See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338816830

Flood awareness among college students in flash flood alley: a case study of
Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, USA

Article in Papers in Applied Geography · November 2019

DOI: 10.1080/23754931.2019.1694966

CITATIONS READS

2 1,042

3 authors, including:

Daria Ponstingel Christina Wright Lopez

Cornell University The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University
6 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daria Ponstingel on 15 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Papers in Applied Geography

ISSN: 2375-4931 (Print) 2375-494X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpag20

Flood awareness among college students in flash

flood alley: a case study of Texas State University
in San Marcos, Texas, USA

Daria Ponstingel, Christina W. Lopez & Richard A. Earl

To cite this article: Daria Ponstingel, Christina W. Lopez & Richard A. Earl (2019): Flood
awareness among college students in flash flood alley: a case study of Texas State University in
San Marcos, Texas, USA, Papers in Applied Geography, DOI: 10.1080/23754931.2019.1694966

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2019.1694966

Published online: 27 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpag20
PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2019.1694966

Flood awareness among college students in flash flood alley: a

case study of Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, USA
Daria Ponstingel
, Christina W. Lopez, and Richard A. Earl
Department of Geography, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Texas State University (TXST) in San Marcos, Texas is in one of the most Flood hazards; flood risk
flood prone regions of the U.S. due to the synergistic combination of perceptions; students’ flood
extreme precipitation intensities, low infiltration surfaces, and the hydro- awareness; students’
vulnerability to hazards;
logically efficient drainage of the eastern Texas Hill Country. Four flood Heuristics in Judgment
events occurred along the San Marcos River and adjacent streams from
2015 to 2017 wherein access to the University was restricted. Students
who reside in San Marcos as well as students who commute represent a
vulnerable population. Starting in the fall of 2015, a survey was conducted
among the students of TXST to inquire about their experience(s) with
flooding. The purpose of the survey was to fill a gap in the research
regarding flood risk perceptions and awareness among students, and to
determine (a) what factors contribute to the flood risk perceptions and
awareness among students of TXST, (b) what role, if any, do heuristic prin-
ciples play in forming students’ risk perceptions, and (c) if there is a need
to organize flood education at TXST. Results (n ¼ 481) suggest that heuris-
tic principles, such as using the previous experience with flooding, influ-
ence students’ behavior, and students would benefit from a University-
wide flood education program.

Highlights
 Students with high risk perceptions of flooding would more likely take precautions, while those
with low risk perceptions may have a careless attitude towards flood events and their consequences.
Therefore, there is a strong need of additional flood education and flood awareness campaigns at
Texas State University to improve risk communication and flood management.
 Heuristic principles play an important role in forming students’ risk perceptions of floods: stu-
dents appeal to their prior experiences with flood events and estimate their level of prepared-
ness to floods based on their level of knowledge about floods.
 Most of the Texas State University’s students who have high flood risk perceptions are senior
students, 21-22 years old, rent apartment/house/room, and do not have flood insurance.
 Most of the Texas State University’s students who have high flood risk perceptions live in San
Marcos within 0.1 to 0.5 mile to the rivers.
 Majority of the students who took the survey show low levels of flood awareness and flood
preparedness behavior.

CONTACT Daria Ponstingel d_a292@txstate.edu Department of Geography, Texas State University, 601 University Dr,
San Marcos, TX 78666.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/rpag.

Present address: 601 University Dr, San Marcos, TX, 78666.
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2019.1694966
ß 2019 Applied Geography Conferences
2 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Introduction
From the twentieth to the beginning of the twenty-first century, flooding accounted for approxi-
mately one-third of natural disasters (Adikari and Yoshitani 2009). These floods can prove fatal.
Indeed, at least 70 deaths were caused by Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 as unprecedented
flooding occurred in east Texas. (Jonkman et al. 2018). The residents of San Marcos experienced
two major floods in 2015 with lesser floods in 2016 and 2017. The issue of people’s vulnerability
to floods continues to represent an area of high concern. A distinctive feature of the San Marcos
area is its rapidly growing student population and associated residential development. The
increase in development affects the water holding storage capacity of the land and, therefore,
amplifies the risk of flooding (Tripathi et al. 2014; Montz and Gruntfest 1986). In the fall of
2017, 38,694 students were enrolled at TXST, and in the same year the total population of San
Marcos, Texas was 60,035 people (City of San Marcos 2018). Students who live in the city of San
Marcos as well as students who commute represent a vulnerable population for several reasons.
One of the definitions of vulnerability describes it as “the characteristics of a person or group
and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from
the impact of a natural hazard” (Wisner 2004). First, limited financial reserves contribute to the
students’ vulnerability (Hung, Wang, and Yarnal 2016). Second, other socio-economic characteris-
tics of student population increase their vulnerability, such as predominantly young age, absence
of flood insurance, lack of experience, and cultural barriers (international students). These socio-
economic aspects should be considered in flood risk management throughout all its stages: pre-
vention, protection, preparedness, emergency response, and recovery.
Many studies emphasize the importance of analyzing people’s understanding of risk (Hayden
et al. 2007) and how people live with doubt (Tversky and Kahneman 1974; Douglas and
Wildavsky 1982). Living with uncertainty and perceiving risk ultimately results in some type of
action. Thus, behavioral responses are driven by personal assessments, which include weighing
perceived risks (White 1945; Slovic 1987; Kates and Kasperson 1983; Burton, Kates, and White
1993). Therefore, individual judgments through which people assess the potential impacts and
consequences of a hazard and select appropriate responses are referred to as risk perceptions
(Slovic 1987).
This paper attempts to fill a gap in research regarding flood risk perceptions and awareness
among students. The paper asks the following research questions:

1. What factors contribute to the flood risk perceptions and awareness among students
of TXST?
2. What role do heuristic principles play in forming students’ risk perceptions?
3. Based on the flood risk assessment among students, is there a need to organize flood educa-
tion at TXST?

