relics include two secondary indicators: relics density and relics level; the evaluation criteria for the relics themselves include one secondary indicator: relics type; and the evaluation criteria for protection and management include four secondary indicators: management institutions, disaster prevention systems, disaster prevention projects, and monitoring and early warning. Details of each level of evaluation indicator are shown in Table 2.

[0016] Table 2: Explanation of Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Provincial Scale

[0017]

[0018]

[0019] (2) County scale: Within the county scale, cultural relics protection units are used as the evaluation units. Based on the exposure, sensitivity and response capabilities of immovable cultural relics, three primary evaluation indicators are set: cultural relics attributes, cultural relics themselves, and protection and management.

[0020] The cultural relic attribute indicators include two secondary assessment indicators: cultural relic area and cultural relic level; the cultural relic body indicators include two secondary assessment indicators: cultural relic type and structural type; and the protection and management indicators include six secondary assessment indicators: management institution, disaster prevention plan, emergency plan, disaster prevention facilities, protection project, and monitoring and early warning (see Table 3). Detailed explanations of each level of assessment indicator are shown in Table 4.

[0021] Table 3: Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Immovable Cultural Relics at the County Level (Based on Cultural Relics Protection Units)

[0022]

[0023] Table 4: Explanation of Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Immovable Cultural Relics at the County Scale

[0024]

[0025]

[0026] (3) Cultural Relics Protection Unit Scale: Within the cultural relics protection unit scale, each individual cultural relic is used as the assessment unit. Based on the exposure, sensitivity, and response capabilities of immovable cultural relics, three primary assessment indicators are set: cultural relic attributes, cultural relic body, and protection and management. Cultural relic attribute indicators include four secondary assessment indicators: cultural relic area, cultural relic height, cultural relic age, and cultural relic value correlation. Cultural relic body indicators include three secondary assessment indicators: cultural relic type, structural type, and structural stability. Protection and management indicators include four secondary assessment indicators: daily maintenance, protective facilities, protection and repair projects, and monitoring and early warning.

[0027] The stability index of the cultural relic structure is characterized by two tertiary evaluation indicators: structural damage and material deterioration. The structural damage indicators include three Level 4 assessment indicators: damage, deformation, and failure, used to characterize structural damage. The damage indicators include two Level 5 assessment indicators: cracking and erosion. The deformation indicators include one Level 5 assessment indicator: tilting or flashover. The failure indicators include one Level 5 assessment indicator: collapse. Cracking is characterized by two Level 6 assessment indicators: crack density and maximum crack width. Eroding is characterized by two Level 6 assessment indicators: erosion area ratio and maximum erosion depth. Tilting or flashover is characterized by two Level 6 indicators: tilting and / or flashover area ratio and maximum tilting and / or flashover value. Collapse is characterized by one Level 6 assessment indicator: collapse area ratio. The material degradation indicators include one Level 4 indicator: physical properties. The physical property indicators include two Level 5 indicators: mechanical properties and disintegration resistance. Mechanical properties are characterized by one Level 6 assessment indicator: compressive strength, and disintegration resistance is characterized by one Level 6 assessment indicator: disintegration index (see Table 5). The details of the evaluation indicators at each level are shown in Table 6.

[0028] Table 5: Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Scale of Cultural Heritage Protection Units (Based on Individual Cultural Relics as Assessment Units)

[0029]

[0030]

[0031] Table 6: Explanation of the indicators for assessing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics to disasters at the level of cultural heritage sites.

[0032]

[0033]

[0034]

[0035] 2. Determine the grading criteria for vulnerability values ​​of assessment indicators.

[0036] The Delphi method is used to determine the degree of influence of the assessment indicators on vulnerability. Then, each assessment indicator is divided into 3-5 vulnerability value levels based on the degree of influence, with the values ​​evenly distributed between 0 and 1. The vulnerability value levels for assessment indicators at the provincial, county, and cultural relic protection unit scales are shown in Tables 7.1-7.3, respectively. For example, with 5 levels, they can be divided into 0-0.2, 0.2-0.4, 0.4-0.6, and 0.8-1.

[0037] Table 7.1 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators and Vulnerability Value Classification for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Provincial Scale

[0038]

[0039]

[0040] Table 7.2 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators and Vulnerability Value Classification for Immovable Cultural Relics at the County Scale

[0041]

[0042]

[0043] Table 7.3 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators and Vulnerability Value Classification for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Scale of Cultural Heritage Sites

[0044]

[0045]

[0046]

[0047] 3. Obtain data for assessment indicators and assign vulnerability values.

[0048] (1) Obtaining data on assessment indicators for the assessment unit: The assessment indicator data were obtained through reviewing cultural relic archives, conducting on-site investigations, and analyzing and testing with instruments and equipment. Among these, various structural stability indicators, such as crack density and width, erosion area and depth, tilt and / or bulging angle, compressive strength, and disintegration index, were monitored / tested to obtain the corresponding indicator data. For example, the crack width within the assessment unit was measured using a crack gauge or ruler, and the maximum crack width was recorded. The crack width was monitored by comparing the maximum crack width obtained at different times. The tilt angle was measured using a tilt gauge or inclinometer, and the tilt angle was monitored by comparing the tilt angle obtained at different times. The erosion area and depth were measured using a ruler, and the erosion was monitored by the values ​​obtained at different times. The compressive strength and disintegration index were determined by first sampling the target, and then testing the samples in the laboratory using a material testing machine and a disintegration resistance tester to obtain the corresponding compressive strength and disintegration resistance data.

