Modeling and Mapping Flood Hazard with a Flood Risk Assessment Tool: A Case Study of Austin, Texas
- 1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
- 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
- 3 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
- 4 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
- 5 Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Abstract
As a hazard, flood is an extremely important indicator of how a city is resilient to waterborne diseases and epidemics. Over many decades, flood as a hazard has been a major factor in inducing displacement of marginalized section of the people. Austin city within Central Texas has been identified as one of the major hotspots for flooding in recent decades. Thus, the objectives of the paper are two folded: 1) Empirically, we analyzed and mapped out the susceptibility levels from the factors of physical environments to assess the risk of urban flooding (rainfall data, surface water bodies and topography); in Austin, Texas and 2) Methodologically, we created a re-useable ArcGIS scripting tool that can be used by researchers to automate the process of flood risk modelling with certain criteria. The paper showcases a novel time sensitive building of a tool which will enable better visibility of flood within the city of Austin.
- Doswell, C.A., Brooks, H.E. and Maddox, R.A. (1996) Flash Flood Forecasting: An Ingredients-Based Methodology. Weather and Forecasting, 11, 560-581. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1996)011 2.0.CO;2
- NCEI/NOAA (2021) Storm Events Database, 2011-2020. All Counties in Texas, Event Types: Flash Flood. National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI/NOAA). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=48%2CTEXAS
- Earl, R.A. (2007) The October 1998 Flood of the Upper Guadalupe River System, Central Texas. Great Plains Research, 17, 3-16.
- Huber, M. (2019) More Homes Fall in 100-Year Flood Plain. Austin American Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/news/20191003/austin-weighs-code-changes-after-data-show-80-more-structures-at-flood-risk
- Ekeanyanwu, C. (2021) Examining Residents’ Vulnerability from the Flood Hazard in the Onion Creek Neighborhood of Austin Texas: Who Is At-Risk and Why? Texas State University, San Marcos. https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/15449
- Rincón, D., Khan, U.T. and Armenakis, C. (2018) Flood Risk Mapping Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Greater Toronto Area Case Study. Geosciences, 8, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8080275
- Safaripour, M., Monavari, M., Zare, M., Abedi, Z. and Gharagozlou, A. (2012) Flood Risk Assessment Using GIS (Case Study: Golestan Province, Iran). Journal of Environment Study, 21, 1817-1824.
- Meyer, V., Scheuer, S. and Haase, D. (2009) A Multicriteria Approach for Flood Risk Mapping Exemplified at the Mulde River, Germany. Natural Hazards, 48, 17-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9244-4
- Bixler, P.R., Yang, E., Richter, S.M. and Coudert, M. (2021) Boundary Crossing for Urban Community Resilience: A Social Vulnerability and Multi-Hazard Approach in Austin, Texas, USA. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 66, Article ID: 102613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102613
- Moulds, S., Buytaert, W., Templeton, M.R. and Kanu, I. (2021) Modeling the Impacts of Urban Flood Risk Management on Social Inequality. Water Resources Research, 57, e2020WR029024. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029024
- Zoll, D. (2021) Climate Adaptation as a Racial Project: An Analysis of Color-Blind Flood Resilience Efforts in Austin, Texas. Environmental Justice, 14, 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0034
- Barros, V.R., et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Part B: Regional Aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1-1820.