Hydrological connectivity: improving coastal literacy and resilience in classrooms and communities in the City of Wilmington

Abstract

Coastal flooding creates regular and episodic hazards—both of which are worsening due to sea-level rise, changing precipitation patterns, land-use changes, subsidence, and more—with varying degrees of predictability. The heterogeneity of flooding over space and time creates challenges in monitoring, modeling, communication of, and preparation for risks. Improving coastal community preparedness and resiliency requires a multi-pronged approach, including, for example, better monitoring and alerting paired with location-specific awareness of flood risk and safety measures. In this Hydrological Connectivity project, an academic-government-nonprofit-community collaborative team worked together to (1) find and fill gaps in real-time flood monitoring and alerting, (2) listen to community concerns and needs and provide flood safety strategies, and (3) foster intergenerational learning by teaching 4th grade students in the community about coastal hydrology and flood monitoring techniques through place- and project-based learning. This manuscript describes the need for and deployment of this multi-partner and multidisciplinary approach to improving coastal literacy and resilience in a frontline community in Wilmington, NC, United States, and our lessons learned.

Introduction

The US Southeast is experiencing one of the greatest rates of relative sea-level rise in the world (Dangendorf et al., 2023), and the City of Wilmington has suffered from an increase in frequency of severe weather events and flooding in recent years. This trend is predicted to worsen (Sweet et al., 2022). Changing storm severity (Morim et al., 2025) and cyclone stalling patterns (Trepanier et al., 2024) further exacerbate risk. Recent and tragic incidents [e.g., Hurricanes Matthew (‘16), Florence (‘18), Dorian (‘19), and Potential Tropical Cyclone-8 (‘24)] have embodied these patterns of intensification, and the predicted increasing risk amplifies threats to the safety and well-being of our residents and to the infrastructure that supports our community.

Communities worldwide—and especially coastal communities—are increasingly aware of the need to take proactive approaches to mitigate compound and intensifying flood risks. These approaches can include infrastructure improvements (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023), improved real-time monitoring and alerting networks (Loftis et al., 2018; Mydlarz et al., 2024), spatially and temporally resolved modeling and forecasting (Loftis et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2024; Sanders et al., 2025), better communication of risk and protective measures at scales ranging from the individual/family to community (Demeritt and Nobert, 2014), and greater awareness of place-based hazards for students of all ages (Sobel, 2004; Littrell et al., 2025).

Recent work has demonstrated that the existing tidal water level network is insufficient to capture the frequency and extent of flooding in many coastal locations (Hino et al., 2025) and catastrophic recent events have sadly exposed gaps in alert networks. A wide array of efforts has been aimed at improving flood monitoring and alerting across a wide range of environments (e.g., riverine, coastal, urban), especially given marked improvements in the robustness, affordability, and accessibility of sensors, real-time data, and alert networks (Kruger et al., 2016; Loftis et al., 2018; Silverman et al., 2022; Kalyanapu et al., 2023; Mydlarz et al., 2024; Post et al., 2024; Martinez-Osuna et al., 2025). For example, Loftis et al. (2018) describe an integrated coastal flood monitoring network of sensors installed by NOAA, USGS, and partners in the coastal flood–prone Hampton Roads Planning District, VA, United States, while Silverman et al. (2022) and Mydlarz et al. (2024) demonstrate the value of a low-cost street-level flood monitoring network across New York City, NY, United States.

Prior and ongoing work in Wilmington—including work led by project partners and coauthors C. Harris, J. Halls, and others—has resulted in critical feedback from numerous community workshops with outcomes focused on actions that can be taken to improve resilience to flooding. As one example, a project titled “Green Infrastructure Solutions to Support Flood Resiliency in Southeastern North Carolina” mapped locations for future nature-based solutions (NBSs) and conducted workshops at 4 locations within the Wilmington region. Primary findings of that work are: (1) flooding is related to neglected stormwater infrastructure, economic disparities, and over-development; (2) the community wants more education, action, investment, and involvement in decision-making; (3) there is a need for improved disaster planning and communication; and (4) the community values being heard and wants more frequent engagement.