[0049] (2) Determine the vulnerability values ​​of the assessment indicators: Based on the vulnerability value classification standard of the assessment indicators in step 2, assign vulnerability values ​​to the data obtained by each indicator in the assessment unit one by one.

[0050] 4. Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators

[0051] The weights of the evaluation indicators were determined by combining the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process, and the indicators were ranked and assigned values ​​based on the degree of influence of the peer indicators on the vulnerability of the higher-level indicators.

[0052] (1) Construct a judgment matrix: Based on the subordinate relationship of the indicators, use the Delphi method to score the importance of the evaluation indicators and judge the importance of different indicators under the same indicator category and level.

[0053] Based on the content and hierarchical relationship of the evaluation indicators, an expert panel of no fewer than 50 experts will score the evaluation indicators according to their importance: 0-20 is unimportant, 21-40 is somewhat important, 41-60 is moderately important, 61-80 is relatively important, and 81-100 is very important. The average score for each evaluation indicator will be calculated, and the importance ranking among the indicators will be determined by the average score.

[0054] Based on the Delphi method evaluation results, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to establish a hierarchical analysis judgment matrix for peer indicators, taking both peer indicators and indicator subordination as units. The given judgment matrix is ​​then assigned values ​​using the ratio scaling method.

[0055] The comparison judgment matrix Dv is in the following form:

[0056]

[0057]

[0058] Among them, P ij P represents i For P j The numerical representation of relative importance. It has the following properties: (1) P ij >0; (2)P ij =1 / P ij (3)P ij =1. Using the 1-9 scale, scores are assigned to the comparison results between different indicators, with different numerical values ​​representing different levels of importance. P ij The values ​​can be 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and their reciprocals. 1 indicates that the two indicators are equally important; 3 indicates that one indicator is slightly more important than the other; 5 indicates that one indicator is relatively more important than the other; 7 indicates that one indicator is relatively very important than the other; 9 indicates that one indicator is relatively extremely important than the other; 2, 4, 6, and 8 represent the median values ​​of the above adjacent judgments; the reciprocal indicates that the ratio of the importance of factor i to factor j is P. ij Therefore, the importance ratio of factor j to factor i is 1 / P. ij .

[0059] (2) Calculation of index weights: Normalize the judgment matrix and substitute the assignment result into the weight vector calculation formula to obtain the index weight W.

[0060] The formula for calculating the weight vector is as follows:

[0061]

[0062]

[0063]

[0064] In the above formula, M i To determine the row product of a matrix, W i Let W be the weight of the i-th row, and W be the weight of the indicator.

[0065] (3) Consistency test: The consistency test of the index weights obtained above is performed to determine the consistency of the matrix and reduce the error.

[0066] The consistency test formula is as follows:

[0067]

[0068]

[0069]

[0070] λ max Let A be the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, n be the matrix order, j be the number of columns, A be the judgment matrix, W be the weight vector of the corresponding column indicators, CI be the matrix consistency index, and RI be the average random consistency index, with values ​​shown in Table 8. CR is the consistency ratio. When CR < 0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​considered to have good consistency. When CR ≥ 0.1, the matrix needs to be re-assigned and re-tested.

[0071] order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

[0072] 5. Construct a vulnerability assessment model, using the comprehensive index method to construct a vulnerability assessment model for immovable cultural relics; the vulnerability index calculation formula is shown in Formula 7 below:

[0073]

[0074] In the above formula, w1, w2, and w3 represent the weights of the cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and the protection and management indicators, respectively; A, B, and C represent the values ​​of their corresponding indicators; m, n, and l are the number of their respective indicators; and w ai w bi w ci These correspond to the weights of each item within the indicator.

[0075] 6. Classify the vulnerability levels of immovable cultural relics.

[0076] The vulnerability levels were divided at equal intervals, and the vulnerability index of immovable cultural relics was divided into 5 levels in the range of 0-1. The vulnerability values ​​were 0-0.2 for low vulnerability, 0.2-0.4 for moderate vulnerability, 0.4-0.6 for vulnerability, 0.6-0.8 for relatively vulnerability, and 0.8-1 for high vulnerability.

[0077] 7. Calculate the vulnerability index to determine the vulnerability level of immovable cultural relics:

[0078] Then, the vulnerability values ​​of the assessment indicators obtained in step 3) and the weights of the assessment indicators obtained in step 4) are substituted into the vulnerability assessment model constructed in step 5) to calculate the vulnerability index. Then, the vulnerability level of the immovable cultural relics is determined by referring to the vulnerability level classification standard described in step 6) above. Attached Figure Description

[0079] Figure 1 It is an indicator for assessing the vulnerability of ancient sites and cultural relics at the provincial level in Shanxi Province.