Material and methods

Study area
The city of San Marcos stretches into three counties of Central Texas: Hays County, Caldwell
County, and Guadalupe County (Figure 1). San Marcos’ location was determined by San Marcos
Springs, the source of the perennial San Marcos River, along the Balcones Escarpment (Peterson
1995). The Balcones Escarpment, in Central Texas, delineates a border between two geographical
regions: Gulf Coastal Plains on the east and the Great Plains on the west. After an abandoned
Spanish-Mexican settlement (1807-1814), San Marcos’ modern founding was in 1844 during the
days of the Republic of Texas. A state university was established there in 1899 that evolved via
several name changes into Texas State University (Stovall et al. 1986). Archeological studies
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 3

Figure 1. Location of San Marcos, TX.

indicate that the site has been occupied since late Pleistocene times, making it one of the oldest
continuously inhabited places in North America (Buzan 1997).
San Marcos was the fastest-growing small city in the U.S. in 2013 and 2014 (2014, 5YR-
ACS). The population of San Marcos grew from 43,282 in 2010 to 54,712 in 2015. The pri-
mary factor of growth is TXST, the fourth-largest university in the state (Figure 2). Attractive
attributes of San Marcos are the clear-running, spring-fed San Marcos River and the relatively
amicable subhumid tropical climate. San Marcos’ mean annual precipitation is about 35 inches
(900 mm) – almost all rain. The amount of precipitation has varied widely from 13.42 inches
(1954) to 58.80 inches (1998) (U.S. National Climate Data Center (USNCDC) 2019).
San Marcos and other areas along the Balcones Escarpment have long been recognized as one
of the most flood prone areas of the U.S. (Baker 1975; Caran and Baker 1986). Following the dev-
astating floods of 2002, the PBS television network produced a NOVA science special called Flash
Flood Alley in 2005. This flood hazard is due to the high rainfall intensities (Table 1),
4 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Table 1. Largest 24 hours storms for San Marcos, TX since 1896 (USNCDC 2019).
Crude TR from TR from Asquith
1896 from TR ¼ and TR from
24-hr, inches Date Rank ¼ m (nþ 1)/m Roussel (2004) USHDSC (2018)
15.78 October 17, 1998 1 120 500 100-200
13.98 June 14, 1981 2 60 250 100-200
13.03 October 2, 1913 3 40 250 50-100
10.00 October 19, 1909 4.5 21.8 100 25-50
10.00 December 4, 1913 4.5 21.8 100 25-50
9.07 November 24, 1985 6 17 50 25
8.00 September 9, 1921 7 15 25-50 10-25
7.37 May 15, 1970 8 13 10-25 10-25
7.32 July 29, 1902 9 12 10-25 10-25
6.85 September 27, 2016 10 10.9 10-25 10
6.60 June 25, 1960 11 10 10-25 5-10
6.60 April 26, 1926 12 9.2 10-25 5-10
6.27 September 10, 1952 13 8.6 10 5-10
6.20 October 30, 2015

14 8 10 5-10
6.12 January 25, 2012 15 7.5 10 5-10
6.00 April 12, 2017 16 7 10 5-10



Adjacent CoCoRAHS station had 11.20 in. (CoCoRaHS 2017).

hydrologically efficient drainage of the fluvially dissected Texas Hill Country, and overgrazed,
clay-rich soils (Baker 1975; Caran and Baker 1986). Flooding in San Marcos has resulted from
localized heavy precipitation that produces flooding along the San Marcos River and its tributa-
ries: Sink Creek, Purgatory Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. However, in May 2015, most of the
flooding in San Marcos was due to backwater flooding from the historic flood (over 175,000 ft3/
sec) on the Blanco River that joins the San Marcos River immediately east of San Marcos (Earl
and Vaughan 2015; Earl et al 2006). All of these streams can and have made their immediate sur-
roundings susceptible to floods, especially in low-lying residential areas and where ephemeral
streams cross streets and highways at low water crossings in urban areas (Figure 2).
Some parts of San Marcos are classified as flood zones with categories A, AE, and AH, which
represent the Special Flood Hazard Areas where flood insurance is mandatory (source: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]). These areas have a 1 percent annual chance
of flooding and they are in the 100-year floodplain. The only difference between the zones is the
depth of flooding, determined by distance from the source of flooding. For example, Zone AH
(farthest from the river/flooding source) has a 1 percent annual chance of shallow flooding
(Source: FEMA). Further, FEMA provides the following recommendations to people inhabiting
the flood zones described above:

 “The lowest floor elevation must be at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE);
 Enclosed areas below the lowest floor cannot be used for living space; and
 Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other service
facilities must be elevated to or above the BFE” (source: FEMA).

Implementation of precaution techniques, however, partially depends on risk perceptions of

flood. The next section provides a detailed analysis of the factors influencing students’ flood risk
perceptions, and the ways in which heuristic principles create and reinforce these perceptions
and attitudes.

Research questions
This paper asks three research questions related to flood risk perceptions and awareness
among students:
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 5

Figure 2. The location of the Texas State University campus relatively to the FEMA flood zones.

1. What factors contribute to the flood risk perceptions and awareness among students
of TXST?

The perception of risk affects students’ adaptive capacity, which is their ability to adjust to the
impacts of floods and alleviate potential damages or to cope with the consequences (Lopez-
Marrero 2010). Risk perceptions are based on the level of individual social and biophysical vul-
nerability. Analysis of flood risk perception helps to create an environment that is more resistant
to natural hazards, such as floods, and to estimate and diminish potential negative effects of flood
6 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

events. Low flood risk perceptions usually create an obstacle to effective risk management
(Tierney 1999). Knowing what factors contribute to the students’ risk perceptions, risk managers
can influence the students’ preparedness behavior and create strategies that allow effective risk
communication. Biophysical factors include proximity to the flood prone areas. Social factors
include age, educational status, economical and living situations. Floods can directly affect stu-
dents who live off campus during their commute to the school if their vehicles got trapped in the
flood zone, or it can increase their commute time. Therefore, it is important for the students who
live off campus to be aware of flood events, especially if they live independently of their families.
Social networks are another factor or resource that influences social vulnerability (Lopez-Marrero
2010) and contributes to students’ awareness and attitudes towards flood events.

2. What role do heuristic principles play in forming students’ risk perceptions?

In psychology, heuristic principles represent mental shortcuts that help to quickly make a
judgment. One of the benefits of heuristics is saving time during decision-making processes,
because they tend to focus only on one aspect of a complex problem (Nevid 2008). Heuristic
principles simplify the problem in order to understand it better and build judgments under
uncertainty (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). In this research, estimation of flood risk is a problem
that requires judgment. This paper aims to determine whether students are a population that
tends to rely on heuristic principles, including representativeness, availability of the instances or
scenarios, and adjustment from an anchor (relying on a specific portion of information when
making decisions) (Mussweiler, Englich, and Strack 2004). Section 3, Theoretical Background, pro-
vides a detailed explanation of these heuristic principles.

3. Based on the flood risk assessment among students, is there a need to organize flood educa-
tion at TXST?

The perceptions of students enrolled in TXST provide the primary unit of analysis. This paper
applies qualitative research to gain an understanding of students’ perceptions of flood risk in San
Marcos, their level of awareness regarding sources of information, preparation for the flood event,
evacuation strategies and flood risk zones in the area. Qualitative research provides insights into
the problem and helps to uncover trends in students’ attitudes and perceptions. Qualitative data
were gathered via paper and online surveys primarily among undergraduate students of TXST.
Qualitative methods applied in this study allow us to analyze how or if the perceptions of flood
risk have changed through time.