Among other findings, the recent community engagement efforts (including this project’s, which we describe below) highlight a desire for improved monitoring and alerting infrastructure to address gaps between the existing tide gauge network and variable topography. Community members have expressed frustration that there is little information regarding real-time risk in specific locations of interest (e.g., flood-prone neighborhoods, intersections, or emergency service sites). The North Carolina Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network (FIMAN; https://fiman.nc.gov/, accessed 1-Aug-2025) is a key component of the state’s response to these challenges, but even with 628 sensors across the state (as of 1-Aug-2025), the distance between sensors can leave significant gaps in relevant information. For example, prior to the installation of our sensors as described below, the FIMAN tool did not include any monitoring in the watershed in which this project took place.

Expanding real-time flood sensor and alert networks is critical in many locations, including Wilmington. Nonetheless, such networks are only effective if the community is aware of the information and its significance and able to access it and/or automatically receive timely alerts. This requires meaningful engagement in the community and mutual learning to develop trust and build sustainable relationships. Early and continual involvement in the community motivates their participation in future research and projects, especially in resilience-building contexts (Hegger and Dieperink, 2015; Hovis et al., 2021). Workshops and embedding efforts within existing community events allow for the exchange of knowledge among researchers, practitioners, and community members, helping build trust and strengthening social capital (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Yusuf et al., 2018). Such active involvement in discussions influences residents to see the flood alerts as credible and empowers them to take action (Petriello et al., 2024). Additionally, community engagement activities, like workshops, must be designed to be accessible and inclusive to ensure diverse and marginalized communities are actively integrated (Fox et al., 2023). Recognizing community members are experts in their own environment and integrating their knowledge into research and decisions fosters collective learning. From there, collective learning is more likely to drive sustained resilience through policy changes and effective management actions (Hovis et al., 2024).

Additionally, intergenerational transfer of knowledge inspires increased awareness, more positive attitudes toward coastal resiliency, and ultimately behavioral changes in different age groups (Lawson et al., 2019). Accordingly, the third critical element of this project was classroom education, designed for 4th-grade elementary school students based on alignment with NC’s Essential Science Standards and intended to build knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavioral intentions related to coastal literacy. Borrowing from interrelated terms and fields such as ocean and climate literacy (National Marine Educators Association, 2023), coastal literacy is, broadly, the actionable understanding of risks and resources specific to coastal environments. Adopting the NMEA definition, it relies on one’s “understanding of the [coastal environment’s] influence on you, and your influence on the [coastal environment].” Coastal literacy is deeply dependent on community knowledge, and therefore, youth programs that are place-based are often more relevant and impactful (Stern et al., 2025) because the focus is on where the students and their families live. The schools selected for this project are all located within the watershed of interest.

Here we describe a multipronged approach to improve coastal community resilience by enhancing information sharing via thoughtful outreach and engagement efforts—specifically, real-time flood monitoring and alerting, web mapping, community workshops, and elementary school lessons aligned with NC Essential Science Standards.

Case study: our interactive natural science, social science, and education approach

Project location

The City of Wilmington is the most populous city on the coast of North Carolina, United States. The population of the greater metropolitan area comprising New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender Counties, also known as the Cape Fear region, grew by 13.7% between 2020 and 2024, making it one of the fastest-growing metro areas in the country. Burnt Mill Creek is an urban watershed in the City of Wilmington that winds through an underserved community [as identified by the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)] (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/Geospatial Research Analysis and Services Program, 2020). The watershed provides a critical stormwater resource affecting a large population. Unfortunately, recent hurricanes, significant rainfall events, and even King Tides have caused flooding to communities in proximity to the creek, and the risk is steadily rising due to both population growth and a changing climate.

Toward addressing the grand, complex challenge of coastal flooding in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed, we designed and implemented a project with three complementary components: (1) collecting and disseminating data via sensors, alerts, and web-based mapping, (2) workshops for community engagement, and (3) education in elementary school classrooms (Figure 1). The design and deployment of these components are described in the following subsections.