[0080] Figure 2 It is an indicator for assessing the vulnerability of ancient sites and cultural relics at the county level in Shanxi Province.

[0081] Figure 3 It is an indicator for assessing the vulnerability of ancient cultural relics sites under the standards of cultural relics protection units in Shanxi Province.

[0082] Beneficial effects:

[0083] Based on my country's administrative divisions and the characteristics of natural disasters, this invention constructs a vulnerability assessment index system at three scales—provincial, county, and cultural relic protection unit—combining factors influencing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales, including their cultural value, environment, physical characteristics, and protection management. Different assessment units are set up according to different assessment scales, resulting in more scientific selection of assessment indicators and better correlation between indicators. The assessment results facilitate comprehensive control of the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different levels by cultural relic management departments and professional technicians, achieving the goals of monitoring and early warning, preventive protection, management, and research, and reducing the damage of natural disasters to cultural relics. Therefore, this invention's method can effectively assess the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales under the influence of natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes, and has universal applicability. Detailed implementation method:

[0084] The following section uses the example of flood disasters involving immovable cultural relics and ancient sites at different scales in Shanxi Province to conduct a vulnerability assessment, specifically illustrating the application of the method of this invention.

[0085] Example 1: Vulnerability Assessment of Ancient Sites at the Provincial Scale

[0086] 1. Determine the vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites and cultural relics at the provincial scale.

[0087] This embodiment uses ancient sites—national key cultural relics protection units in Shanxi Province—as the assessment object, with counties as the assessment unit and ancient sites within a county as a whole for assessment. Based on the distribution, site characteristics, and current status of protection and management of immovable cultural relics and ancient sites in Shanxi Province, vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the provincial scale of Shanxi Province are determined (see Table 1). Figure 1 As shown.

[0088] Shanxi Province has 26 counties with national key cultural relics protection units - ancient sites, as shown in Table 9.1.

[0089] Table 9.1 Vulnerability Assessment Units for Immovable Cultural Relics at the Provincial Scale in Shanxi Province

[0090]

[0091]

[0092] 2. Assigning vulnerability values ​​to assessment indicators

[0093] 2.1 Obtaining evaluation indicator data

[0094] Based on literature review and field investigations, data on vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites in various counties of Shanxi Province at the provincial level were obtained, as shown in Table 9.2. Table 9.2 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators for Ancient Sites at the Provincial Level in Shanxi Province

[0095]

[0096]

[0097]

[0098]

[0099] 2.2 Assigning Vulnerability Values ​​to Assessment Indicators

[0100] Based on the vulnerability value classification table of the vulnerability assessment index for immovable cultural relics at the provincial scale (see Table 7.1), and combined with the data obtained from the vulnerability assessment index of ancient sites in various counties of Shanxi Province, vulnerability values ​​were assigned as shown in Table 9.3.

[0101] Table 9.3 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators and Vulnerability Assignment Table for Ancient Sites in Various Counties of Shanxi Province at the Provincial Scale

[0102]

[0103] 3. Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators

[0104] 3.1 Constructing the judgment matrix

[0105] Based on the hierarchical relationship of the evaluation indicators, the Delphi method is used to score the importance of indicators within the same category and level, thus determining the importance of different indicators. Based on the Delphi scoring results, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to establish a hierarchical analysis judgment matrix for each level of indicators, and the ratio scaling method is used to assign values ​​to the given judgment matrix. For indicators at the same level, a judgment matrix is ​​established through pairwise comparisons.

[0106]

[0107] 3.2 Calculation of Evaluation Indicator Weights

[0108] A 11 The matrix is ​​normalized, and the assigned value is substituted into the weight vector calculation formula to obtain the index weight W.

[0109] According to formula (1), the product of each row of the judgment matrix is ​​obtained as follows:

[0110]

[0111] According to formula (2), the weight of the i-th row is obtained by taking the nth root of Mi (where n is the number of indicators):

[0112]

[0113] Based on formula (3), Wi is normalized to obtain the final weight vector as follows:

[0114]

[0115] 3.3 Consistency Check

[0116] The obtained index weights are subjected to a consistency check to determine the consistency of the matrix and reduce errors.

[0117]

[0118] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue according to formula (4):

[0119] Based on formula (5), calculate the consistency index:

[0120] Calculate the consistency ratio: n=3, from Table 9.4, RI=0.58

[0121] According to formula (6), The consistency is good and meets the requirements.

[0122] order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

[0123] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 21 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0124]

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0128] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 23 The weight vectors of the matrix evaluation indicators are as follows:

[0129]

[0130]

[0131]

[0132]

[0133]

[0134] CI=(λ max -4) / (4-1)=-0.0011

[0135] Since n = 4, referring to Table 9.4, we get RI = 0.90.

[0136] CR=CI / RI=-0.0011 / 0.90=-0.0013<0.1, the consistency is good and the requirements are met.

[0137] The weights of the vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the provincial scale of Shanxi Province were determined using the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process, as shown in Table 9.5.

[0138] Table 9.5 Weight values ​​of vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the provincial scale in Shanxi Province

[0139]

[0140] 4. Classify vulnerability levels

[0141] The vulnerability levels were divided into five levels within the range of (0-1) using an equally spaced vulnerability index, as shown in Table 9.6.