Methods
The survey was distributed in two forms: paper and online surveys. First, TXST geography
students in the senior- and graduate-level Field Methods (GEO 4430/5330/7330) course were
given an 11-item paper questionnaire to measure awareness of, impacts of, and response to a
series of recent floods as a class exercise (Appendix A). The students administered the surveys
at three high trafficked pedestrian areas on campus: the “Quad,” Lyndon B. Johnson Student
Center, and outside the “Den” dining area in the Academic Services Building. The students
asked volunteer participants to complete the questionnaire in person and recorded their
responses. The questionnaire campaign resulted in 166 responses from academic years 2015-
2017 and 315 responses from academic year 2018.
Second, in the summer of 2018, a 32-question survey that was an expansion of the original
questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of approximately 3,690 (10 percent of the stu-
dent enrollment) undergraduate and graduate students from all campus majors via an email with
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 7

a link to the survey in Qualtrics software (Appendix B). This version of the survey aimed to
determine the factors that influence risk perceptions of flood hazards. Students were sent one
reminder email three weeks after the initial request for participation. 219 responses were received
by October 1st, 2018. A total of 481 responses from paper and online surveys were obtained. For
both the class exercise and the university-wide study, the questionnaires were approved by the
TXST Institutional Review Board (project number 2018591).

Data analysis
The surveys were analyzed in a descriptive and explanatory manner. The survey responses col-
lected from all class exercises and comparable questions from the online survey were used to
describe the manner in which students at TXST experience flooding (Table 2). Further, the total-
ity of the core responses was used to describe temporal changes of perception (Figure 4).
The 32-question, 2018 online survey responses were analyzed in two phases. First, multiple-
choice questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics and cross tables for research question
one, which examines the factors contributing to the flood risk perceptions and awareness among
students of TXST. For research question two, understanding the heuristics, several statistical tests
were applied and the procedure is presented below:

Table 2. Aggregated responses from 2015–2018 surveys.

Survey participants
Educational Status Number of respondents 476 (100%)
Undergraduate 88.4%
Graduate 11.6%

Age Number of respondents 481 (100%)

Under 25 80.7%
Over 25 19.5%

San Marcos Resident Number of respondents 481 (100%)

Yes 77.3%
No 22.7%

Residence Damaged by Flood Number of respondents 467 (100%)

Yes 14.6%
No 85.7%

Warned of Flood Hazard Number of respondents 468 (100%)

Yes 66.5%
No 33.5%

Ordered to Evacuate Number of respondents 453 (100%)

Yes 15.0%
No 84.3%

Access to Residence or Campus Blocked Number of respondents 457 (100%)

Yes 44.9%
No 55.1%
Selection of Residence Number of times selected as very important
Distance to Campus 206
Availability of Bus Service 185
Closeness to River 30
Flood Hazard 164

Hazard Perception of Flash Flood Alley Number of respondents 460 (100%)

High 61.1%
Moderate 27.4%
Low 11.5%
8 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

 chi-square test (determines any significant differences between the expected frequencies and
observed frequencies);
 Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test (compares differences between two independent groups with a
dependent variable that is continuous or ordinal);
 Kruskal-Wallis test (determines any significant differences between two groups or more of an
independent variable on an ordinal or continuous dependent variable); and
 Spearman’s rank-order correlation (measures the strength and direction of association between
two ranked variables) (Helsel and Hirsch 2002).

A chi-square test was used to analyze the relationships between two categorical variables (two
survey questions that both imply a simple YES or NO answer): for example, questions “Do you
think you live in a flood-risk area?” (“Not sure” responses were omitted from the analysis) and
“Has your residence ever been damaged from a flood event?” The null hypothesis of the chi-
square test is that there is no relationship between the categorical variables.
A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the relationships between two variables
(survey questions) where the independent variable is categorical (for example, a question “Do you
think you live in a flood-risk area?”) and the dependent variable is ordinal and can be converted
into a Likert scale (for example, a survey question “Please estimate your knowledge in flood
events and their consequences”).
A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the relationships between two ordinal variables that can
be converted into a Likert scale, for example, questions “How well do you think you are prepared for
a flood event?” and “Compare the flood hazards along the Balcones Escarpment with other parts of
Texas.” A Kruskal-Wallis test was also used when the independent variable is ordinal.
Lastly, Spearman’s correlation was used to measure the strength and direction of monotonic
association between two variables. In contrast to linear relationships, monotonic relationships
increase (or decrease) in the same direction, but not always at the same rate (Rogerson 2015).
For example, Spearman’s correlation was used to test the relationships between level of prepared-
ness and level of knowledge about the floods.
Second, individual comments were analyzed using an open-coding, grounded theory approach,
i.e., allowing the data to present themes (Gibbs 2007), and then a hierarchy of themes and subca-
tegories were constructed.
The next section provides a theoretical background on the literature regarding vulnerability to
flood hazards and the role of flood risk perceptions in hazard analysis.

Theoretical background
Flood risk perception and human behavior
The potential harm of flood events can be mitigated by modifying human attitudes toward floods.
Scholars attempted to explain why certain groups of people perceive flood risk in a specific way.
Tierney (1999) discusses the role of sociology in studying hazard-related phenomena. Public
understanding of danger depends on the cultural characteristics and ideology of a society. Often,
risk perception reflects social values, not only objective reality (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982).
Individual differences create difficulties for risk awareness campaigns because of the inequity in
individual perceptions of risk, estimations and understanding of risk information. Emotions, risk
perceptions, and behaviors are societal factors that contribute to the development of better risk
communication and disaster management policies (Birkholz et al. 2014).
Public perception of risk depends on the variety of actors: community members, businesses, gov-
ernmental agencies, and risk managers. These agents contribute to the characterization of risk and
the choice of risk management strategies by pursuing their interests and values (Johnson and
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 9