Figure 1

Sensors, alerts, and web-based mapping

Four water level sensors were deployed along Burnt Mill Creek as part of this project. Three different sensor designs were deployed since two partner organizations—the US Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA) and the City of Wilmington—contributed one each as in-kind contributions to the project, and two additional sensors were fabricated and deployed by the UNC Wilmington team. SECOORA worked with Green Stream to install a Senix ToughSonic 100 ultrasonic sensor with a 15.2 m (50 ft) range, and the City of Wilmington purchased and installed an In-Situ Aqua TROLL 200 with cellular capabilities.

The custom UNC Wilmington open water level (OWL) sensors use a cell-enabled and solar-powered upgrade to the “do it yourself” design described by Bresnahan et al. (2023). OWL design and fabrication documentation is available in Bresnahan et al. (2024). In brief, the OWL uses an ultrasonic Maxbotix MB7092 XL-MaxSonar-WRMA1 to measure distance to the water. The data are transmitted via cellular network using a Particle Boron LTE microcontroller, cellular modem, and antenna system to the Particle Cloud. From the Particle Cloud, data are pushed to the SECOORA Southeast Water Level Network site described below. Data are also logged internally on a micro-SD card for data backup in case of cellular outages. The device is equipped with a Voltaic 5 W, 5 V panel and 35 W-h battery pack. OWLs were deployed on 11-Mar-2025 (6 months of operations at time of writing) with custom aluminum brackets and surveyed in with RTK GPS to calculate NAVD88-referenced water level elevations (Dorton, 2023). In a deployment in the nearby Smith Creek, an identical OWL sensor operated continuously for >12 months, indicating the design’s technological robustness. Due to technological changes with cellular infrastructure after the grant period ended (31-July-2025), the sensors have been operating only intermittently since the end of summer 2025; research into the source and fixes for these issues is underway.

Three sensors are currently operational along Burnt Mill Creek (Figure 2). The SECOORA-installed sensor on Love Grove Bridge and the two UNCW OWLs: one at the Chestnut St. bridge and one adjacent to Randall Parkway immediately downstream of the Randall (stormwater retention) Pond weir. The City of Wilmington deployed the Aqua TROLL at Archie Blue Community Park but ceased maintaining the instrument mid-project due to the City’s shifting priorities. Nonetheless, the success of flood gauges on Burnt Mill Creek has reinforced the City of Wilmington’s desire to create a network of flood gauges, as the information already collected is beginning to provide critical information to residents, first responders, utility repair crews, as well as research data to better understand the causes and effects of changing hydrology. As an offshoot of this project, the city is now in the process of purchasing flood gauges to be installed in additional flood-prone areas.

Figure 2

The Love Grove and Chestnut sites both experience tides, but the Randall site is above the head of tide and instead experiences fluctuations primarily due to rain and stormwater management (e.g., a valve can be opened to increase flow through the retention pond weir). All data streams were integrated into the SECOORA Southeast Water Level Network, accessible at https://wl.secoora.org/ (accessed 1-Aug-2025). From this website (Figure 3), an individual can create an account and enable alert notifications at stations of interest, which will trigger when a site-specific water level threshold is crossed. Data are also openly available for download and further analysis. The SECOORA station at Love Grove Bridge was additionally integrated into the NC Flood Inundation, Mapping, and Alert Network (FIMAN).

Figure 3

Our team created a project website (Figure 4, https://arcg.is/0XmvS10, accessed 1-Aug-2025) using Esri’s Experience Builder to describe the project goals and outcomes and to display geospatial data. Additional information on this website includes partner school and sensor locations, Burnt Mill Creek and its full watershed, 0.2% and 1% annual chance flood hazard zones from FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer, a digital elevation model (DEM), and the City of Wilmington’s boundary. Hurricane Florence and Matthew flood layers can also be enabled to depict flood extent from these two severe storms. Both storms are recent enough that community members can relate to the information presented on the website. The website was also used to provide brief updates regarding community workshops and provide links to educational materials; both of which are explained in greater detail in the following sections. Our next step in the project was to work with the community to showcase the website and the water level sensor system, and gather feedback on their preferred communication mode for receiving data.