[0142] Vulnerability Low vulnerability Generally fragile Fragile More fragile Highly vulnerable Vulnerability 0<Vi≤0.2 0.2<Vi≤0.4 0.4<Vi≤0.6 0.6<Vi≤0.8 0.8<Vi≤1

[0143] 5. Calculate the vulnerability index

[0144] By substituting the vulnerability values ​​and weights of the assessment indicators into the vulnerability assessment model of this invention, the vulnerability index of ancient sites in each county at the provincial scale of Shanxi Province is calculated (as shown in Table 9.7). The calculation formula is shown in Equation 7 below:

[0145]

[0146] Where w1, w2, and w3 are the weights of the cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and the protection and management indicators, respectively; A, B, and C represent the values ​​of their corresponding indicators; m, n, and l are the number of their corresponding indicators; and w ai w bi w ci These correspond to the weights of each item within the indicator.

[0147] 6. Determine the vulnerability level

[0148] Based on the vulnerability index calculation results of ancient sites in various counties of Shanxi Province at the provincial level, and with reference to the vulnerability level classification standard, the vulnerability level of ancient sites in various counties of Shanxi Province was assessed (as shown in Table 9.7).

[0149] Table 9.7 Vulnerability Assessment Levels of Ancient Sites at the Provincial Scale in Shanxi Province

[0150]

[0151]

[0152] Example 2: Vulnerability Assessment of Ancient Sites at the County Level in Shanxi Province

[0153] 1. Determine vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the county level.

[0154] This embodiment uses the ancient site in Ruicheng County, Yuncheng City, Shanxi Province, a national key cultural relics protection unit, as the assessment object, and the cultural relics protection unit as the assessment unit to conduct a vulnerability assessment of the ancient site at the county scale. Based on the characteristics of the distribution of cultural relics, the current status of the relics themselves, and their preservation and management in Ruicheng County, Shanxi Province, vulnerability assessment indicators for the ancient site at the county scale were determined (see Table 3), such as... Figure 2 As shown.

[0155] 2. Assigning vulnerability values ​​to assessment indicators

[0156] 2.1 Obtaining evaluation indicator data

[0157] Ruicheng County has a total of 7 national key cultural relics protection units. Based on literature and field investigation, the vulnerability assessment index data of the 7 national key cultural relics protection units in Ruicheng County were obtained, as shown in Table 10.1.

[0158] Table 10.1 Data on Vulnerability Assessment Indicators of Ancient Sites in Ruicheng County

[0159]

[0160] 2.2 Assigning Vulnerability Values ​​to Assessment Indicators

[0161] Based on the vulnerability value classification standard of the vulnerability assessment index for ancient sites at the county level (see Table 7.2), and combined with the assessment index data, the vulnerability values ​​of the vulnerability assessment index for the seven ancient sites in Ruicheng County were assigned as shown in Table 10.2.

[0162] Table 10.2 Vulnerability Assessment Indicators and Vulnerability Value Assignments for Ancient Sites and Cultural Relics in Ruicheng County

[0163]

[0164]

[0165] 3. Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators

[0166] 3.1 Constructing the judgment matrix

[0167] Based on the hierarchical relationships of vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the county level, the Delphi method is used to score the importance of assessment indicators within the same category and level, thus determining the relative importance of different indicators. Based on the Delphi scoring results, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to establish hierarchical analysis judgment matrices for each major category of indicators, and the ratio scaling method is used to assign values ​​to the given judgment matrices. For indicators at the same level, judgment matrices are established through pairwise comparisons.

[0168]

[0169] 3.2 Calculation of Evaluation Indicator Weights

[0170] A 11 The matrix is ​​normalized, and the assigned value is substituted into the weight vector calculation formula to obtain the index weight W.

[0171] According to formula (1), the product of each row of the judgment matrix is ​​obtained as follows:

[0172]

[0173] Based on formula (2), the nth root of Mi (where n is the number of indicators) is obtained to get the weight of the i-th row as follows:

[0174]

[0175] Based on formula (3), Wi is normalized to obtain the final weight vector as follows:

[0176]

[0177] 3.3 Consistency Check

[0178] The obtained index weights are subjected to a consistency check to determine the consistency of the matrix and reduce errors.

[0179]

[0180] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue according to formula (4):

[0181] Based on formula (5), calculate the consistency index:

[0182] Calculate the consistency ratio: n=3, from Table 10.3, RI=0.58

[0183] According to formula (6), The consistency is good and meets the requirements.

[0184] order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

[0185] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 21 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0186]

[0187]

[0188]

[0189] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0190] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 22 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0191]

[0192]

[0193]

[0194] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0195] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 23 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0196]

[0197]

[0198]

[0199]

[0200]

[0201] Calculate the consistency index:

[0202] CI=(λ max -6) / (6-1)=0.0487

[0203] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0204] Since n = 6, referring to Table 10.3, we get RI = 1.24.

[0205] CR = CI / RI = 0.0487 / 1.24 = 0.0393 < 0.1, indicating good consistency and meeting the requirements.

