Weight Analysis Of Tourists' Torrential Rain Disaster Risk Perception Evaluation Indicators

Under the background of global climate change, natural disasters occurred frequently, it presents a challenge to human survival and development, at this time, the study of human adaptability to natural disaster is imminent. Qin-ba mountains is of great significance in the climate divide in China, and Qinling mountains is the boundary between the north and south China, the climate characteristics is different between north and south of Qinling mountains. In recent years, the tourism industry has developed rapidly in the area, however, it is a serious threat to the life and property safety of the tourists because of the frequent occurrence of heavy rains in this area. Tourists behavior is particularly important when faced with rainstorm disaster, however, the effectiveness of tourists behavior is influenced by their disaster risk perception, it's essential to research the rainstorm disaster risk perception of tourists in order to take relevant countermeasures and measures to enhance the iffectiveness of tourists behavior.The team members and the author completed the construction of the index system in the early stage of the project, and wrote the relevant article, However, different members using the different methods to calculation the weight of indicators, the results are different, it is difficult to determine the scientific and accuracy. Therefore, this paper focuses on how to scientifically and reasonably calculate the weight of the tourists'risk perception evaluation index, and provide the theoretical basis for the evaluation of tourists'risk perception ability. The traditional method of calculating index weight can be classified as subjective evaluation and objective evaluation method, however, the two methods have their advantages and limitations, the evaluation results of subjective evaluation method vulnerable to the influence of individual experience, the evaluation results of objective evaluation method may not consistent due to the different data structure and sample source, so it is always a problem to seek a kind of evaluation method which can combine the advantages and can avoid the limitation of the two kinds of evaluation methods.The paper firstly used principal component method to calculate the index weight of different scenic spot based on the sample data of seven scenic spot selected, get the rank of each indicators'importance in different scenic spot, and based on this to find out the general rule of indicators'importance, that is suitable for the whole study area refers to the standard rank of indicators'importance, and based on this used the order relation analysis method to calculate the final weight of each index. Though the objective method to calcalate the sequence of the index, the subjective method to calcalate the quantitative, finally obtains the index weight which can reduce the subjective and arbitrary carried by subjective method, and can reduce the objective method over reliance on sample data and lead to inconsistent findings. Therefore, the index weight distribution system applicable to the latter part of tourist risk perception ability evaluation.The following conclusions are drawn from the study:(1) Through the method of principal component to analysis the rank of indicators' importance in different spot have a certain difference, but it showed a general rule. By exploring this rule, find out the rank of indicators'importance which suitable for the whole research area. This sort takes into account the characteristics of all the sample data in the entire study area, so it has a strong representation. Importance ranking of the evaluation index of disaster mitigation knowledge part were:X8(emergency plan)>X5 (impact on human activities)> X3 (human activities which causing heavy rain disaster)>X4 (impact on the natural environment)>X1 (natural factors causing heavy rain disaster)>X7 (disaster prevention and mitigation propaganda)>X9 (knowledge and emergency behavior training)> X6 (disaster warning)>X2 (secondary disaster); Importance ranking of the evaluation index of disaster mitigation attitude part were: X12 (disaster management)>X13 (information disclosure)>X14 (disaster has been issued)>X11 (early warning system)>X10 (advance prevention)>X20 (whether to coordinate arrangements)>X19 (relationship between disaster prevention and mitigation and personal)>X18 (post disaster reconstruction)>X17 (sanitation and epidemic prevention)>X16 (channel dredging)>X15 (vegetation cover); Importance ranking of the evaluation index of disaster mitigation behavior part were:X23 (pay related expenses)>X21 (take part in insurance)>X22 (tickets with insurance)>X24 (whether to cooperate with the construction of disaster prevention and mitigation project)>X26 (measures taken when find unsafe phenomena)>X25 (pre-disaster preparation)>X27 (plan of post disaster action); Importance ranking of the second-rank index were:disaster mitigation knowledge> disaster mitigation attitude>disaster mitigation behavior.(2) On the basis of the index importance ranking, the final index weight is calculated by the order relation analysis method. The weight of each index is as follow.The index(X1?X9) weight of disaster mitigation knowledge were 0.103,0.037, 0.157,0.118,0.178,0.045,0.068,0.232,0.061; The index(X10?X20) weight of disaster mitigation attitude were 0.089,0.102,0.240,0.164,0.120,0.032,0.036,0.039,0.046, 0.055,0.078; The index(X21?X27) weight of disaster mitigation behavior were 0.210, 0.186,0.245,0.131,0.077,0.086,0.065; second-rank index weight of disaster mitigation knowledge was 0.416, second-rank index weight of disaster mitigation attitude was 0.347, second-rank index weight of disaster mitigation behavior was 0.237.