Figure 4

Community engagement

We co-hosted two workshops/community events open to everyone, thereby reaching the broader community, including those who may not have students participating in classes (see elaboration on Classroom Education below). A full description of these community events, methods, and results is available in Hovis et al. (in review) and we describe them in brief below.

On November 9, 2024, the team hosted a water level and flood safety workshop at DREAMS Center for Arts Education in Wilmington, NC. DREAMS is a beloved community center immediately adjacent to the Burnt Mill Creek watershed (Figures 2, 5). It serves, critically, as a well-known community gathering place in Wilmington’s Northside neighborhood, much of which is within the watershed. Twenty-five community members participated. The research team presented a synopsis of the project itself and discussed flood safety. Brief presentations were followed by facilitated tabletop, interactive flip-chart questionnaires. Tabletop facilitators guided the trauma-informed interactions, as the topic of flooding can be rooted in life-altering experiences. Using a trauma-informed approach to interact with communities with histories of distrust, trauma, or marginalization is crucial to effective resilience planning (Rosenberg et al., 2022).

Figure 5

All facilitators received pre-workshop reading materials and a briefing on trauma-informed facilitation practices prior to interacting with community members. The tabletop activity was designed for relationship-building and included open-ended questions that allowed participants to exchange knowledge and ideas. Such engagement approaches lead to increased trust and enhanced collaboration (Stern and Coleman, 2015).

Participants were asked a range of questions, including: Q1:“Where are you located?,” Q2: “How concerned are you about flooding?,” Q3: “What is some advice you would give to others to prepare for storms or flooding events?,” Q4:“What are some gaps in flood preparedness or recovery efforts?,” and Q5 “How would you like to receive information regarding flood sensors and flood risk?.” Participants provided multiple responses to some questions, particularly Q3, Q4, and Q5. Results showed that participants were “somewhat” concerned about flooding, compared to “not” or “very.” Participants revealed that the most common recommendation for preparation was acquiring essentials, emphasizing the importance of having necessary supplies on hand. Of a total of 47 various responses from the 25 participants, the most frequently cited gaps in flood recovery included education (18 responses), available resources (11 responses), and proactivity (7 responses). When asked how they would like to receive flood hazard information, participants provided a total of 53 distinct responses. The top five preferred methods were social media with 17 responses, text alerts and signs with 9, websites with 5, and news with 4.

A second community event was held during the DREAMS Spring Break Community Day on April 18, 2025. Our second event was deliberately paired with an event scheduled at DREAMS in order to both boost participation and strengthen connections with community members at an event of their design (i.e., based on the assumption that more individuals would attend an event scheduled by the DREAMS community vs. one scheduled by university and city representatives). Our team was invited to produce a video to kick off the event (https://vimeo.com/1077647743, accessed 5-Aug-2025). The video was used to describe our project and as a call to action to sign up for water level alerts. We then hosted several activities: a demonstration of the virtual reality tool used in the classroom lessons; a watershed educational activity designed for younger children; NC Sea Grant and NOAA flood safety pamphlets and tablets for individuals to sign up for water level alerts at the nearby Chestnut St. sensor station. We also handed out brochures that provided an overview of the project, highlighting findings from the first community event and other flood safety resources and tips (Figure 5; Supplementary Figure S4).

Classroom education

Three classroom programs were developed and delivered to 4th-grade students at two elementary schools near Burnt Mill Creek. The programs were designed to provide applied, real-world learning opportunities that were rooted in the place of Burnt Mill Creek. Across three lessons (each designed to map onto NC’s Essential Standards for Science), students were able to explore the role of topography and flooding in Burnt Mill Creek with augmented reality experiences, construct their own water-level gauges and explore existing water level data from sensors in this project, and take a virtual reality field trip through Burnt Mill Creek (see Table 1). Together, these experiences are designed to positively influence students’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavioral intentions relevant to coastal literacy, and Burnt Mill Creek specifically.