[0206] Based on the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process, the weights of the vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the county level in Shanxi Province were determined, as shown in Table 10.4.

[0207] Table 10.4 Weight values ​​of vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the county level in Shanxi Province

[0208]

[0209] 4. Classify vulnerability levels

[0210] The vulnerability levels were divided into five levels within the range of (0-1) at the county level in Shanxi Province using an equally spaced vulnerability index, as shown in Table 10.5.

[0211] Vulnerability Low vulnerability Generally fragile Fragile More fragile Highly vulnerable Vulnerability 0<Vi≤0.2 0.2<Vi≤0.4 0.4<Vi≤0.6 0.6<Vi≤0.8 0.8<Vi≤1

[0212] 5. Calculate the vulnerability index

[0213] By substituting the vulnerability values ​​and weights of the assessment indicators into the vulnerability assessment model of this invention, the vulnerability index of each ancient site and cultural relic protection unit at the county level in Shanxi Province is calculated. See Table 10.6. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0214]

[0215] Where w1, w2, and w3 are the weights of the cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and the protection and management indicators, respectively; A, B, and C represent the values ​​of their corresponding indicators; and m, n, and l are the number of their respective indicators.ai w bi w ci These correspond to the weights of each item within the indicator.

[0216] 6. Determine the vulnerability level

[0217] Based on the vulnerability index calculation results of ancient sites at the county level and referring to the vulnerability level classification standard, the vulnerability level of each ancient site cultural relic protection unit at the county level in Shanxi Province was determined. As shown in Table 10.6.

[0218] Table 10.6 Vulnerability Levels of Ancient Sites and Cultural Relics Protection Units in Ruicheng County at the County Scale

[0219]

[0220] III. Vulnerability Assessment of Ancient Sites at the Scale of Cultural Relics Protection Units

[0221] 1. Determine the vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the scale of cultural relic protection units.

[0222] Taking the Puzhou Ancient City in Yongji City, a national key cultural relics protection unit, as an example, this study assesses the vulnerability of cultural relics protection units. Based on the characteristics of the distribution of cultural relics at the Puzhou Ancient City site, the relics themselves, and their current preservation and management, vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites under the cultural relics protection scale are determined (see Table 5), such as... Figure 3 As shown.

[0223] 2. Assigning vulnerability values ​​to assessment indicators

[0224] 2.1 Obtaining vulnerability assessment index data for ancient sites

[0225] The vulnerability assessment of ancient sites at the level of cultural relic protection units uses individual sites as assessment units. Based on the characteristics of the city walls of the Puzhou Ancient City site, they are divided into two categories: city gates and city walls. The city walls are further divided according to their ramparts, with different sections serving as assessment units, as shown in Table 11.1. Based on archival data, documentary materials, and on-site investigations, and using instruments such as crack gauges, inclinometers, and material testing machines, vulnerability assessment index data for each individual cultural relic at the Puzhou Ancient City site under flood disasters were obtained, as shown in Table 11.2.

[0226] Serial Number Individual cultural relics Serial Number Individual cultural relics Serial Number Individual cultural relics 1 North Gate 15 South wall (2 sections) 29 North side of the east wall (section 1) 2 South Gate 16 South wall (3 sections) 30 East side of the north wall (newly constructed section) 3 East Gate 17 South wall (4 sections) 31 East side of the north wall (unrepaired section) 4 Drum Tower 18 East wall (5 sections) 32 East side of the barbican 5 West Wall (Iron Ox Pavilion) 19 East wall (4 sections) 33 West side of the barbican 6 West wall (2 sections) 20 East wall (3 sections) 34 West side of the north wall 7 West Wall (3 newly built sections) 21 East wall (2 sections) 35 North wall of Tang Dynasty city (section 1) 8 West Wall (4 sections) 22 East Wall (Section 1) 36 East side wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (section 1) 9 West Wall (5 sections) 23 North side of the east wall (7 sections) 37 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (2 sections of ramparts) 10 West Wall (6 newly built sections) 24 North side of the east wall (6 sections) 38 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (3 sections) 11 West Wall (7 newly built sections) 25 North side of the east wall (5 sections) 39 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (4 sections of ramparts) 12 West Wall (8 sections) 26 North side of the east wall (4 sections of horse-faced ramparts) 40 South wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (section 1, facing outwards) 13 West Wall (9 sections) 27 North side of the east wall (section 3) 41 South wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (2 sections of ramparts) 14 South wall (section 1) 28 North side of the east wall (two newly constructed sections)

[0227] 2.2 Assigning Vulnerability Values ​​to Assessment Indicators

[0228] Based on the grading standard of vulnerability values ​​for ancient sites at the level of cultural relic protection units (see Table 7.3), vulnerability values ​​were assigned by combining the data of vulnerability assessment indicators for each individual cultural relic at the Puzhou Ancient City site. This is shown in Table 11.3.