Covello 1987). Tierney (1999) argues that political and economic powers influence the misrepresen-
tation of risk and shape public understanding of risk, often distorting it from the reality in accord-
ance with certain political and economic pursuits. Sociology, therefore, has to examine the social
processes and the role of institutions in a particular society (Dietz, Frey, and Rosa 1999). Tversky
and Kahneman (1974) examined the ways in which people use heuristic principles to build their
judgments under uncertainty. Heuristics theory involves simplifying the problems to achieve a better
understanding of them and form a quick judgment. The downfall of heuristics is that they can lead
to cognitive biases and deviations from logic or rational choice theory (Nevid 2008). In hazard man-
agement, the use of heuristics can lead to both overestimating and underestimating the risk of a haz-
ard. Heuristic principles include availability of the instances or scenarios, representativeness, and
adjustment from an anchor.
The first principle, availability of instances and scenarios, means that the number of instances
affects the perception of the similar instance to occur. For example, if an individual or a community
experienced a certain event several times in the past, they would most likely expect the same event to
happen again and take preventative actions against future flooding (Harvatt, Petts, and Chilvers
2011; Yamamura 2010). Students who experienced a flood in 2015 most likely would be more con-
scious about any following floods. Availability is used to assess frequency. However, this heuristic
principle is prone to biases of imaginability, which has the ability to significantly distort reality. For
example, exaggerating the negative consequences of the hazard event can lead to a false evaluation of
possibilities to prepare and cope with a hazard (Tversky and Kahneman 1974).
The second principle, representativeness, is based on the similarity of one object, situation or pro-
cess in relation to another. However, representativeness does not consider factors such as prior prob-
ability; it is insensitive to predictability and prone to statistical misconception. Decisions based on
representativeness are more likely to be wrong because they lack accuracy and thorough analysis.
Finally, adjustment from an anchor (or starting point) means that people build their assess-
ments around a starting point or an initial value. It describes the common human inclination to
rely on a single, specific portion of information when making decisions (Mussweiler, Englich, and
Strack 2004). Different starting points, therefore, will result in different estimates. Tversky and
Kahneman (1974) stated: success of the elementary event provides a starting point for the evalu-
ation of the probability of the conjunctive event. The latter will most likely be estimated as a suc-
cess, which can be incorrect. Previous studies indicate the importance of a previous flood
outcome in assessing the future impacts of flooding (Yiannakoulias et al. 2018). Thus, residents
with flood insurance may feel more secure and underestimate the necessity of other precaution
actions. On the other hand, absence of flood insurance contributes to the higher social vulnerabil-
ity. To further analyze why flood risk perceptions differ between individuals, communities and
places, more research concerning the concept of social vulnerability is needed (Cutter et. al. 2000,
White and Haas 1975: 8, Mileti 1999, Lopez-Marrero 2010).

Vulnerability and flood risk perception

Different scales of vulnerability to natural hazards define the nuances of analysis and assessment.
Thus, social vulnerability requires a different approach than individual vulnerability because it
involves an array of factors that need to be considered. Preparedness, mitigation of hazard conse-
quences, and responses to hazard warnings and post-event recovery, characterize a modern
approach to natural hazards that replace a “command and control mentality” wherein survivor
rescues and cleanups were primary objectives (Cutter, Mitchell, and Scott 2000). Mitigation
includes hazard identification and risk assessment. Mitigation is used as a tool to appropriate
infrastructure in the area prone to hazards (roads, bridges, airfields, dams, railroads). Therefore,
it is important to conduct a place’s assessment to biophysical vulnerability (proximity to the
potential source of a hazard and the frequency of hazard). However, social vulnerability (housing
10 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Figure 3. Classification of resources contributing to human adaptive capacity (Lopez-Marrero 2010).

characteristics, level of income, customs and beliefs, age, race and ethnicity) plays an even more
important role in assessing overall vulnerability. Cutter, Mitchell, and Scott (2000) emphasizes the
importance of considering the social, political, spatial, temporal, organizational, and economic
characteristics of a place along with physical geography.
Therefore, vulnerability varies between citizens not based solely on their proximity to hazard-
ous areas, but also on the resources they have to cope with and recover from a hazard. These
resources often play a decisive role in the public perception of risk and define a person’s adaptive
capacity. Adaptive capacity defines the ability of a system (e.g., a campus) to adjust to the impacts
of natural hazards and alleviate potential damages or to cope with the consequences (Lopez-
Marrero 2010). Figure 3 provides a classification of resources contributing to the adap-
tive capacity.
Cognitive factors, such as adaptive capacity and the perception of risks, determine public
motivation to take actions in response to hazards (Grothmann and Patt 2005; Grothmann and
Reusswig 2006). Thus, the lack of resources excludes consideration of certain strategies and
action. Similarly, a low perception of risk demotivates taking protective actions. Although the
types of resources depend on the particular target population, previous research emphasizes the
importance of economic and material resources (Polsky, Neff, and Yarnal 2007; Smit and Wandel
2006). Human resources also tend to influence risk perception. According to Lopez-Marrero
(2010), the fear of a hazard might increase with age because older people have less physical ability
to cope with hazards. However, it can also be high among the young people due to the lack of
experience and skills that are necessary for protection and coping with the hazard’s outcomes. In
addition to analyzing resources, efforts must be taken to increase public awareness of possible
extreme hazards and enhance the community’s knowledge regarding flood control projects. Here,
the role of flood risk management becomes substantial.

The role of risk perception in flood risk management

Risk perception is a dependent variable and a socially constructed phenomenon, which creates an
obstacle to effective risk management (Tierney 1999). Risk management involves risk
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 11

communication between individuals, groups and organizations. Risk communication aims to pro-
vide people with the knowledge and activities about hazards and how to deal with them, to
stimulate their interest in environmental health and to assist in conflicts. Perception of risk dir-
ectly influences preparedness behavior. Preparedness behavior includes preparation activities prior
to a specific warning happening such as buying emergency supplies, disaster insurance, and devel-
oping evacuation plans. Risk communication is a two-way process between the public and risk
managers that requires mutual trust between the two parties. Previous research identifies aware-
ness as one of the variables of risk perception (Tierney 1999).
Awareness of flood events is expected to be high among the students of TXST, because they are
all automatically signed up for receiving immediate warning alerts in case of an emergency on their
cell phones as well as TXST emails. However, flood risk awareness also includes awareness of living
in a flood risk area and awareness of appropriate actions in the event of a flood or flood warning
(Burningham, Fielding, and Thrush 2008). The challenge of estimating students’ awareness of flood
risk relates to the complexity of individual attitudes and ways of thinking about the issue.
Often, people compare information about flood risk received from different sources and evalu-
ate it based on their prior knowledge. The response to future hazards often depends on past and
present protective actions (Brooks and Adger 2005). Those who have already experienced flood-
ing events may expect future floods (which may not necessarily be true) and act accordingly.
Lack of awareness of flood risks can also be connected to the invisibility of the flood sources
(Burningham, Fielding, and Thrush 2008). International students may face certain issues, such as
language barriers and cultural differences, which can cause problems in communication with
relief workers or obtaining assistance.
Social class, flood experience, length of time in residence, and the place of residence have signifi-
cant impacts on the public’s awareness to flood hazards. Low-income populations are more likely to
inhabit flood zones and less likely to be aware of flood risks. However, this assumption cannot be
applied universally because of the high influence of local aspects and circumstances that vary from
place to place, such as socioeconomic status, specific community features and characteristics and
local politics including flood education (Burningham, Fielding, and Thrush 2008).

Results
Table 2 details the aggregated responses of 481 participants from both paper and online surveys.
Some questions were combined and summarized in two categories, i.e., undergraduate and

Figure 4. Comparison of three stages of data collection.

12 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

graduate (Educational Status) and Age, due to the simplicity of the student-administered 11-item
survey (Appendix A).
The results of the surveys were compared by the stage of data collection: 2015 survey, 2016-
2017 survey, and 2018 survey (Figure 4). The highest flood risk perceptions were recorded during
2015 survey, right after the major flood: Memorial Day flood in May 2015. The same survey
recorded the highest number of damaged residences. During the second stage of data collection –
2016-2017 survey – there were three flood events in the Balcones Escarpment (including San
Marcos), however less percent of high-risk perceptions was recorded. This number has risen by
2018, although there were no flood events in 2018. In order to understand what influences flood
risk perceptions of students, factors contributing to the students’ vulnerability were analyzed with
the use of heuristic principles in forming students’ risk perceptions to determine the need of add-
itional flood education at TXST.

Research question one: Factors of social and biophysical vulnerability

First, students were asked to estimate their level of preparedness to a flood event on the scale
from “Not Well Prepared” to “Extremely Well Prepared.” More prepared students are less vulner-
able than less prepared students. Next, students estimated their knowledge in flood events and
their consequences. Similar to the first question, extremely knowledgeable students are less vul-
nerable than slightly knowledgeable. Finally, students compared the flood hazards along the
Balcones Escarpment (also known as “flash flood alley”) to other parts of Texas. A greater risk of
flood hazards shows higher perceptions of flood risk. Cross-tables were used to analyze the influ-
ence of different social and biophysical factors on the level of students’ vulnerability (Appendix
D). The following factors of social vulnerability were considered: age, living situation (renters/
owners), educational status, economic factors (flood insurance), social networks (specifically,
social media). Factors of biophysical vulnerability include proximity to flood prone areas and
major water bodies.
Most of the students estimated their level of preparedness and knowledge in flood events as
moderate and the majority of the students have high flood risk perceptions (Table 3). High flood
risk perceptions and high vulnerability to floods are positively associated with senior students

Table 3. Estimated flood risk perceptions and self-reported awareness.

Self-reported Awareness (total number of responses, n, is equal to 219)
Predominant
Respondent Categories High Risk Perceptions Moderately Prepared Moderately Knowledgeable
Age (21-22 years old) n ¼ 74 50 35 28
Living Situation (Renting 106 69 68
apartment/house/
room) n ¼ 162
Education Status (Senior 67 39 34
Level) n ¼ 97
Economic Factors (No flood 89 45 56
insurance) n ¼ 130
Social Networks (TSU 124 74 78
alerts) n ¼ 185
Social Networks (Text 39 37 68
message from a
friend) n ¼ 92
Proximity to Flood Zones 108 71 72
(Live in San
Marcos) n ¼ 167
Proximity to Flood Zones 43 26 29
(Live within 0.1 to 0.5 mile
to the rivers) n ¼ 67
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 13

who are 21–22 years old, renting an apartment/house/room in San Marcos within 0.1 to 0.5 mile
(0.16 to 0.80 km) to the rivers, with no flood insurance. These students rely on TXST as their pri-
mary source of information regarding any hazard event. Other sources of information include (in
descending order): friends, TV, Facebook, text message from Hays County Office of Emergency
Management, Twitter, and radio.

Research question two: the role of heuristic principles

The purpose of the second research question was to determine whether students use heuristic
principles in building their judgments about flood risks. For this analysis, only the results of 2018
online survey were used because it was designed to account for the use of heuristic principles.
The first heuristic principle considers availability of instances as a contributor to the perception
of risk. Students who had a prior experience of flood events presumably would have higher flood
risk perceptions. Three statistical tests were applied, chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and
Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon, to analyze the relationships between the flood risk perceptions and
different types of prior flood experience: previous experience of flood in general, previous damage
of the residence due to floods, and restricted access to residence or campus due to the flood
(Table 4, Appendix D). Awareness of flood risk was also considered as a form of flood experience
(Table 4). Students have high risk perceptions if they indicated that they live in a flood-risk area
and if they estimated the risk of flood hazards along the Balcones Escarpment as higher than any-
where else in Texas. The results show that previous experiences of floods significantly influence
risk perceptions (Table 5).
Availability of the instances (previous experience of the flood) plays an important role in
forming students’ perceptions of flood risk. Students who have experienced restricted access to
their residence or campus in San Marcos because of flooding tend to have higher risk perceptions
(Table 5). When comparing the flood hazard in the Balcones Escarpment, most of the surveyed
individuals think it is greater than elsewhere in Texas. Most of the students who indicated their
level of knowledge about the floods as ‘moderate’ have high risk perception. The first heuristic
principle explains why there were more responses with high risk perceptions in 2015 comparing
to 2018 (Figure 4). The 2015 survey took place right after the major flood; therefore, many of the
surveyed students might have experienced it.
The second heuristic principle considers representativeness, or similarity of the previously
experienced events to the hypothetical future events. It asks the following questions: Were the
students prepared for a flood in the past? Were they informed about the flood event in the past?
Was their past experience with the flood(s) negative or positive? Students were asked to indicate
if they were aware of the upcoming flood, informed by the residence owner prior to the flood,
warned prior to the flood, during the flood, ordered to evacuate, and provided with information
about floods in San Marcos by TXST. Further, students were asked if they have taken any precau-
tions prior to the flood event (Appendix D). Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and
Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon tests were conducted to statistically analyze the relationships between
these factors and students’ risk perceptions (Table 6). Although the majority of the students have
high flood risk perceptions, statistical analysis did not reveal any significant influence of the rep-
resentativeness of previous experiences on the risk perceptions. Thus, the second heuristic prin-
ciple does not guide students’ perceptions-making process regarding flood risk in San Marcos.
However, most of the students indicated their level of preparedness as moderate (Table 6). Some
precautions taken by the students in the past include the following (in descending order): stock-
ing up on supplies, warning family and friends, and moving important materials to the top floor.
Finally, the third heuristic principle – adjustment to anchor – implies projecting future out-
comes based on the success of the “starting point.” Students would feel more secure and safe if
they took precautions and received a warning. Here, students were asked to evaluate their level of
14 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Table 4. The relationships between the flood risk perceptions and availability of prior flood experience.
I think I live in a flood-risk area Ranked Median Respondents
Has your residence ever Yes N/A 22
been damaged from a No N/A 49
flood event? Chi Square ¼
14.97 p-value ¼ 0.00
Have you ever experienced a Yes N/A 61
flood event in San No N/A 9
Marcos? Chi Square ¼
4.29 p-value ¼ 0.04
Has access to your residence Yes N/A 53
or campus ever been No N/A 13
restricted due to flooding?
Chi Square ¼ 5.74 p-value
¼ 0.02
Please estimate your Extremely knowledgeable 3 6
knowledge in flood events Very knowledgeable 3 17
and their consequences: Moderately knowledgeable 3 27
Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon Slightly knowledgeable 3 16
(MWW) ¼ 5557.5 p-value Not knowledgeable at all 3 5
¼ 0.4175
I think the flood hazards along the Balcones Escarpment are greater
than elsewhere in Texas
Has your residence ever Yes 2 25
been damaged from a No 2 116
flood event? Kruskal-Wallis
chi-squared ¼ 1.1413 p-
value ¼ 0.2854
Have you ever experienced a Yes 2 116
flood event in San No 2 25
Marcos? Kruskal-Wallis chi-
squared ¼ 10.562 p-value
¼ 0.001154
Was your residence damaged May 2015 (Memorial 3 11
by any of the following Day Flood)
flood events? (check all October 2015 3 17
that apply) Kruskal-Wallis (Halloween Flood)
chi-squared ¼ 4.628 p- September 26, 2016 3 5
value ¼ 0.03145 April 2017 3 5
August 2017 (Harvey) 3 14
No 3 96
Has access to your residence Yes 2 89
or campus ever been No 2 41
restricted due to flooding?
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared
¼ 2.9876 p-value
¼ 0.08391
Please estimate your Extremely knowledgeable 3 18
knowledge in flood events Very knowledgeable 3 28
and their consequences: Moderately knowledgeable 3 52
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared Slightly knowledgeable 3 30
¼ 2.6883 p-value Not knowledgeable at all 3 12
¼ 0.2608

Table 5. The relationships between the flood risk perceptions and availability of prior flood experience - summary.
Previous restricted Level of knowledge
Previous damage of access to residence or regarding flood risk
residence due to Previous experience of campus due to flood - (awareness) -
floods – (predominant floods - (predominant (predominant (predominant answer:
answer: NO) answer: YES) answer: YES) MODERATE OR LESS)
High risk perceptions Statistically significant Statistically significant Statistically significant Not statistically
significant
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 15

Figure 5. Two predominant categories of students’ comments.

preparedness, which were then compared to the level of knowledge about floods, awareness, and
possession of flood insurance.
The Spearman correlation was applied to statistically test the relationships between the level of
preparedness and level of knowledge about the floods (Table 7). The results show that students’
preparedness to flood events depends on their knowledge about floods (Spearman’s correlation p-
value ¼ 3.695e-16). Next, the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test was applied to compare outcomes
between two variables: preparedness to flood events and awareness of the flood. The results show
that providing information about floods in San Marcos by TXST is significantly important to the
level of preparedness of the students (p-value ¼ 0.04276). The rest of the variables are not statis-
tically significant, although students who estimated their level of preparedness to floods as
‘moderate’ also do not have flood insurance (Table 8).

Research question three: Need for flood education

The results indicate that nearly 75 percent of survey respondents have experienced floods in San
Marcos. Yet, a mere 13 percent state they are “Extremely Knowledgeable” about flood events and their
consequences. Nearly 60 percent of respondents state they are either “Moderately Knowledgeable” or
“Slightly Knowledgeable” of flood events and their consequences. Along this thread, the majority of
respondents (63 percent) state their preparedness for a flood event is “Moderate” or “Slight.”
Respondents were asked if they had any additional comments about flood hazards affecting
San Marcos and/or TXST. Students submitted 43 comments (Appendix C) that were coded using
a data-driven or open coding approach, i.e., grounded-theory (Gibbs 2007). Themes and catego-
ries were not developed by the coder; rather, all the comments were reviewed by the authors
reflectively to identify emergent themes and categories. Two predominant categories of comments
emerged: experiences (actions in the past) and suggestions (actions for the future); these experien-
ces and suggestions were directed at TXST and/or the city of San Marcos. Comments dealing
with experiences with the University were further assessed to create two overarching
complaints (Figure 5).
16 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Table 6. The relationships between the flood risk perceptions and the character of the previous experience.
Ranked
I think I live in a flood-risk area Median Respondents
If your residence or vehicle were damaged, were you Yes N/A 3
informed by the residence owner (landlord) of the No N/A 19
potential flood hazard before you chose to live there? Chi
Square ¼ 0.18 p-value ¼ 0.67
If your residence or vehicle were damaged, were you Yes N/A 5
personally aware of the flood hazards in your residential No N/A 15
area prior to 2015 or 2016 floods? Chi Square ¼ 0.14 p-
value ¼ 0.70
Have you ever received a flood warning related to San Yes N/A 68
Marcos and/or Texas State University? Chi Square ¼ 0.80 No N/A 3
p-value ¼ 0.37
Were you warned of an immediate flood hazard? Chi Square Yes N/A 59
¼ 3.03 p-value ¼ 0.08 No N/A 12
Were you ordered to evacuate? Chi Square ¼ 2.13 p-value Yes N/A 12
¼ 0.14 No N/A 54
Has Texas State University ever provided information to you Yes N/A 44
about flood events in San Marcos? Chi Square ¼ 1.48 p- No N/A 24
value ¼ 0.22
How well do you think you are prepared for a flood event? Extremely Well 3 4
MWW ¼ 5052.5 p-value ¼ 0.6928 Very well 3 9
Moderately well 3 31
Slightly well 3 19
Not well at all 3 8
I think the flood hazards along the Balcones Escarpment are greater than elsewhere in Texas
If your residence or vehicle were damaged, were you Yes 2 7
informed by the residence owner (landlord) of the No 2 30
potential flood hazard before you chose to live there? Chi
Square ¼ 2.44 p-value ¼ 0.30
If your residence or vehicle were damaged, were you Yes 2 8
personally aware of the flood hazards in your residential No 2 33
area prior to 2015 or 2016 floods? Chi Square ¼ 1.27 p-
value ¼ 0.53
Have you ever received a flood warning related to San Yes 2 132
Marcos and/or Texas State University? Chi Square ¼ 3.09 No 2 9
p-value ¼ 0.21
Were you warned of an immediate flood hazard? Chi Square Yes 2 107
¼ 0.46 p-value ¼ 0.79 No 2 33
Were you ordered to evacuate? Chi Square ¼ 2.58 p-value Yes 2 13
¼ 0.28 No 2 116
Has Texas State University ever provided information to you Yes 2 93
about flood events in San Marcos? Chi Square ¼ 2.94 p- No 2 44
value ¼ 0.23
How well do you think you are prepared for a flood event? Extremely well 3 12
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared ¼ 0.20172 p-value ¼ 0.9041 Very well 3 21
Moderately well 3 48
Slightly well 3 37
Not well at all 3 23

Students’ comments reveal their negative past experiences during flood events in San Marcos
and shows their frustration with flood management conducted both by the city and by the
University (Figure 5, Appendix C):
“University does not take proper precautions with infrastructure.”

“City not providing warnings and awareness.”

“Apartments near the “flood zones” need to inform students of the risk. Both of my apts (aspen/Avenue) we’re
extremely sketchy and denied they were in the flood zones and we were stuck in the apartment in the
Halloween flood and during the Harvey flood. They sent out evacuation emails when we were already
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 17

Table 7. The relationships between the flood risk perceptions and the success of the “starting point”.
Ranked
I think I am moderately well prepared for a flood event Median Respondents
If you live off-campus, do you have flood Yes 3 28
insurance? MWW ¼ 5017.5 p-value ¼ 0.1095 No 3 45
Have you ever received a flood warning related Yes 3 17
to San Marcos and/or Texas State University? No 3 1
MWW ¼ 1563 p-value ¼ 0.5453
Were you warned of an immediate flood Yes 3 15
hazard? MWW ¼ 3813.5 p-value ¼ 0.1116 No 3 3
Has Texas State University ever provided Yes 3 15
information to you about flood events in San No 3 3
Marcos? MWW ¼ 4297 p-value ¼ 0.04276
Please estimate your knowledge in flood events Extremely knowledgeable 3 5
and their consequences: Spearman’s Very knowledgeable 3 20
correlation p-value ¼ 3.695e-16 or Chi Moderately knowledgeable 3 50
Square ¼ 116.95 p-value ¼ 0.00 Slightly knowledgeable 3 7
Not knowledgeable at all 3 1

Table 8. The relationships between the flood risk perceptions and the success of the “starting point” - summary.
Level of
knowledge about Provided with
flood hazards– information about
(predominant Warned prior the Warned during floods in SM by
Flood insurance - answer: flood - the flood - TxStU -
(predominant MODERATE (predominant (predominant (predominant
answer: NO) OR LESS) answer: YES) answer: YES) answer: YES)
Level of Not statistically Statistically Not statistically Not statistically Statistically
preparedness to significant significant significant significant significant
a flood – (Spearman’s (p-value
(predominant correlation ¼ 0.04276)
answer: p-value ¼
MODERATE) 3.695e-16)

stranded after millions of emails that we were safe. We woke up to flooded cars and animals near
the complex.”

“Personally I try my best to stay very aware of flood prone areas, but I feel like many apartments in town do
not properly warn students of the potential damage to their personal belongings when flood events occur.”

Similarly, the suggestions include increased infrastructure, development of floodplain, flood

warning in timely manner (Figure 5). Some of the comments suggest flood education at TXST:
“The university should do [a] seminar informing students, especially those who come from another state.”

Overall, the negativity of the comments suggests that there is a need for flood awareness cam-
paigns designed specifically for undergraduate students. These findings correspond to similar
studies that analyzed differences in the perceptions of the community members and municipal
managers regarding flood management (Fatti and Patel 2013). Thus, the students’ comments in
our study support the tendency of the community members to question the efficiency of flood
management strategies as well as municipality’s efforts to reduce the risk.

Discussion and conclusion

This study analyzed flood risk perceptions of students at TXST. Risk perceptions represent one of
the factors of social vulnerability to floods (see Figure 3) and they contribute to the flood-related
behavior, including protective techniques and precaution actions used by the students. Students
18 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

who have high perceptions of flood risks would more likely take precautions. On the other hand,
low risk perceptions may result in a careless attitude towards flood events and their consequences.
Analysis of flood risk perceptions is crucial in flood management, specifically during the first
three stages: prevention, protection, and preparedness as this can help to mitigate the potential
harm of flood events. The role of risk perceptions in flood management is discussed in section 3
Theoretical Background. Many scholars attempted to explain the differences in risk perceptions
among people and identify the factors contributing to certain perceptions (Terney 1999; Douglas
and Wildavsky 1982; Birkholz, Muro and Smith 2014; Dietz, Frey, and Rosa 1999; Tversky and
Kahneman 1974).
This analysis shows that students tend to use some of the heuristic principles discussed in the
literature when they estimate flood risk. First, they appeal to their prior experiences with floods
(heuristic principle #1: availability of instances), and second, they estimate their level of prepared-
ness to floods based on their level of knowledge about floods (heuristic principle #3: adjustment
to anchor).
Most of the students who have high flood risk perceptions are senior students, 21-22 years old,
rent apartment/house/room, and do not have flood insurance (factors of social vulnerability).
Most of them live in San Marcos and within 0.1 to 0.5 mile to the rivers (factors of biophysical
vulnerability). Students rely first on TXST to warn them about upcoming floods and order to
evacuate, and second, on their friends and family.
The majority of the students who took the survey think they are not prepared enough for a flood
hazard, and do not have enough knowledge about floods (low awareness and preparedness behavior).
Based on the students’ comments that were analyzed using an open-coding method, most of the stu-
dents feel anxious and insecure when it comes to flood risk. In fact, comments show negative prior
experiences with flood management, including many complains addressed to TXST and the city of
San Marcos, Texas. Although many comments are related to the insufficient flood warning, 66.5 per-
cent of surveyed students said that they have been receiving warnings about upcoming floods, includ-
ing alerts from TXST. It is important to say that all TXST students are required to provide their cell
phone numbers to the University in order to be included in the Hays County’s warning system.
Additionally, the University warns about immediate floods via email. Yet, students’ comments indicate
negative attitude towards flood management in San Marcos.
The use of heuristic principles might be one of the possible explanations, because they tend to
focus only on one aspect of a complex problem and ignore other important aspects (Nevid 2008).
Individual differences and emotional factors can also influence risk perceptions (Birkholz, Muro
and Smith 2014). Further analysis is needed to help the University to understand the nature of
students’ frustration with flood management in San Marcos. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is
a strong need of additional flood education and flood awareness campaigns at TXST to improve
risk communication and flood management.
Two avenues for education can aid flood awareness among the students. First, information
about San Marcos floods could be added to undergraduate courses offered by the Geography
Department at TXST, such as GEO 2410 Introduction to Physical Geography, GEO 2310
Introduction to Environmental Geography, GEO 3329 Geography of Texas, etc. For non-geog-
raphy majors, TXST should consider adding a flood hazard awareness component to the
“University Seminar” (US 1100) course that is designed to introduce new students to TXST.
Second, practical recommendations on how to prepare for a flood and how to act during the
flood event should be posted on the TXST webpage in an easily accessible location and be posted
on TXST social media pages (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) several times throughout the semester.
One of the limitations to this study was the number of students who participated in the
survey: TXST reported total enrollment of 38,661 students for Fall 2018, a random sample of
approximately 3,690 students received a questionnaire, 481 students participated in paper and
online surveys combined. Another limitation includes some biases related to the qualitative nature
 PAPERS IN APPLIED GEOGRAPHY 19

of this study. Students’ individual differences in perceptions of risk, estimations and understand-
ing of risk information affected their responses, specifically the open comments section. As men-
tioned earlier, it is important to consider the role of emotions during flood risk communication
and awareness campaigns. This study provides opportunities for future analysis of students’
vulnerability to natural hazards. The results of this research can be compared with similar studies
to account for regional differences in students’ risk perceptions.

Abbreviations
ACS American Community Survey
BFE Base Flood Elevation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
TXST Texas State University

Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

References
Adikari, Y., and J. Yoshitani. 2009. Global Trends in Water-Related Disasters: An Insight for Policymakers. The
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme: Side Publications Series.
Asquith, W.H., and M.C. Roussel. 2004. Atlas of depth-duration frequency of precipitation annual maxima for
Texas U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5041. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological
Survey.
Baker, V. R. 1975. Flood hazards along the Balcones Escarpment in Central Texas–alternative approaches to their
recognition, mapping, and management: The University of Texas at Austin. Bureau of Economic Geology
Geological Circular 75: 22.
Birkholz, S., M. Muro, P. Jeffrey, and H. Smith. 2014. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception
and flood management. Science of the Total Environment 478:12–20.
Brooks, N., and W. N. Adger. 2005. Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In Adaptation policy frameworks
for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures, eds. Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E., Burton I.,
Malone E. Huq S., 165–81. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burningham, K., J. Fielding, and D. Thrush. 2008. It’ll never happen to me’: understanding public awareness of
local flood risk. The Author(s). Disasters 32(2):216–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01036.x.
Burton, I., R. Kates, and G. White. 1993. The environment as hazard, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buzan, Dave. 1997. Biodiversity in Texas’ Waters: Many Diverse Aquatic Ecosystems Support a Vibrant Fishery.
Texas Water Resource Institute 23(1):1.
Caran, S. C., and V. R. Baker. 1986. Flooding Along the Balcones Escarpment, Central Texas. in The Balcones
Escarpment: Geology, Hydrology, Ecology, and Social Development in Central Texas, ed. P.I. Abbot and C.M.
Woodruff, Jr., 15–9. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.
City of San Marcos. 2018. “Population.” Accessed November, 2018. http://sanmarcostx.gov.
Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS). 2017. Texas CoCoRaHS. https://www.cocor-
ahs.org/state.aspx?state=tx. Last accessed 22 February 2019.
Cutter, S., J. Mitchell, and M. Scott. 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case
Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4):
713–737. doi: 10.1111/0004-5608.00219.
Dietz, T., S. Frey, and E. Rosa. 1999. Risk, Technology, and Society. In Handbook of environmental sociology,
ed.R.F. Dunlap and W. Michelson. Westport, CT: Green wood Press.
Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental
dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Earl, R. A., and J. W. Vaughan. 2015. Asymmetrical Response to Flood Hazards in South Central Texas. Papers in
Applied Geography 1(4):404–412. doi: 10.1080/23754931.2015.1095792.
Earl, R. A., R. W. Dixon, and C. A. Day. 2006. Long term precipitation and water supply variability in South-
Central Texas. Proceedings and Papers of the Applied Geography Conferences 29:11–22.
20 D. PONSTINGEL ET AL.

Fatti, C., and Z. Patel. 2013. Perceptions and responses to urban flood risk: Implications for climate governance in
the South. Applied Geography 36:13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.011.
Gibbs, G. 2007. Qualitative research kit: Analyzing qualitative data. London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Grothmann, T., and A. Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation
to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(3):199–213. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.
Grothmann, T., and F. Reusswig. 2006. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary caution
while others do not?. Natural Hazards 38(1–2):101–120. doi: 10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6.
Harvatt, J., J. Petts, and J. Chilvers. 2011. Understanding householder responses to natural hazards: Flooding and
sea-level rise comparisons. Journal of Risk Research 14(1):63–83. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.503935.
Hayden, M., S. Drobot, S. Radil, C. Benight, E. Gruntfest, and L. Barnes. 2007. Information sources for flash flood
warnings in Denver, CO and Austin, TX. Environmental Hazards 7(3):211–219. doi: 10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.07.001.
Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources, vol. 323. Reston, VA: US Geological
Survey. doi: 10.2307/1269385.
Hung, L., C. Wang, and B. Yarnal. 2016. Vulnerability of families and households to natural hazards: A case study
of storm surge flooding in Sarasota County, Florida. Applied Geography 76:184–197. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.
09.021.
Johnson, B., and V. Covello. 1987. The social and cultural construction of risk: essays on risk selection and percep-
tion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D Reidel.
Jonkman, S. N., M. Godfroy, A. Sebastian, and B. Kolen. 2018. Brief communication: Loss of life due to Hurricane
Harvey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 18(4):1073–1078. doi: 10.5194/nhess-18-1073-2018.
Kates, R., and J. Kasperson. 1983. Comparative Risk Analysis of Technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 80(22):7027–7038. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.22.7027.
Lopez-Marrero, T. 2010. An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive capacity: A case
study of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico. The Geographical Journal 176(2):150–163.
Mielti, D. 1999. Designing Future Disasters: An Assessment and Bolder Course for the Nation. Washington:
Joseph Henry Press.
Montz, B., and E. C. Gruntfest. 1986. Changes in American urban floodplain occupancy since 1958: The experien-
ces of nine cities. Applied Geography 6(4):325–338. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(86)90034-2.
€
Mussweiler, T., B. Englich, and F. Strack. 2004. Anchoring effect. in Pohl, RUDIGER F. (ed.), Cognitive Illusions: A
Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory., Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Nevid, J. 2008. Psychology: Concepts and applications. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Petersen, J.F. 1995. Along the edge of the hill country: The Texas spring line. In: A geographic glimpse of central
Texas and the borderlands: Images and encounters, pathways in geography title no. 12, eds. J.F. Petersen and J.A.
Tuason,20–30. Indiana, PA: National Council for Geographic Education.
Polsky, C., R. Neff, and B. Yarnal. 2007. Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: The vulner-
ability scoping diagram. Global Environmental Change 17(3–4):472–485. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.005.
Rogerson, P. 2015. Statistical methods for geography: A student’s guide. 4th ed. London, UK: Sage.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science (New York, N.Y.) 236(4799):280–285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16(3):
282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008.
Stovall, F., D.W. Kerbow, M. Storm, L. Simon, D.W. Schwartz, and G. Johnson. 1986. Clear springs and limestone
ledges: A history of San Marcos and Hays County. San Marcos, TX: Hays County Historical Commission.
Tierney, K. 1999. Toward a critical sociology of risk. Sociological Forum 14(2):215–242.
Tripathi, R., S. Sengupta, A. Patra, H. Chang, and W. Jung. 2014. Climate change, urban development, and com-
munity perception of an extreme flood: A case study of Vernonia, Oregon, USA. Applied Geography 46:
137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.007.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New Series
185(4157):1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
White, G.F., and J.E. Haas. 1975. Assessment of research on natural hazards. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Wisner, B. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, 2d edition. London: Routledge.
U.S. Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center (USHDSC). 2019. Noaa Atlas 14 point precipitation frequency esti-
mates: TX. last accessed 24 February 2019. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/index.html .
U.S. National Climate Data Center (USNCDC). 2019. Climatological Data: Texas. last accessed 16 February 2019.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
Yamamura, E. 2010. Effects of interactions among social capital, income and learning from experiences of natural
disasters: A case study from Japan. Regional Studies 44(8):1019–1032. doi: 10.1080/00343400903365144.
Yiannakoulias, N., J. Darlington, A. Elshorbagy, and B. Raja. 2018. Meta-analysis based predictions of flood insur-
ance and flood vulnerability patterns in Calgary, Alberta. Applied Geography 96:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.
2018.05.007.

View publication stats