Fourth-grade students at each school participated in 3 hour-long programs. The objective of the first visit was to discover what students already knew about watersheds and the relationship to elevation and topography via a LEGO-based translation of a 2D map into 3D. Many did not know what a watershed was or which watershed they lived in. One of the schools was located directly on Burnt Mill Creek, with the creek visible from the classroom, yet many students did not know it was there. Students had the opportunity to share their lived experiences regarding flooding, and these discussions allowed students to share concerns, fears, opportunities, ideas, and more which were then referenced throughout the three lessons as student’s emotions and knowledge evolved. In the second lesson, students utilized basic engineering skills and readily available materials to develop a simple analog water level monitoring tool. A virtual reality field trip of Burnt Mill Creek was the central element of lesson three; the field trip provided both a guided experience and time for students to explore and observe its habitats and shoreline more freely. A pre-survey was administered to students at the beginning of the first program, and a post-survey was administered at the end of the third. The surveys aim to measure outcomes related to knowledge of flooding and associated drivers/impacts, attitudes toward flooding, some skills related to measuring water levels and how water flows across the land (via mapping skills), behavioral intentions, and their perceptions of flooding where they live. Survey items were informed by related work [e.g., Baldwin et al. (2023), Pickering et al. (2020), and Reckner et al. (2024)] and were granted exempt status by the UNCW IRB prior to data collection (#H24-0729). A report detailing our evaluation methods and full results is available (Davidson et al., 2025), but overall, these youth programs had a positive impact on participating students. Highlights of this work from our largest sample of 4th graders from one school (n = 50) indicate a high rating of the program itself (9.50 ± 1.02 out of 10; n = 34) and statistically significant gains in some knowledge (e.g., “I know a lot of about how flooding can impact my community” and “Water level sensors are tools that can monitor flooding in Burnt Mill Creek”) and attitude-related outcomes (e.g., “I care about flooding in Burnt Mill Creek” and “My actions can positively change Burnt Mill Creek”). All evaluated skills outcomes had statistically significant improvements (e.g., “I can use water level data to understand how rainfall can impact flooding in my community”). Finally, students were asked if they felt prepared if a flood happened in their community; 45.5% stated yes before the program with a rise to 76.6% after. Taken together, these findings are promising indicators of the positive impacts of these lessons [please see Davidson et al. (2025) for full evaluation results]. Lessons are available at https://github.com/COAST-Lab/Open-Water-Level/tree/main/Education/CCRG-Lessons-4thGrade.

Discussion: lessons learned and next steps

This community collaborative research project contributed multiple critical components to flood risk mitigation in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed. Work from each of the subcomponents was designed to improve the others; for example, community feedback will be used to inform future flood alert modalities, and water level sensor design principles were integrated into classroom lessons. We also acknowledge numerous challenges we experienced throughout the project. None of the four sensors had 100% uptime during the project period, and one of the four has been retired as described above. Additionally, the distance to the water surface was out of range at low tide for the initial sensor model chosen for the Love Grove Site, resulting in the switch to the Senix Ultrasonic 50 ft. range unit. The OWL sensor at the Randall site periodically dropped cellular service for several days in a row until an operator would manually reset the unit, despite firmware solutions that should have resolved this challenge. A modified OWL with a WiFi (vs. cellular) modem was developed and redeployed at the Randall site on 2-Sep-2025, as a public WiFi network is accessible from that site.

In our community engagement work, participant recruitment for the first community event was intentionally minimal, as the intent was to get to know several community members and leaders without overwhelming either the community or our team. Even so, participation was lower than desired. Toward improved engagement outcomes, coauthor of this article and Executive Director of DREAMS, Dr. K. Lebby, suggested pairing our second community event with an already planned activity at DREAMS. This paired event led to very high participation and high flood alert sign-up rates via the SECOORA Water Level Network page, but with the tradeoff of a less flood-focused event. We believe it is also important to note that many members of the academic community and government partners participated in this second event, and while it was less focused on the project’s specific objectives, it was a wonderful opportunity to connect more deeply with the Northside community. The strength of the connection and power of the experience at this beautiful neighborhood event more than outweighed any challenges.