[0229] Table 11.2 Evaluation Indicator Data for Each Evaluation Unit of the Puzhou Ancient City Site

[0230]

[0231]

[0232]

[0233] Table 11.3 Vulnerability Value Assignment Table for Each Assessment Unit of the Puzhou Ancient City Site

[0234]

[0235]

[0236] 3. Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators

[0237] 3.1 Constructing the judgment matrix

[0238] Based on the hierarchical relationships of vulnerability assessment indicators for ancient sites at the level of cultural relic protection units, the Delphi method is used to score the importance of assessment indicators within the same category and level, thus determining the importance of different indicators. Based on the Delphi scoring results, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to establish hierarchical analysis judgment matrices for each major category of indicators, and the ratio scaling method is used to assign values ​​to the given judgment matrices. For indicators at the same level, judgment matrices are established through pairwise comparisons.

[0239]

[0240]

[0241]

[0242] 3.2 Calculation of Evaluation Indicator Weights

[0243] A 11 The matrix is ​​normalized, and the assigned value is substituted into the weight vector calculation formula to obtain the index weight W.

[0244] According to formula (1), the product of each row of the judgment matrix is ​​obtained as follows:

[0245]

[0246] According to formula (2), the weight of the i-th row is obtained by taking the nth root of Mi (where n is the number of indicators):

[0247]

[0248] Based on formula (3), Wi is normalized to obtain the final weight vector as follows:

[0249]

[0250] 3.3 Consistency Check

[0251] The obtained index weights are subjected to a consistency check to determine the consistency of the matrix and reduce errors.

[0252]

[0253] Calculate the maximum eigenvalue according to formula (4):

[0254] Based on formula (5), calculate the consistency index:

[0255] Calculate the consistency ratio: n=3, from Table 11.4, RI=0.58

[0256] According to formula (6), The consistency is good and meets the requirements.

[0257] order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

[0258] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 21 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0259]

[0260]

[0261]

[0262] Calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix A. max :

[0263]

[0264]

[0265] Calculate the consistency index:

[0266] CI=(λ max -4) / (4-1)=0.103

[0267] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0268] Since n = 4, referring to Table 11.4, we get RI = 0.90.

[0269] CR = CI / RI = 0.103 / 0.90 = 0.092 < 0.1, indicating good consistency and meeting the requirements.

[0270] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 22 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0271]

[0272]

[0273]

[0274] Calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix A. max :

[0275]

[0276]

[0277] Calculate the consistency index:

[0278] CI=(λ max -3) / (3-1)=0.019

[0279] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0280] Since n = 3, referring to Table 11.4, we get RI = 0.58.

[0281] CR = CI / RI = 0.019 / 0.58 = 0.021 < 0.1, indicating good consistency and meeting the requirements.

[0282] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 23 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0283]

[0284]

[0285]

[0286] Calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix A. max :

[0287]

[0288]

[0289] Calculate the consistency index:

[0290] CI=(λ max -4) / (4-1)=0.039

[0291] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0292] Since n = 4, referring to Table 11.4, we get RI = 0.90.

[0293] CR = CI / RI = 0.039 / 0.90 = 0.035 < 0.1, indicating good consistency and meeting the requirements.

[0294] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 31 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0295]

[0296]

[0297]

[0298] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0299] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 41 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0300]

[0301]

[0302]

[0303] Calculate the largest eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix A. max :

[0304]

[0305]

[0306] Calculate the consistency index:

[0307] CI=(λ max -3) / (3-1)=0.019

[0308] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0309] Since n = 3, referring to Table 11.4, we get RI = 0.58.

[0310] CR = CI / RI = 0.019 / 0.58 = 0.021 < 0.1, indicating good consistency and meeting the requirements.

[0311] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 42 The weight vectors of the evaluation indicators in the judgment matrix are as follows:

[0312]

[0313]

[0314]

[0315] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0316] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 51 The weight vectors of the (cracking) judgment matrix evaluation indicators are as follows:

[0317]

[0318]

[0319]

[0320] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0321] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 52 The weight vectors of the (erosion) judgment matrix evaluation indicators are as follows:

[0322]

[0323]

[0324]

[0325] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0326] Similarly, A is calculated using formulas (1)-(6). 53 The weight vectors of the (skewed) judgment matrix evaluation indicators are as follows:

[0327]

[0328]

[0329]

[0330] Its index number is less than 2, so it does not need to undergo consistency testing.

[0331] Based on the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process, the weights of the vulnerability assessment indicators for the Puzhou Ancient City site at the cultural relic protection unit scale were determined, as shown in Table 11.5.

[0332] Table 11.5 Weight values ​​of vulnerability assessment indicators for the Puzhou Ancient City Site at the scale of cultural relic protection units

[0333]

[0334]

[0335] 4. Classify vulnerability levels

[0336] The vulnerability level of the Puzhou Ancient City site was divided into 5 levels within the range of (0-1) using an equally spaced vulnerability index, as shown in Table 11.6.

[0337] Vulnerability Low vulnerability Generally fragile Fragile More fragile Highly vulnerable Vulnerability 0<Vi≤0.2 0.2<Vi≤0.4 0.4<Vi≤0.6 0.6<Vi≤0.8 0.8<Vi≤1

[0338] 5. Calculate the vulnerability index

[0339] By assigning vulnerability values ​​and weights to the assessment indicators and substituting them into the vulnerability assessment model of this invention, the vulnerability index of each individual artifact at the Puzhou Ancient City site is calculated. This is shown in Table 11.7. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0340]

[0341] Where w1, w2, and w3 are the weights of the cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and the protection and management indicators, respectively; A, B, and C represent the values ​​of their corresponding indicators; m, n, and l are the number of their corresponding indicators; w ai w bi w ci These correspond to the weights of each item within the indicator.

[0342] 6. Determine the vulnerability level

[0343] Based on the vulnerability index calculation results of each individual cultural relic at the Puzhou Ancient City Site, and referring to the vulnerability level classification standard, the vulnerability level of each individual cultural relic at the Puzhou Ancient City Site was determined, as shown in Table 11.7.

[0344] Serial Number Individual cultural relics Vulnerability Vulnerability Value Classification Serial Number Individual cultural relics Vulnerability Vulnerability Value Classification 1 North Gate 0.81 Highly vulnerable 22 East Wall (Section 1) 0.77 More fragile 2 South Gate 0.63 More fragile 23 North side of the east wall (7 sections) 0.67 More fragile 3 East Gate 0.61 More fragile 24 North side of the east wall (6 sections) 0.53 Fragile 4 Drum Tower 0.40 Generally fragile 25 North side of the east wall (5 sections) 0.56 Fragile 5 West Wall (Iron Ox Pavilion) 0.58 Fragile 26 North side of the east wall (4 sections of horse-faced ramparts) 0.58 Fragile 6 West wall (2 sections) 0.54 Fragile 27 North side of the east wall (section 3) 0.61 More fragile 7 West Wall (3 newly built sections) 0.30 Generally fragile 28 North side of the east wall (two newly constructed sections) 0.59 Fragile 8 West Wall (4 sections) 0.64 More fragile 29 North side of the east wall (section 1) 0.79 More fragile 9 West Wall (5 sections) 0.68 More fragile 30 East side of the north wall (newly constructed section) 0.37 Generally fragile 10 West Wall (6 newly built sections) 0.34 Generally fragile 31 East side of the north wall (unrepaired section) 0.73 More fragile 11 West Wall (7 newly built sections) 0.38 Generally fragile 32 East side of the barbican 0.76 More fragile 12 West Wall (8 sections) 0.58 Fragile 33 West side of the barbican 0.76 More fragile 13 West Wall (9 sections) 0.45 Fragile 34 West side of the north wall 0.75 More fragile 14 South wall (section 1) 0.69 More fragile 35 North wall of Tang Dynasty city (section 1) 0.76 More fragile 15 South wall (2 sections) 0.72 More fragile 36 East side wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (section 1) 0.75 More fragile 16 South wall (3 sections) 0.76 More fragile 37 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (2 sections of ramparts) 0.75 More fragile 17 South wall (4 sections) 0.73 More fragile 38 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (3 sections) 0.78 More fragile 18 East wall (5 sections) 0.69 More fragile 39 East wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (4 sections of ramparts) 0.77 More fragile 19 East wall (4 sections) 0.76 More fragile 40 South wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (section 1, facing outwards) 0.76 More fragile 20 East wall (3 sections) 0.75 More fragile 41 South wall of Tang Dynasty city wall (2 sections of ramparts) 0.76 More fragile 21 East wall (2 sections) 0.57 Fragile

Claims

1. A vulnerability assessment method for immovable cultural relics, including the following steps: 1) Determine vulnerability assessment indicators Based on the factors influencing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics by natural disasters, assessment indicators for the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics at different scales were determined. The factors influencing the vulnerability of immovable cultural relics by natural disasters include the exposure level of the relics, the sensitivity of the relics themselves, and the disaster response capabilities of protection and management. The assessment scale is divided into provincial, county, and cultural relic protection unit levels. The assessment indicators include the cultural relic attribute indicators, cultural relic physical indicators, and cultural relic protection and management indicators. Within the provincial scale, the entirety of immovable cultural relics within a county or county-level city is used as the evaluation unit. Based on the exposure, sensitivity, and response capabilities of immovable cultural relics, the primary evaluation indicators are cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and protection and management. Among these, the cultural relic attribute indicators use cultural relic density and cultural relic level as secondary evaluation indicators, the cultural relic itself indicators use cultural relic type as a secondary evaluation indicator, and the protection and management indicators use management institutions, disaster prevention systems, disaster prevention projects, and monitoring and early warning as secondary evaluation indicators. At the county level, immovable cultural relics protection units are used as the evaluation unit. Based on the exposure, sensitivity, and response capabilities of immovable cultural relics, the primary evaluation indicators are cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and protection and management. The secondary evaluation indicators for cultural relic attributes are the area and grade of the cultural relic. The secondary evaluation indicators for the cultural relic itself are the type and structural type of the cultural relic. The secondary evaluation indicators for protection and management are the management agency, disaster prevention planning, emergency response plan, disaster prevention facilities, protection projects, and monitoring and early warning. Within the scope of cultural relic protection units, immovable cultural relics are used as the assessment unit. Based on the exposure, sensitivity, and response capabilities of immovable cultural relics, cultural relic attributes, cultural relic body, and protection and management are set as primary assessment indicators. Cultural relic attribute indicators include cultural relic area, cultural relic height, cultural relic age, and cultural relic value correlation as secondary assessment indicators. Cultural relic body indicators include cultural relic type, structural type, and structural stability as secondary assessment indicators. Protection and management indicators include daily maintenance, protective facilities, protection and repair projects, and monitoring and early warning as secondary assessment indicators. 2) Determine the vulnerability value grading criteria for assessment indicators. Vulnerability values ​​are classified according to the degree of impact of the assessment indicators on vulnerability. 3) Obtain assessment indicator data and assign vulnerability values; 4) Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators The weights of the evaluation indicators were determined by combining the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process. 5) Construct a vulnerability assessment model A comprehensive index method is used to construct a vulnerability assessment model for immovable cultural relics; the vulnerability assessment model for immovable cultural relics is as follows: (Equation 7); in, , , These represent the weights of cultural relic attributes, the cultural relic itself, and protection and management indicators; A, B, and C represent the values ​​of their respective indicators; m, n, ... The number of its corresponding indicators; , , The corresponding weights of each item within the indicator; 6) Classify vulnerability levels The fragility of immovable cultural relics is divided into 5 levels at equal intervals within the range of 0-1; 7) Calculate the vulnerability index and determine the vulnerability level accordingly.

2. The assessment method according to claim 1, wherein in step 2), the degree of influence of the assessment index content on vulnerability is determined by the Delphi method, and then each assessment index is divided into 3-5 vulnerability value levels according to the degree of influence, with the level values ​​evenly distributed between 0 and 1 at equal intervals.

3. The assessment method according to claim 1, wherein in step 3), the assessment index data is obtained through reviewing cultural relic archives, conducting on-site investigations, and testing with instruments and equipment, and the vulnerability value of the assessment index is assigned according to the grading standard in step 2).

4. The assessment method according to claim 1, wherein the structural stability index of the cultural relic includes structural damage and material deterioration as third-level assessment indicators; the structural damage index includes damage, deformation, and destruction as fourth-level assessment indicators; the damage index includes cracking and erosion as fifth-level assessment indicators; the deformation index includes tilting or bulging as fifth-level assessment indicators; the destruction index includes local collapse as fifth-level assessment indicators; the cracking includes crack density and maximum crack width as sixth-level assessment indicators; the erosion includes erosion area ratio and maximum erosion depth as sixth-level assessment indicators; the tilting or bulging includes tilting and / or bulging area ratio and maximum tilting or bulging value as sixth-level indicators; the collapse includes collapse area ratio as sixth-level assessment indicators; the material deterioration index includes physical properties as fourth-level indicators; the physical property index includes mechanical properties and disintegration resistance as fifth-level indicators; the mechanical properties include compressive strength as a sixth-level assessment indicator; and the disintegration resistance includes disintegration index as a sixth-level assessment indicator.

5. The evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein step 4) further comprises: (1) Construct the judgment matrix Based on the hierarchical relationship of the evaluation indicators, the Delphi method is used to score the importance of the evaluation indicators and determine the importance of different indicators under the same indicator category and level. Based on the scoring results of the Delphi method, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to establish the AHP judgment matrix for each major category of indicators, and the given judgment matrix is ​​assigned values ​​according to the ratio scaling method. (2) Calculation of indicator weights The judgment matrix is ​​normalized, and the assigned value is substituted into the weight vector calculation formula to obtain the index weight W. The weight vector calculation formula is as follows: (Equation 1); (Equation 2); (Equation 3); In the above formula, M i To determine the row product of a matrix, W i Let W be the weight of the i-th row, and W be the weight vector of the corresponding column index. (3) Consistency check The obtained index weights are subjected to a consistency check to determine the consistency of the matrix and reduce errors. The consistency check formula is as follows: (Equation 4); (Equation 5); (Formula 6); In equations 4, 5, and 6, Let A be the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, n be the matrix order, j be the number of columns, A be the judgment matrix, W be the weight vector of the corresponding column indicators, CI be the matrix consistency index, and RI be the average random consistency index. The values ​​of the consistency index RI for matrices of orders 1-9 are 0.00, 0.00, 0.58, 0.90, 1.12, 1.24, 1.32, 1.41, and 1.45, respectively. CR is the consistency ratio. When CR < 0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​considered to have good consistency. When CR ≥ 0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​reassigned and tested.

6. The assessment method according to claim 1, wherein in step 6), the five levels of vulnerability are: 0-0.2 is low vulnerability, 0.2-0.4 is moderate vulnerability, 0.4-0.6 is vulnerable, 0.6-0.8 is relatively vulnerable, and 0.8-1 is high vulnerability.

7. The assessment method according to claim 1, wherein in step 7), the vulnerability value of the assessment index obtained in step 3) and the weight of the assessment index obtained in step 4) are substituted into the vulnerability assessment model constructed in step 5) to calculate the vulnerability index, and then the vulnerability level of the immovable cultural relic is determined according to the calculation result and the vulnerability level classification standard in step 6).

Images