In the classroom component, there were some challenges associated with both programmatic and evaluation elements. On the program side, there were unexpected delays with augmented reality activities that may have lessened the potential impacts of the first lesson. During the evaluation, some students struggled with comprehending survey items or did not complete either the pre- or post-survey (these were removed from the sample for analyses). This reduced our sample size, so we focused our analyses on the school with three classroom visits and the largest sample. Despite these challenges, these results indicate that the program was efficacious in promoting positive outcomes and was broadly enjoyed by the audiences whom we did reach (Davidson et al., 2025).

Finally, a comprehensive approach to flood risk mitigation clearly includes more than real-time alerts, community engagement, and classroom education. Development and population growth in this coastal region are rapid, and research, policy, and insurability-related questions remain regarding best practices for accommodating this growth (Agopian et al., 2024). A wide range of green and gray engineering interventions exists as well and will be crucial elements of necessary adaptation (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023). As part of related work in this region, a geospatial assessment of green infrastructure suitability was recently conducted (Pricope and Dalton, 2025), resulting in a clearer picture of the feasibility and potential impact of nature-based solutions or green infrastructure. Important elements of local flood resiliency efforts include the NC Resilient Coastal Communities Program, a state-funded initiative, which is designed “to support a locally driven process for setting coastal resilience goals, assessing community capacity, and identifying and prioritizing projects that strengthen resilience to coastal hazards” (https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/division-coastal-management/coastal-resiliency/rccp-overview, accessed 5-Aug-2025), and the NC Flood Resiliency Blueprint, “which will form the backbone of a state flood planning process to increase community resilience to flooding throughout North Carolina’s River basins” (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2025).

Conclusion

The Hydrological Connectivity community collaborative research project combined elements of water level monitoring and alerting, community engagement around flood risk, and 4th grade lessons focused on hydrology and sensing. Three operational flood gauges will continue to provide critical information for highly impacted but previously under-monitored areas and will allow the city, county, and researchers to monitor changes due to severe events and sea-level rise. The gauges will also enable further research, such as on the effects of development, river dredging, and the value of wetland preservation. Prior community engagement, coupled with this project, revealed a need for additional hyperlocal monitoring. Community members suggested a need for education and flood resources and expressed a desire for social media and text-based alerts. Classroom education at the 4th-grade level aligned with NC’s Essential Standards for Science and resulted in positive outcomes, especially in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and feelings about flood preparedness. Continued improvements are needed in monitoring, modeling and forecasting, alerting, physical infrastructure, and engagement and education efforts with affected communities, both in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed and beyond. This team intends to seek additional funding to continue and expand on the efforts described here and build on the important community connection.

References

• 1

  Agopian A. Hino M. Siders A. R. Samoray C. Mach K. J. (2024). A nationwide analysis of community-level floodplain development outcomes and key influences. Earths Future12:e2024EF004585. doi: 10.1029/2024EF004585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Baldwin C. Pickering G. Dale G. (2023). Knowledge and self-efficacy of youth to take action on climate change. Environ. Educ. Res.29, 1597–1616. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2022.2121381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Bresnahan P. Briggs E. Davis B. Rodriguez A. R. Edwards L. Peach C. et al . (2023). A low-cost, DIY ultrasonic water level sensor for education, citizen science, and research. Oceanography36, 51–58. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2023.101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Bresnahan P. J. Lower G. Lucas A. Edwards L. White D. (2024). COAST-lab/open-water-level: GitHub design files for cell and solar-enabled open water level sensor (v1.0.0). Geneva: Zenodo.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ Geospatial Research Analysis and Services Program 2020 CDC/ATSDR social vulnerability index 2020 database. Available online at: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/data_documentation_download.html. (Accessed November 14, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Dangendorf S. Hendricks N. Sun Q. Klinck J. Ezer T. Frederikse T. et al . (2023). Acceleration of U.S. southeast and gulf coast sea-level rise amplified by internal climate variability. Nat. Commun.14:1935. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37649-9,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Davidson J. Frensley B. T. Moran E. Settin B. O’connor C. Bresnahan P. J. (2025). 2025 flood resilience youth program evaluation report. Geneva: Zenodo.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Demeritt D. Nobert S. (2014). Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management. Environ. Hazards13, 313–328. doi: 10.1080/17477891.2014.924897

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Dorton J. (2023). Southeast water level network standard operating procedures: acquiring vertical elevation of water level sensors. Silver Spring, MD: Secoora.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Fox N. Tilt J. H. Ruggiero P. Stanton K. Bolte J. (2023). Toward equitable coastal community resilience: incorporating principles of equity and justice in coastal hazard adaptation. Camb. Prism. Coast. Futur.1:e36. doi: 10.1017/cft.2023.24,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Hegger D. Dieperink C. (2015). Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?Ecol. Soc.20:1. doi: 10.5751/ES-07929-200401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Hino M. Anarde K. Fridell T. Mccune R. Thelen T. Farquhar E. et al . (2025). Land-based sensors reveal high frequency of coastal flooding. Commun. Earth Environ.6:404. doi: 10.1038/s43247-025-02326-w,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Hovis M. Cubbage F. Katti M. Mcginley K. (2021). Participant and socio-ecological outcomes of the Hofmann open-water laboratory (HOWL) citizen science project. J. Community. Engagem. Scholarsh.13:1. doi: 10.54656/VWWS6121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Hovis M. Gerlak A. K. Heikkila T. Rittelmeyer P. Koebele E. Méndez-Barrientos L. E. et al . (2024). Illuminating the collective learning continuum in the Colorado River basin science-policy forums. Environ. Policy Gov.35, 26–47. doi: 10.1002/eet.2125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Hovis M. Polk M. Bresnahan P.J. Kasney C. Davidson J. Frensley B.T. (in review). Community voices in action: a framework for flood resilience workshops in a coastal community.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). Climate change 2022 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Kalyanapu A. Owusu C. Wright T. Datta T. (2023). Low-cost real-time water level monitoring network for falling Water River watershed: a case study. Geosciences13:65. doi: 10.3390/geosciences13030065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Kruger A. Krajewski W. F. Niemeier J. J. Ceynar D. L. Goska R. (2016). Bridge-mounted river stage sensors (BMRSS). IEEE Access4, 8948–8966. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2631172

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Lawson D. F. Stevenson K. T. Peterson M. N. Carrier S. J. Strnad L. R. Seekamp E. (2019). Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nat. Clim. Chang.9, 458–462. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Littrell M. K. Boyd K. J. Schloesser K. Christensen A. Gold A. U. Alam I. (2025). Place and community engagement in a youth natural hazards and community resilience education program. J. Geosci. Educ.73, 370–385. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2025.2489709

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Loftis D. Forrest D. Katragadda S. Spencer K. Organski T. Nguyen C. et al . (2018). StormSense: a new integrated network of IoT water level sensors in the smart cities of Hampton roads, VA. Mar. Technol. Soc. J.52, 56–67. doi: 10.4031/MTSJ.52.2.7,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Loftis J. D. Mitchell M. Schatt D. Forrest D. R. Wang H. V. Mayfield D. et al . (2019). Validating an operational flood forecast model using citizen science in Hampton roads, VA, USA. J Mar Sci Eng7:242. doi: 10.3390/jmse7080242

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Martinez-Osuna J. F. Piermattei V. Coppini G. Marcelli M. (2025). Low-cost water level measurement technologies for assessing the impact of climate change and storm surges in coastal areas, suitable for citizen science initiatives. Front. Mar. Sci.12:1604069. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1604069

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Morim J. Wahl T. Rasmussen D. J. Calafat F. M. Vitousek S. Dangendorf S. et al . (2025). Observations reveal changing coastal storm extremes around the United States. Nat. Clim. Chang.15, 538–545. doi: 10.1038/s41558-025-02315-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Mydlarz C. Sai Venkat Challagonda P. Steers B. Rucker J. Brain T. Branco B. et al . (2024). FloodNet: low-cost ultrasonic sensors for real-time measurement of hyperlocal, street-level floods in new York City. Water Resour. Res.60:e2023WR036806. doi: 10.1029/2023WR036806

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  National Marine Educators Association (2023). The essential principles and fundamental concepts of ocean science: National Marine Educators Association (Nmea).

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (2025). More resilient by design: North Carolina’s flood resiliency blueprint. North Carolina: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Petriello M. A. Redmore L. Sène A. L. Katju D. Barraclough L. Boyd S. et al . (2024). The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities. Conserv. Biol.39:e14249. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14249,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Pickering G. J. Schoen K. Botta M. Fazio X. (2020). Exploration of youth knowledge and perceptions of individual-level climate mitigation action. Environ. Res. Lett.15:104080. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abb492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Post C. Ovais S. M. Allen J. Mikhailova E. Comert G. (2024). Intelligent River® bridge flood monitoring system to improve transportation mobility. Clemson, SC: Clemson University.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Pricope N. G. Dalton E. G. (2025). Mapping coastal resilience: precision insights for green infrastructure suitability. J. Environ. Manag.376:124511. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124511,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Reckner M. Tien I. Smith S. Omunga P. Alemdar M. Hyde A. (2024). Impact of youth education on green stormwater infrastructure recommendations to increase equity and resilience in marginalized communities. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.150:04024032. doi: 10.1061/JWRMD5.WRENG-6315

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Rodriguez A. R. Fiedler J. Engeman L. Vawter A. Merrifield M. Marra J. J. et al . (2024). Coastal flood hazard workshop: advancements in bridging scales and disciplines for future risk assessment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.105, E1995–E2001. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-24-0213.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Rosenberg H. Errett N. A. Eisenman D. P. (2022). Working with disaster-affected communities to envision healthier futures: a trauma-informed approach to post-disaster recovery planning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:1723. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031723,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Sanders B. F. Schubert J. E. Martin E.-M. H. Wang S. Sukop M. C. Mach K. J. (2025). A fast flood inundation model with groundwater interactions and hydraulic structures. Adv. Water Resour.204:105057. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2025.105057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Silverman A. I. Brain T. Branco B. Challagonda P. S. V. Choi P. Fischman R. et al . (2022). Making waves: uses of real-time, hyperlocal flood sensor data for emergency management, resiliency planning, and flood impact mitigation. Water Res.220:118648. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118648,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Sobel D. (2004). “Place-based education: connecting classrooms and communities” in Education for meaning and social justice (Barrington, MA: Orion Society), 63–64.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Stern M. J. Coleman K. J. (2015). The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour.28, 117–132. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.945062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Stern M. J. Powell R. B. Frensley B. T. Anderson K. C. Kiewra L. Pownall M. et al . (2025). Principles for better environmental education field trips for early adolescent youth in the United States: an empirical study. Environ. Educ. Res., 1–24. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2502575

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Sweet W. V. Hamlington B. D. Kopp R. E. Weaver C. P. Barnard P. L. Bekaert D. et al . (2022). Global and Regional Sea level rise scenarios for the United States: Updated mean projections and extreme water level probabilities along U.S. coastlines. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Services.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Trepanier J. C. Nielsen-Gammon J. Brown V. M. Thompson D. T. Keim B. D. (2024). Stalling North Atlantic tropical cyclones. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.63, 1409–1426. doi: 10.1175/JAMC-D-23-0229.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Wondolleck J. M. Yaffee S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Yusuf J.-E. St John B. Covi M. Nicula J. G. (2018). Engaging stakeholders in planning for sea level rise and resilience. J. Contemp. Wat. Res. Educ.164, 112–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2018.03287.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar