Local Response to Forced Adaptation Challenges: Lessons from a Post-flooding School Rebuilding Controversy

Abstract

This study focuses on school rebuilding experiences in a distressed rural county in the wake of severe flooding. While considering scholarly literature, and making use of relevant public records and media coverage, the centerpiece of this qualitative study is an analysis of 391 public comments made in response to proposed rebuilding plans. The study focuses on how the schools rebuilding debate was socially constructed in response to the flood and in a time of growing awareness of climate change. The findings suggest that the debate was framed along lines familiar to rural school closure and consolidation controversies in general and in context of underlying political and social conditions specific to the county. Themes of power and powerlessness, fairness and justice, and community identity and viability were predominant. Specific discussion of climate change and associated themes was notably absent in the public comments. The findings suggest that existing sociopolitical context and policy domains may shape the consideration of new adaptation choices, whether forced by immediate events such as a natural disaster, or influenced by longer term concerns relating to climate change.

Keywords

disaster management climate change adaptation strategies school consolidation social justice social construction issue framing community public participation

Introduction

Disaster management often focuses on mitigating risk and preventing future harm in the built environment. Many experts advocate adaptation to existing and emergent hazards and threats. This may mean adopting land-use practices limiting development in vulnerable areas and restricting redevelopment and rebuilding efforts in areas that have suffered damage and remain at risk. The increased tempo and intensity of natural disasters, such as floods and wildfires, has given further emphasis to adaptive land-use practices. Climate change is contributing to increased hazards and vulnerabilities in the United States and elsewhere (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). Mitigation and adaptation decisions may be catalyzed by specific disasters or events. Forced adaption situations may create dilemmas and conflict specific to existing policy domains or arenas. These domains and arenas may influence how problems are defined, solutions are proposed, and how stakeholders engage in and shape debate and deliberation. At the local level, underlying intercommunity conflict may surface during these deliberations. Conflicting short-term priorities and interests may supersede planning and action to adapt to emergent and future conditions. Preexisting intercommunity tensions, framed around issues relating to disparities in local power, economic resources, and status, may preclude collaborative public engagement. Conflict may complicate and even prevent coordinated adaptation strategies.

Among the public facilities and institutions at risk to climate change are schools. Recent studies show over 6,000 schools are vulnerable to flooding (Pew Charitable Trusts 2017:8). Under federal law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides financial disaster recovery assistance to school systems under the Stafford Act. These funds can be substantial, providing at minimum 75 percent of costs for mitigation, rebuilding, and relocation. Relocation decisions are driven in part by federal regulations requiring that schools to be built outside of known flood zones (U.S. FEMA 2020). A community that loses a school to a flood may be placed in a position of forced adaptation. Unable to rebuild a school in its original location, new alternatives must be considered. However, these decisions are not simply technical and instrumental. Beyond financial and engineering considerations, decisions are likely to be surrounded by contextual issues reflecting deeper community concerns and dynamics. More than just facilities, schools serve as focal points for educational and community activities. Their presence contributes to economic activity and helps forge a sense of community identity (DeYoung and Howley 1990). Their role in rural community is especially pronounced (Blauwkamp, Longo, and Anderson 2011)

Local school administration is a complex, dynamic and often contentious policy arena. In managing long term challenges, such as constrained finances and declining student enrollment, school closure and consolidation may have to be considered. These deliberations are often wrapped up in broader concerns relating to community identity, fairness and equity in location decisions, and economic consequences (Blauwkamp et al. 2011; Harmon and Schafft 2009). These sociopolitical themes are similar to those identified in the study of the challenges facing community-based climate change adaptation (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Chandler 2014; Rivera and Kapucu 2015). School consolidation and closure decisions may be protracted over many years as options are debated and controversial decisions are deferred (see, for example, Post and Stambach 1999). Forced adaptation decisions, such as those occurring in the wake of disaster where schools are destroyed, may create new dynamics as options are limited and time demands are pressing. This is illustrated through a case study of a rural school closure and consolidation debate that followed catastrophic flooding in a rural Appalachian county in 2016.

Rural School Consolidation and the Politics of Mitigation and Adaptation

Context shapes the manner and way that issues and problems are defined, solutions are proposed, decisions are made, and resulting actions are implemented (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Policy domains or subsystems shape and influence the framing and construction of issues that enter their environment. Institutional arrangements, past policies and practices, and dominant actors have significant influence on how matters are characterized and acted on (Hornbeek and Peters 2017; Stone 2002). Some policy domains are more permeable and dynamic than others (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Local school administration is one such domain. Writing six decades ago, two sociologists noted that in the myriad decisions that rural school boards make involving finances, infrastructure, personnel and curriculum are buried the “seeds of crisis” (Vidich and Bensman 1960:178). Because the life of a local community is often bound up in the close proximity of a school, proposed actions and changes can be perceived as an existential threat mobilizing resistance from various interests, like parents, faculty, local officials, and business interests. Questions may also be raised about the legitimacy of those in control of decisions, such as school boards and other authorities (Blauwkamp et al. 2011; Post and Stambach 1999). Inter-community conflict may ensue as concerns are raised about the unequal distribution of benefits and resources among schools and communities within school districts (Bard, Gardner, and Wieland 2006; Sipple, Francis, and Fidducia 2019; Surface 2011; Thompson 1990).

American rural school systems have long had to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. One response has been to close and consolidate schools with the objective of achieving efficiencies and effectiveness in the face of changing population demographics, economic factors, and educational practices. The controversies and conflicts associated with these actions include concerns over matters of fairness, equity, trust, social and distributive justice, benefit and cost, and community identity (Blauwkamp et al. 2011; Harmon and Schafft 2009). School consolidation has been described as “one of the most contentious social policy issues in rural America” (Reynolds 1999:225). It has been called, “perhaps the most important concern in many rural communities” (DeYoung and Howley 1990:63). Debates over consolidation reflect “emotional argument” as rural residents and communities push back against the perceived forces of modernization and progress forcing centralization and the loss of community-based schools (Thompson 1990:195). At both the national and local level, it is an issue that is “polarized” (Bard et al. 2006:42).

Local school systems are directly accountable to state authority and rely on state and federal sources for financial assistance, creating further challenges. Mandates and decisions from higher levels of government constrain discretion and options at the local level. State level funding priorities and the move toward federal standards in educational achievement have strengthened arguments for consolidation. Framing consolidation as both effective and efficient, proponents can also draw on over a century of educational theory and practice espousing “improvement” and modernization through centralization and standardization (DeYoung and Howley 1990:63–64). Consolidation has been justified as a means of promoting more uniform and coordinated standards and practices of education (Alsbury and Whitaker 2007). By using scientific and other knowledge claims, consolidation has been framed as not only rational but inevitable in a modern world. These claims have not gone unchallenged in the literature nor in policy debate (Bard et al. 2006; Reynolds 1999; Thompson 1990).

The dynamics of school consolidation debates are comparable to emergent issues and challenges associated with hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation theory and practice. As with decisions relating to school consolidation, mitigation and adaptation is politically contested ground. Recovery and rebuilding efforts in communities and regions expose conflicts based on the social construction of identity, community, power, fairness, equity and justice (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Chandler 2014; Rivera and Kapucu 2015). Expert opinion may differ on the relative costs and benefits of alternatives (Siders, Hino, and Mach 2019). Local discretion is constrained by state and federal authority (Cigler 2017). Uncertainty over the degree of risk and vulnerability, and its unequal distribution across groups and places, may leverage disagreement as to if, when, and how action should be taken (Rufat et al. 2015). Proactive planning and action may be avoided due to the social, economic, and political trade-offs involved (Cutter et al. 2008; Rivera and Kapucu 2015). Even after a disaster, instead of addressing new realities there may be a desire to return to things as they once were, including redevelopment in vulnerable areas. In short, sociopolitical inertia may be difficult to overcome, making proactive and comprehensive planning and action challenging (Chandler 2014; Ross 2014).

Public engagement figures prominently in local school administration and helps to explain the dynamics often surrounding school consolidation deliberations. Local stakeholders may hold differing views and have conflicting interests (Alberghini 2017; Nitta, Holley, and Wrobel 2010; Post and Stambach 1999). Communities that are in closer proximity to new or consolidated schools may be perceived as more advantaged than those farther away. Consensus may be difficult to achieve, especially if there are questions involving the legitimacy of decision making and perceived inequities that might result from consolidation and closure. These same dynamics might be expected to extend to mitigation and adaptation decisions involving land-use and regulation in affected areas. The climate change adaptation literature embraces inclusive and consensus-based public engagement (Schlosberg, Collins, and Niemeyer 2017; Walker and Salt 2006). However, the challenges involved in achieving community cooperation may not be fully appreciated.

Further complicating public engagement are sociopolitical factors that work against inclusion. Specifically, rural school consolidation has been criticized as being pushed by outside interests with little regard for local input (Bard et al. 2006; Green and Letts 2007). More broadly, strong external forces of control can set and control agendas, denying rural interests voice in their own affairs (Bell, Lloyd, and Vatovec 2007). These dynamics are pronounced in Appalachia, where local power dynamics have long been understood to favor external economic interests and local elites who serve as their agents (Gaventa 1980; Stoll 2017). Public engagement may merely be ritualistic with decisions having already been made by elites (Lando 2003). The need to give meaningful voice to the vulnerable and marginalized has been stressed in both school administration and mitigation and adaptation contexts (Blauwkamp et al. 2011; Gardiner 2006; McHenry-Sorber and Budge 2018; Pelling, O’Brien, and Matyas 2015; Rubenstein 2007). However even in rural areas where there are disparities, resistance and collective action may manifest (Gaventa 1980, Bell et al. 2007). Such was the case in Nicholas County after the floods of 2016.

The Case Study: The Flood of 2016 and Nicholas County, West Virginia

On June 23, 2016, intense rains overwhelmed creeks and small rivers across West Virginia leading to widespread flooding across the state. The most devastating effects were concentrated in a few of the state’s more rural and mountainous counties. Damage was especially severe in and around the town of Richwood, a small relatively isolated community located in the mountainous eastern region of Nicholas County. The flood’s effects were felt elsewhere as well, including in Summersville, the county seat of Nicholas County. Like much of the state, the county is susceptible to flooding and studies suggest that risks will only intensify with climate change (Di Liberto 2016; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2016). Three schools, a middle school in Summersville and a middle school and high school in Richwood were heavily damaged. Initial assessments suggested that repairs could be made and the schools reopened (Nicholas Chronicle 2016). However, within weeks federal, state and local officials determined that each school was a complete loss (Nicholas County Board of Education [NCBE] 2016). Because the schools were in floodplains, under FEMA regulations the schools would have to be rebuilt elsewhere to qualify for needed federal funding (U.S. FEMA 2019). The county was presented with the stark challenge of forced adaptation.

Designated a “distressed county” by the federal government, Nicholas County has experienced chronic underemployment and poverty in recent decades (Appalachian Regional Commission 2020). Over time, population has fallen across the county. Currently it stands at 24,496—a decline of almost seven percent since 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). Between 2015 and 2018, the number of children enrolled in kindergarten through high school decreased by approximately six percent. In 2015, median household income in the county stood at $39,171. As 2018, this had fallen to $38,468. In comparison, overall median household income has been increasing in the state. But at $44,921, it still lags far behind the U.S. household median income of $60,293 for 2018. Reflecting both poor job prospects and an aging population, the percentage of residents over the age 16 who were not part of the employed labor force has remained constant at about 49.4 percent since 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015, 2018).

While overall economic conditions are distressed, there are distinct intra-county differences. These are pronounced between Summersville and Richwood, with the former enjoying a degree of prosperity as compared to latter. In 2015, median household in the greater Summersville area stood at $41,350 as compared to $27,340 in and around Richwood. The individual poverty rate stood at 18.8 percent and 30.1 percent respectively, child poverty rate differences were even more pronounced at 25.0 percent and 47.8 percent respectively. As of 2018, overall poverty differentials remained stark. For example, while the child poverty rate had increased to 30.5 percent in Summersville it had also increased to 49.6 percent in Richwood (U.S. Census Bureau 2015, 2018). The community differences take on an added dimension when seen in historical context. Decades ago, the center of county cultural and economic activity focused on Richwood. For example, in 1950, the population of Richwood proper stood at 5,321 while for Summersville, the population stood at 1,628 (U.S. Census Bureau 1951). In years following, the latter’s population declined while the former increased. Prior to the flood, the population of Summersville and the surrounding area had grown to 9,979 while that in and around Richwood declined to 2,713. Most significant were differences in the number of students enrolled in kindergarten through high school. In the Summersville area this stood at 1,297 prior to the flood, in Richwood this stood at 325 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). In short, in the years leading up to June 2016 flood, Summersville had become to focal point of economic and community activity in the county enjoying a degree of success as a county seat, regional market center and as a tourist destination. In contrast, Richwood’s situation was dire as a result of economic decline and out-migration due to downturns in the coal and timber production and the loss of light manufacturing facilities.

By the fall of 2016, not only was it understood that all three schools would have to be rebuilt—it was now apparent that all three would have to be relocated. The reconstruction of Summersville Middle School (SMS) generated little attention, ostensibly because it would be relocated near its original site (NCBE 2016). In contrast, the uncertain fate of Richwood Middle School (RMS) and Richwood High School (RHS) generated great concern among many in and around the flood-ravaged town. Both schools had been built on a flood plain adjacent to the town’s commercial and public district. Suitable sites for rebuilding nearby would be difficult to find. Faced with these challenges and the prospects of further population decline in the Richwood area, some feared that relocation would manifest in the consolidation of schools some distance from the community. Local leaders and citizens mobilized in opposition to possible consolidation, expressing concerns at county school board meetings (see, for example NCBE 2016) and through local and state media (see Marks 2017). The result was a prevailing narrative among critics that consolidation would favor those in and around Summersville at the expense of the Richwood area.

In January 2017, the fears of the pro-Richwood faction were realized when the school board released a draft Comprehensive Education Facilities Plan (CEFP) outlining a schools rebuilding strategy. The CEFP called for consolidating the county’s two high schools into one institution located at a new education campus near Summersville. The two damaged middle schools would also be consolidated at the same new site. The county’s two Career and Technical Centers, one located a short-drive from Richwood, the other at the Nicholas County High School in Summersville, would be relocated at the new site (Nicholas County Board of Education [NCBE] 2017). In March, the board approved the new CEFP and formally voted to close five schools—the flood damaged schools in Richwood and Summersville, as well as the undamaged Nicholas County High School and the Nicholas County Career and Technical Center, with the goal of completing the consolidation process by the start of the 2020-2021 academic year (NCBE 2017).

The controversy soon expanded to the state level. The plan required approval from the West Virginia Board of Education (WVBOE). The outcome was uncertain. West Virginia’s Governor had already made public pronouncements against consolidation and advocated for rebuilding schools in Richwood. In June 2017, the WVBOE rejected the county’s consolidation plan. Two weeks later, the Nicholas County School Board filed suit against the WVBOE, arguing that the body had operated outside its scope of authority, had rendered its decision in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, and that the Governor and his staff had used undue influence in the proceedings (WV Metro News 2017). In August, a state circuit court ruled in favor of the Nicholas County School Board, citing in part that the WVBOE’s rejection was an “abuse of power” that had been influenced by the Governor’s position against consolidation (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 2017:9). The WVBOE immediately appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. In October, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the WVBOE, noting that “we are compelled by the foregoing to renounce the lower court’s deeply misguided construction of the WVBOE’s constitutional grant of authority inasmuch as it is wholly at odds with this Court’s precedent” (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 2017:14).

While the state’s Supreme Court handed the Governor and the WVBOE a victory, it did not provide a solution. Schools still needed to be rebuilt. To solve the impasse, both the Supreme Court and FEMA encouraged negotiations between state and local officials and further engagement with community members. Under the WVBOE’s mandate, and with the assistance of outside consultants, a “mediation team” made up of state and county officials was established to develop a new plan to rebuild schools (McElhinney 2017). In April 2018, a draft plan was released preserving many of the features of the original CEFP consolidation plan. Under the new proposal, a “comprehensive” high school would be built outside of Summersville at the new educational campus along with a new middle school and career and technical center. The plan called for the undamaged Nicholas County High School to be shuttered and the Summersville Middle School relocated to the new campus. As in the original proposal, the career and technical training centers would be closed and relocated to the new educational campus. Significantly, the proposal also provided major concessions to the pro-Richwood supporters. Two new schools would be built outside the flood zone but within a three-mile radius of the town guaranteeing local provision of K-12 education. These “community schools” would be smaller in size but offer broad curricular and extracurricular options, including team sports. Reaction to the compromise plan, however, was decidedly cool among many in the pro-Richwood camp. As one community leader noted in a local newspaper, “This is like any other treaty proposal—the devil is in the details” (Johnson 2018: 2A).

Data, Methods and Results

The next step in the mediation process was to engage county residents. Public engagement was solicited through an invitation to submit email comments and to participate in a facilitated public meeting. A public meeting was held in Summersville on April 12, 2018, where approximately 275 individuals reportedly attended (Nicholas Chronicle 2018c). The meeting was structured to focus on the following: 1) feedback on the mediation process to date, 2) opinion on the draft proposal for school rebuilding in the county, and 3) other suggestions, feedback and ideas (Combs 2018). At the hearing, input took the form of “public comment cards, index cards, and sticky notes placed on posters” (West Virginia State Board of Education [WVBOE] 2018). Apart from the meeting, the public record documents email communications received as part of the notice and comment process. A total of 391 public comments were recorded between March 30 and April 24, 2018 when the record closed. Each comment was made part of the public record (see WVBOE 2018). Because comments were anonymized and because there were multiple opportunities to contribute to the record, it should not be assumed that each comment is unique to an individual.

Content analysis of the public comment record has been utilized to examine policy development in various policy domains (Bryer 2013; Yackee 2006). More broadly, conceptual content analysis has been used as a means of examining agenda setting, issue definition, and social construction in the policy process and in political behavior (Manganello and Fishbein 2008). It helps to explain how “reality becomes constituted” and “facts are constructed” (Krippendorff 2004:16). Because context shapes construction and framing, the institutional, political, and historical aspects that shape policy domains may be influential (Hornbeek and Peters 2017; Stone 2002). The combination of the public record, the time bound nature of the controversy, and a catalyzing mechanism (i.e., the schools rebuilding proposal), allows the opportunity to examine social construction and issue framing in circumstances of forced adaptation.

Conceptual content analysis entails the identification of key words, terms, or phrases which provide narrative threads illustrating how broader concepts or themes are expressed and considered in communications and discourse (Elo and Kyngas 2008). It is similar to thematic analysis, which is often used in the study of stakeholder attitudes in school consolidation debates (Alberghini 2017; Nitta et al. 2010; Post and Stambach 1999; Surface 2011). Content analysis differs in that it is a qualitative research method assisted by quantitative data management and analysis (Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas 2013). It can be an inductive process, exploring unfamiliar terrain and seeking to reveal concepts and themes that represent the experience under study (Elo and Kyngas 2008).

Content analysis finds both utility and limitation in its scope of inquiry. In this study, it is applied only to the public comment record assembled as part of the mediation process. Other valuable written artifacts, such as press coverage, social media postings, government reports and court decisions are not included in the analysis. Public comments are just one piece of the policymaking puzzle. Representing the sentiments of those with the means and motive to participate, it cannot be assumed that the record represents all viewpoints or perspectives. The record does not tell us about the background or identity of participants. Without identifiers, it is not possible to ascertain socioeconomic, demographic or other measures of representativeness. Without the benefit of direct observation or access to video recordings, the text restricts analysis to what has been manifestly expressed in the text, rather implied and latent meanings that are revealed through observation (Elo and Kyngas 2008). However, a particular strength of the public comment record is that, unlike surveys and interviews, it provides an unobtrusive means of observing issue framing and social construction at work.

Another limitation in content analysis is that the researcher is likely to arrive at the subject with preconceptions and assumptions in mind. The scope of analysis will be shaped and constrained by disciplinary orientation, subject matter interest, and working hypotheses. These are limitations that are also necessary for analysis, the absence of which would make structuring and interpreting the data daunting (Manganello and Fishbein 2008; Vaismoradi et al. 2013). To address the possibility of subjectivity, the record was examined by two researchers who independently read over the transcripts to develop initial impressions and identify potential concepts for further study. Differences in opinion were resolved not so much by eliminating possible concepts from analysis as expanding the scope of possible candidates. In thematic and conceptual analysis, iterative and interactive practices are employed to limit individual bias. The approach has been used specifically in studies of school consolidation (see, for example, Post and Stambach 1999; Surface 2011).

In order to organize the data for more systematic analysis, the public record was imported into an Excel spreadsheet to facilitate management of each comment and to allow for a computer assisted word search and counts. This approach is utilized elsewhere in applied social science, especially with smaller data sets (Ose 2016). Most public comments were received on April 12 (77% of all comments) with the remaining 89 comments received prior and after that date. Of the 302 comments recorded for April 12, calculations suggest that 288 were made at the meeting and 14 were submitted through email. After identifying potential salient words that might reflect key concepts and conducting word counts of possible conceptual candidates, 14 prevalent concepts emerged. In order of frequency these were: Equal, Fair, Community, Flood, Money, Future, Sustain, Compromise, Cost, Fund, Hope, Fiscal, Move, and Trust. These were organized around root words (such as equal) and their conjugates and synonyms. Because circumstances matter, each mention of word was read in fuller context of the public comment. Within any one comment, the count of a key word or its variant is limited to only one instance. Thus for example, a comment with both equal and equality in its content is counted only once for the theme equal. However, any one comment could yield mentions of separate concepts or themes. Table 1 provides word conjugates and word counts for each. The table also distinguishes between concepts expressed on April 12, the high-point of public participation, and the notice and comment period prior and after that date.

Table 1.

Content Analysis Word Identification and Counts.

THEME	All responses (3-30-18 to 4-24-18)	Public meeting sub-total (4-12-18)
EQUAL: equal, equity, equality, equally, equitable, equate, equivalent, unequal, inequities.	103	82
FAIR: fair, fairly, fairness, unfair, not fair, unfairly.	77	56
COMMUNITY: Community, Communities, Community School	53	35
FLOOD: Flood, Flooded, Flooding, Floodway, Pre-Flood, Flood-Proof, Floodplain	49	32
MONEY: money, moneys, monies.	38	21
FUTURE: future	27	13
SUSTAIN: sustain, sustainable, sustained, sustainability	26	18
COMPROMISE: compromise, compromised	25	19
COST: cost, costs, costing	17	9
FUND: fund, funding, funds	17	10
HOPE: hope, hopefully, hopeful	15	9
FISCAL: fiscal, fiscally	14	10
MOVE: move forward, move on, move past, move to action	14	10
TRUST: trust, trusting, trusted, distrust, distrusting	11	6

Note. Total number comments = 391, subtotal for comments on April 12, 2018 = 302.

Based on an analysis of the 14 concepts and the identification of complementary ideas, terms and expressions, these were then grouped into four broad thematic headings to allow for reporting and discussion. These are: 1) political efficacy and distributive justice, 2) resource considerations, 3) the flood, and 4) community. These thematic headings echo some of the themes and issues identified in both the rural school consolidation literature and climate change adaptation literature. It is important to note, that the terms school, education, or their variants were not measured in the content analysis. The destruction of the schools and the need to develop rebuilding plans are treated as the “initiating event” (see Cutter et al. 2008) which exposed patterns of socioeconomic and political attitudes, beliefs, and actions relating to disaster recovery and adaptation.

Political Efficacy and Distributive Justice

The politics of rural school consolidation often reveal underlying perceptions and attitudes relating to power, influence, fairness, equity, justice, and trust in both substantive and procedural terms. Questions may be raised about the legitimacy of decision making processes, and whether the distribution of benefits and costs of new school arrangements will be fair and equitable (Alsbury and Whitaker 2007; Bard et al. 2006; DeYoung and Howley 1990; Harmon and Schafft 2009). Similarly, case studies of successful mitigation and adaptation efforts note the importance of individual agency and distributive justice in decision processes (Schlosberg et al. 2017; Walker and Salt 2006). These principles are also central to normative discourse on how to best adopt adaptation strategy and action (Gardiner 2006; Rubenstein 2007).

The overall theme of political efficacy and distributive justice permeates public comments made in response to the April 2018 plan. In the content analysis, certain words and their contextual expression invited categorization under this conceptual frame. These were words related to equal (103 mentions), fairness (77 mentions), and trust (11 mentions). Seen in the broader context of conflict and the desire for compromise (25 mentions). Other themes considered under this rubric are expressions of desired and positive outcomes, such as future (27 mentions), hope (15 mentions), and move (14 mentions).

Both the concepts of equality and fairness are prominent in the public record. Both were expressed in preferences for the substantive distribution of public goods and services (such as equal resources for Richwood and the rest the county) and in procedural terms (such as being treated equally and fairly in the decision making process). Both were often expressed in tandem, with the following statements typical of those in favor of schools in Richwood, such as, “Fair and equal school” (C284)¹ and “The schools must be fair and equitable on both ends of the county” (C244). Those supporting the plan sometimes offered distinctions between the concepts. For example, a participant at the April 12 meeting said, “Those, excluding me, in my group feel that everything must be ‘fair’ and ‘equal.’ I feel that we should play to our strengths and that we could be different and support different areas” (C297). Another commented, “Fairness does not always equate to equality” (C264).

Fairness and equality were also expressed in procedural terms. It is here that equality and fairness, as well as the term trust, more clearly articulate feelings of political efficacy. Perceptions of long-standing power dynamics favoring the county seat and its surrounding areas were prominent, especially in the April 12 public meeting. A common refrain was that Richwood was being treated unfairly and is illustrated by such comments as, “Richwood is never treated fair” (C118); “We believe that Nicholas County is profiting from our disaster in Richwood” (C306); and “Don’t offer Richwood facilities you aren’t willing to take yourself” (C252). The following is especially evocative of this sentiment, “We just want to be treated fairly. Why would anyone give one side of the county more than the kids from the other side of the county” (C95).

The term trust and its variants were most often used to assess the mediation process and the political environment. A perceived absence of trust called into question the legitimacy of the decision making process for school rebuilding and was often directed at the NCBE. One critic of the plan noted, “For the NCBOE to be trusted ever again they need to treat Richwood students equally” (277). Another said, “Hopefully trust will be restored with the BOE. At this point ou[r] community is very distrusting of the current BOE” (C215). Another said, “Trust has gone out the window—major lack of transparency” (C162). Federal authorities were not immune to criticism either. One comment reads, “We don’t have much trust in FEMA since they apparently started this mess in the first place” (C34).

Concerns about the lack of, and the need for, trust, fairness and equality frequently gave rise to expressions of hope for resolution. While sometimes voiced with exasperation and impatience, such as “Richwood folks still want everything or nothing. Enough is enough, build now” (C152), “Just get it done” (C233), and “For God’s sake, make a decision and do it now” (C220). Others held out hope for peaceful resolution. As one comment noted, “I hope that an agreement can be made that’s pleasing to both sides” (C244). Another stated, “My hope is that schools can begin construction as soon as possible to return all students to a safe and ‘normal’ environment” (C226). Through compromise, mutually beneficial outcomes might result. On comment expressed that, “Mediation is a compromise made by both sides of the argument. In a compromise, no one person gets everything for which they are asking” (C185) and another said, “The strongest thought I take away f[ro]m tonight’s workshop is a compromise is not always getting exactly what you want” (C219).

As illustrated in these comments, the passage of time shaped aspects of the debate. For some, there was a pressing need to move forward given that students were already in their second full academic year of temporary school arrangements. One participant at the April 12 meeting noted, “My main concerns are time constraints. Very concerned that we will miss a wonderful opportunity and our children will suffer for many, many years to come” (C241). This sentiment was similarly expressed in, “I am ready to move on with the proposed plan. Our children deserve a safe, up-to-date environment, and our community needs to move on and heal” (234). Another participant said, “This was a great workshop. It was good to hear from other voices in the county. Whatever you do—do it quickly so the healing can start” (C238).

Taken in context of the public comments, terms like compromise, future, hope, and move convey a desire among participants to overcome the present conflict. It is important to note that negative terms like hate, conflict, targeting, fight and their variants were rarely expressed in the public comments (a total of 10 mentions of these words were counted in the analysis). When these terms were expressed, they were often voiced with a hope for resolution. The following is illustrative, “This fight has got to stop. We need to put the next generation first” (C116).

Resource Considerations

In political debate, it is common for issues and positions to be framed around the concept of money. Quantifiable arguments are often seen as more legitimate than those based on feeling and emotion (Stone 2002). The rationale for rural school consolidation regularly turns on issues of finances that couch the need for change in near deterministic reasons, such as declining tax bases necessitating consolidation and economies of scale dictating the need for more efficient administration (Bard et al. 2006). Case studies of school consolidation experiences have found financial concerns to be a common theme (Alberghini 2017; Post and Stambach 1999). Those who study risk, hazard, and adaptation also note how economic considerations can drive action, or inaction, and can be contested (Cutter et al. 2008). The quantification and valuation of risk and resiliency is a major preoccupation in weighing the benefits and costs of adaptation strategies.

Public response to the school compromise plan frequently identified resource considerations. The word money is expressed in 38 comments. The words, funds and costs and their variants were each expressed in 17 comments. The term fiscal garnered 14 mentions. After reviewing the content and context of comments, the term sustainability and its variants was included, which was expressed 26 times.

Those favoring the compromise plan were more likely to utilize resource arguments than those opposed or critical of the plan. Resource-based arguments were used to legitimize pro-compromise positions. One public meeting participant commented, “Sustainability is of the utmost importance. The taxpayers and tax bases of each community must be considered. This is not an equality issue—it is a sustainability issue” (C338). Another offered qualified support, noting, “I fully support school consolidation in Nicholas County. While the present proposal is not the most cost effective to taxpayers. It does represent a settlement between the different groups” (C19). Another supporter commented, that it would be “the most effective and fiscally responsible solution” (C359).

Other comments framed potential future consequences in consideration of resource risk and benefit. One public meeting participant noted, “Sustainability is a key issue for both RHS and the proposed comprehensive school. Will the open borders set RHS up for failure? Will the CTE [Career and Technical] center live up to expectations and be sustainable if levies fail?” (C236). Another offered, “Build for the conditions that are current, and if conditions improve, make an adjustment. It has to be financially feasible” (C304). One comment emphasized the need to be, “Fiscally responsible. We must look to the future and do what is best for the students of the whole county. A hard choice needs to be made. You cannot please everyone. Put the kids first” (C322).

However, those seeking to preserve schools in Richwood also utilized resource arguments. For some, a return to the status quo ante would be financially sound. Referring to the FEMA program that funds school rebuilding after disasters, one opponent stated, “The 428 Plan is fiscally irresponsible. NCHS does not need to be replaced. CRE [Cherry River Elementary] doesn’t either. Vo-Tech should stay where it is” (C277). Another stated, “Be fiscally responsible—don’t waste money by moving Vo-Tech. Don’t waste money on a new football field. Don’t waste money by purchasing land at $50,000/acre” (C263). One participant warned that a lack of parental buy-in would doom long term sustainability, noting, “Many parents have considered homeschooling and moving to avoid this fiasco” (C303).

The Flood

Natural disasters have an immediate impact on communities, creating disruption and taxing resources as efforts are made to respond to the emergency and provide immediate relief to those affected. Less understood may be the pressures and strains that accompany long-term recovery efforts (Rivera and Kapucu 2015; Ross 2014). Initial response may benefit from strong “bonding” capital where family, friends, and neighbors mobilize to help each other (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Rufat et al. 2015). Short-term relief support from outside volunteers and neighboring communities, as well as nonprofit and public entities augment resilient capacity. In contrast, long term recovery efforts may create sociopolitical stress as disagreements emerge over the path forward in rebuilding and restoration (Aldrich and Meyer 2015). The very factors that allow a community to cope with the immediate effects of disaster, such as strong bonding social capital, may impede developing sustained bridging or linking relationships with others, and may foreclose consideration of options that reduce risk and promote resiliency. In the case of Nicholas County, this was poignantly expressed in the following, “I am sad to see so much bitterness between the two towns after we came together to pull forward after the devastating flooding of our county” (C190).

Given the scope of the tragedy, it is interesting that reference to the flood and its conjugates occur only 49 times in the record. The flood is often framed as a demarcation for life before and after the event. When mentioned, the flood is often couched in context of sentiments expressing a desire to rebuild and return to the way things were. A preference for the status quo ante is not uncommon in disaster recovery experiences (see Chandler 2014; Walker and Salt 2006). These sentiments were prevalent among those championing new schools in Richwood. One opponent of the compromise plan noted, “Many of you believe Richwood is a dying town and community. Let me assure you that a weak and dying town would not be able to bounce back in such a resilient way from such a devastating flood. Unfortunately, Nicholas BOE is attempting to benefit at the expense of a proud community” (C108). Another commented, “My biggest concern is that both sides of the County can get what they need. That we can all get the schools where they were before the flood, and so we can stop feuding.” Another added, “Everything was perfectly fine the way it was before” (C302). Combing a desire to return to the past and secure equal distribution of resources, one comment reads, “Give Richwood back what it lost in the flood so communities can heal and it doesn’t feel like they are getting beat down again” (C214).

But some comments saw the flood as a transformative event requiring moving from the past and embracing new opportunities. One comment advises policymakers, “not to bend to the pressures of a few, people who think they can relive their Glory Days from High School 20 years ago” (C353) adding that “The closure of this school [RHS] was inevitable before there was the flood” (C353). Others expressed sympathy, but signaled that it was time to move on. One participant from another town hit hard by the flood noted, “Nobody wanted to have to endure a flood, so much devastation and loss but out of this can come something wonderful for the students of this county” (C29). Another commented that the differences in the community should be acknowledged and be positively embraced to move forward, noting that “There are many opportunities for Summersville and Richwood” (C297) and that, “I do not feel that we need to return to pre-flood ideas” (C297).

Community

The concept of community looms large in both rural school consolidation and climate change adaptation. Decisions and strategy choices hold the prospect of eroding community vitality and identity through the removal or relocation of key local institutions and services. Rural school consolidation debates often turn on whether there will be a loss of connection between education and community. Thematic case studies reveal that concerns over a loss of community identity are often prominent in school closure and consolidation debates (Post and Stambach 1999; Surface 2011). Critics of consolidation argue that schools serve to create a sense of place in the community that allows for education, civic functions, and local identity (Blauwkamp et al. 2011). Consolidation may also result in the loss of resources and capacity as valued local stakeholders, such as businesses and public institutions, lose connection with schools and partnerships and sponsorship of educational activities whither (Harmon and Schafft 2009). Most prominently, concerns are raised that parents and others will lose voice in providing advice and feedback in school administration (Alsbury and Whitaker 2007; McHenry-Sorber and Budge 2018). Practical concerns in adaptation choices also focus on how changes in the built environment may reorder social and civic patterns, especially with the relocation or removal of key social institutions (Schlosberg et al. 2017). And as the case of school consolidation, there are concerns about the place of individual voice in decision making and administration that have bearing on community response and adaptation to risk and hazard (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Pelling et al. 2015).

The term community and its variants is identified in 53 separate comments in the public record. It is an overarching theme that relates closely to other themes. Community, for example, is wrapped up in feelings of political efficacy, social bonding, trust, cooperation and resolution. And, clearly, the impact of the flood on community was significant. Some of the most intense debate and discussion focused on the compromise plan’s proposal to build both a comprehensive high school at the new education campus and community schools in Richwood. The draft plan suggested that the community schools would be smaller than the facilities destroyed by the flood but would enjoy many of the curricular and extracurricular offerings at the new comprehensive school, including sports (Nicholas Chronicle 2018c). Some respondents saw this as positive outcome. One comment highlighted that “parents can be more involved” and that kids “can participate in extracurricular activities to a large degree” (C147). While perceived as an equitable plan in some of the comments, others express perceived ulterior motives at work. Referring to putative budget allocations for school rebuilding, one participant noted,

Use of the word “community” for Richwood’s school (which I feel is being taken from Richwood’s own language and pride in such) is used as a carrot or sleight of hand to pacify or think we (Richwood) won’t notice the 25% (RHS) versus 75% (NCHS) (virtually) proposal (C274).

Schools can act as engines of economic development, and are also perceived as cradles of community identity (Bard et al. 2006; Harmon and Schafft 2009; Sipple et al. 2019; Surface 2011). In an email comment, one resident noted, “I’m not wealthy, politically influential or anything special but I love my children and my community and I believe we deserve to be treated fairly and with considerably more respect” (C27). It is not surprising that community vitality and identity were tied to the schools. Those critical of the Richwood faction argued that these concerns were overriding educational needs and the broader interests of the county. One comment reads, “Educational decisions must never be used as a way to save a community, they should always be about what is best for the entire community of Nicholas County” (C340). One supporter of the compromise plan expressed sympathy but also encouraged action, noting, “Pride in ones [sic] town/community isn’t a terrible thing but we can’t let ourselves become so blinded by it that we miss out on amazing opportunities” (C29) and in referencing Richwood further observed, “I understand their sadness at losing their high and middle school. But they are not the only community to lose a school” (C29).

The expression of community as a theme was often framed in transferring or maintaining the locus of control and function at the local level in order to maintain community identity and viability. It was also used to emphasize that smaller, local schools would lead to a better educational experience for students and families. This smaller, more localized approach is resonant over the history of rural school consolidation debates (Bard et al. 2006; Blauwkamp et al. 2011; Reynolds 1999). The Nicholas County experience echoes these sentiments. As one comment expressed, “Save students—save lives. Smaller works. Smaller is better” (C278).

Discussion and Analysis

The April 12, 2018 public meeting was the climax of the mediation process. Following the event, 54 additional public comments were recorded with almost half received on April 13. Despite continuing and vocal dissent against the compromise plan, the NCBE moved quickly to approve the plan placing new, smaller community middle and high schools in Richwood, consolidating vocational training centers, and building a new larger middle and high school at the new educational campus. An added provision to the plan guaranteed that students would have the option to attend the middle school or high school of their choice, The West Virginia Board of Education followed-up, approving the plan just days later (Nicholas Chronicle 2018b). The result was a qualified win, but a win nonetheless, for a mobilized group of advocates who had seen themselves marginalized in the sociopolitical context of a distressed Appalachian county. The debate itself, and its outcomes, can provide further insight on the challenges involved in advancing mitigation and adaptation strategies in contested and contentious policy arenas, such as local school administration.

First, specific hazard mitigation and adaptation choices may be shaped by the policy domain in which they are considered. Various authorities and experts stress the importance of coordinated and comprehensive approaches to adaptation (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018; Walker and Salt 2006). However, because disasters are often localized to specific communities and their aspects (such as infrastructure, schools and other public facilities), hazard mitigation and adaptation considerations may involve immediate and specific concerns and interests. This may impede long-range and comprehensive planning efforts. As recovery, mitigation, and adaption efforts focus on specific functions, institutions, or assets (such as education), relevant discussion and deliberation will occur in the established and relevant policy domain (such as school administration). Understanding the dynamics of specific policy domains can be instructive (Hornbeek and Peters 2017). As the Nicholas County experience illustrates, debates over school location decisions can be intense and contentious reflecting intercommunity conflicts and tensions. Broader issues may surface, relating to concerns over equity, the loss of community identity, and the legitimacy of decision processes. This is a common characteristic of rural school consolidation debates in general. However, these debates have often been protracted dealing with ongoing challenges associated with demographic and economic change. The Nicholas County experience is different. It sheds light on the intensity of debate that might surround forced adaptation decisions. These experiences may become more common, given the increased threat schools nationwide face from flooding (Pew Charitable Trusts 2017; Sheffield et al. 2017).

Second, communities are not equally situated when facing mitigation and adaptation choices. Vulnerability is not only a function of exposure to hazard risk, but is also the product of underlying sociopolitical factors like economic conditions, social cohesion and capital, institutional capacity, and disparities in the distribution of wealth and agency (Cutter et al. 2008) The Nicholas County experience sheds further light on how these conditions shape deliberation and decision. Political divisions within the county, exacerbated by economic disparities and perceived power differentials, made for a contentious debate over the schools rebuilding process. The relative and ascendant prosperity of Summersville and the fading fortunes of Richwood shaped constructions and framings concerning community identity, justice, power, and fairness. The experience gives credence to the observation made by Rufat et al. (2015:475) that, “Flood disasters often reveal larger social inequities.” As has been observed widely in the study and practice of mitigation and adaptation, perceptions of a lack of trust, fairness, and efficacy in decision making processes greatly complicate the development of effective and equitable policies and practices (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Pelling et al. 2015). Underlying and long-standing intra-county divisions, such as found in parts of Appalachia and elsewhere, attenuate these challenges (Bell et al. 2007; Gaventa 1980).

Third, in the presence of conflict and uncertainty, policymakers may pursue suboptimal policy choices. Disasters can serve as focusing events that center attention on needed action, but resolution and effective action is not guaranteed (Birkland 1998). Due to the destruction of schools, Nicholas County experienced a forced adaptation situation. Decades of population decline and economic distress had already signaled the possibilities of rural school consolidation. While the county school board was originally prepared to move forward with the hard decision of consolidation, the mobilization of opposition at the local level and the intervention of state authorities changed the course of action allowing for new schools to be built near Richwood. While the outcome has been popularly called a “win-win” result (Nicholas Chronicle 2018a), it is possible that the compromise deferred hard choices that will have to be returned to in the future.

Fourth, while climate change may be contributing to greater risk and hazard, it may not necessarily be recognized as cause for action. The impending risks of climate change have been formally recognized in West Virginia (see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2016) and have been widely acknowledged in the state (see, for example, Charleston Gazette 2016). However, it is important to note that the public comments from the mediation process do not make mention of climate change, global warming or their variants. Instead, issue framing and social construction reflected concerns long rooted in the community and revealed attitudes and perceptions that are familiar in rural school consolidation debates. Flood recovery set into motion a debate that turned on long-standing issues reflecting inter-community rivalry and division and surfaced issues regarding benefit, cost, fairness, and consequence. Faced with forced adaptation as a result of destroyed schools, new challenges were considered in context of the politics of the old and familiar.

Conclusion

Flood and other natural hazards risks are intensifying in the United States. Climate change is widely recognized as contributing to increased risks. Schools have been identified as particularly vulnerable to flooding. Through a case study of forced adaptation in the wake of a severe flood that damaged and destroyed schools in a rural Appalachian county, this article has examined the contours of debate associated with rebuilding schools in a time of climate change. Based on a conceptual content analysis of 391 public comments offered as part of the public engagement phase of the school rebuilding planning process, and supplemented with a review of relevant media accounts and government actions, this study suggests that the debate was framed and constructed along lines long familiar in school closure and consolidation experiences. Themes of power and powerlessness, fairness and justice, and community identity and viability were predominant. Specific discussion of climate change and associated themes was notably absent in the public comments.

The findings suggest that existing sociopolitical conditions and policy domains may shape mitigation and adaptation planning, decisions, and action. When these matters take on a local dimension, such as in school administration, intercommunity dynamics may influence the manner in which issues are constructed and framed. Community-centric perspectives focusing on who stands to gain or lose in decisions and who has privilege and advantage in decision-making processes can pit one locality against the other. Inclusive processes leading to consensus based-decision making, which is promoted in climate change theory and practice, may be difficult to realize in environments of underlying tension and mistrust. Hazard mitigation and adaptation are especially dependent on local and regional cooperative effort. The legacies of the past and present may foreclose policy options focused on the future.

Schools are on the front-lines of hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation. This study suggests that responding to a changing environment will not be without controversy and that the terms of debate will often turn on long-embedded and deep-seated conflicts and tensions. The findings offered here are limited by both the scope and method of the study. As a case study, generalizations of how mitigation and adaptation choices may be encountered and experienced in other contexts and policy domains should be offered with caveats. The content analysis utilized here was qualitative and inductive, focusing on a specific record that was part of the school rebuilding process. The subject was investigated with certain disciplinary ideas and motives in mind, namely the search of how hazard mitigation and adaptation considerations played out in flood recovery efforts aimed at rebuilding schools in a rural county. Nonetheless, applied social science is often a pursuit to understand how matters for decision are socially constructed and framed in the public and policy arena. Qualitative case studies can offer a point of comparison and a point of embarkation for future research. This study is intended to contribute to our understanding of how new challenges are often considered within existing contexts. Such inquiry is of both practical and theoretical importance in a time when adaptation to uncertain conditions is increasingly a necessity and not a choice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is extended to Justin McKenzie for his research assistance and to anonymous reviewers of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Christopher Plein is Professor of Public Administration and Eberly Family Professor for Outstanding Public Service at West Virginia University. His research focuses on rural community development, human services programming, health policy, and disaster management and recovery experiences at the state and local level in the United States. Contact information: chris.plein@mail.wvu.edu

References

Alberghini

John R.

2017. “Vermont School District Consolidation Case Study.” PhD dissertation, College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.

Aldrich

Daniel P.

Meyer

Michelle A.

2015. “Social Capital and Community Resilience.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(2):254–69

Alsbury

Thomas L.

Whitaker

Kathryn S.

2007. “Superintendent Perspectives and Practice Accountability, Democratic Voice, and Social Justice.” Journal of Educational Administration 45(2):154–74.

Appalachian Regional Commission. 2020. “County Economic Status in Appalachia.” Retrieved March 17, 2021 (https://www.arc.gov/map/county-economic-status-in-appalachia-fy-2020/).

Bard

Joe

Gardner

Clark

Wieland

Regi

. 2006. “National Rural Association Report.” The Rural Educator 27(2):40–48.

Baumgartner

Frank R.

Jones

Bryan D.

1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bell

Michael M.

Lloyd

Sarah

Vatovec

Christine

. 2007. “Activating the Countryside: Rural Power, the Power of Rural, and the Making of Rural Politics.” Sociologia Ruralis 50(3):205–44.

Berger

Peter L.

Luckmann

Thomas

. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Birkland

Thomas A.

1998. “Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting.” Journal of Public Policy 18(1):53–74.

10.

Blauwkamp

Joan M.

Longo

Peter J.

Anderson

John

. 2011. “School Consolidation in Nebraska: Economic Efficiency vs. Rural Community Life.” Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy 6(1):1–20.

11.

Bryer

Thomas

. 2013. “Public Participation in Regulatory Decision-making.” Public Performance and Management Review 372(2):262–79.

12.

Chandler

David

. 2014. Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. New York: Routledge.

13.

Charleston Gazette . 2016. “Climate Change Affecting WV Whether We Believe It or Not,” September 2, p. 4A.

14.

Cigler

Beverly A.

2017. “U.S. Floods: The Necessity for Mitigation.” State and Local Government Review 49(2):127–39.

15.

Combs

Matt

. 2018. “Sitting across the Table: Nicholas County Mediation Workshop Draws Residents Together.” Beckley Register Herald, April 12. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (https://www.register-herald.com/news/sitting-across-the-table-nicholas-county-mediation-workshop-draws-residents-together/article_c8d938f9-1284-5c68-b762-1eaf302e62f7.html).

16.

Cutter

Susan L.

Barnes

Lindsey

Barry

Melissa

Burton

Christopher

Evans

Elijah

Tate

Eric

Webb

Jennifer

. 2008. “A Place-based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters.” Global Environmental Change 18(4):598–606.

17.

DeYoung

Alan J.

Howley

Craig B.

1990. “The Political Economy of Rural School Consolidation.” Peabody Journal of Education 67(4):63–99.

18.

Di Liberto

Tom

. 2016. “‘Thousand-year’ Downpour Led to Deadly West Virginia Floods.” Washington, DC: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (Climate.gov).

19.

Elo

Satu

Kyngas

Helvi

. 2008. “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1):107–15.

20.

Gardiner

Stephen M.

2006. “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption.” Environmental Values 15(3):397–413.

21.

Gaventa

John

. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

22.

Green

Bill

Letts

Will

. 2007. “Space, Equity, and Rural Education: A Trialectical Account.” Pp. 57–76 in Spatial Theories of Education, edited by Golson

K. N.

Symes

New York: Routledge.

23.

Harmon

Hobarat L.

Schafft

Kai

. 2009. “Rural School Leadership for Collaborative Community Government.” The Rural Educator 30(3):4–9.

24.

Hornbeek

John A.

Peters

B. Guy

. 2017. “Understanding Policy Problems: A Refinement of Past Work.” Policy and Society 36(3):365–84.

25.

Johnson

Susan

. 2018. “Making Sense of the ‘Good Friday Bombshell.’” Nicholas Chronicle, April 5, p. 2A.

26.

Krippendorff

Klaus

. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Lando

Tom

. 2003. “The Public Hearing Process: A Tool for Citizen Participation or a Path toward Citizen Alienation?” National Civic Review 92(1):73–82.

28.

Manganello

Jennifer

Fishbein

Martin

. 2008. “Using Theory to Inform Content Analysis.” Pp. 3–14 in Media Messages and Public Health: A Decisions Approach to Content Analysis, edited by Amy

Jordan

Kunkel

Dale

Manganello

Jennifer

Fishbein

Martin

. New York: Routledge.

29.

Marks

Rusty

. 2017. “Richwood, WV Mayor Pans School Consolidation Plan.” State Journal, January 10. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/richwood-wv-mayor-pans-school-consolidation-plan/article_619a4796-3ce4-5547-9e51-c5435b27ff11.html).

30.

McElhinney

Brad

. 2017. “State and Nicholas Superintendents Describe Progress on Talks.” WV Metro News, December 13. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (https://wvmetronews.com/2017/12/13/state-and-nicholas-superintendents-describe-progress-on-talks/).

31.

McHenry-Sorber

Erin

Budge

Kathleen

. 2018. “Revisiting Rural Superintendency: Rethinking Guiding Theories for Contemporary Practice.” Journal of Research in Rural Education 33(3):1–15.

32.

Nicholas Chronicle . 2016. “Board Takes Action on Flood Damaged Schools, Losses Estimated at More than $3 Million.” July 7, p. 1A.

33.

Nicholas Chronicle . 2018a. “Board Adopts New School Plan.” Amended CEFP, May 10, p. 1A, 3A.

34.

Nicholas Chronicle . 2018b. “County’s Amended School Facilities Plan OK’d by State Agencies.” May 17, p. 1A.

35.

Nicholas Chronicle . 2018c. “First Public Workshop on School Mediation Held.” April 19, p. 1A, 4A.

36.

Nicholas County Board of Education. 2016. “Board of Education Minutes.” July 2016–December 2016. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (http://boe.nich.k12.wv.us/).

37.

Nicholas County Board of Education. 2017. “Board of Education Minutes.” January 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2021 (http://boe.nich.k12.wv.us/).

38.

Nitta

Keith

Holley

Marc J.

Wrobel

Sharon L.

2010. “A Phenomenological Study of Rural School Consolidation.” Journal of Research in Rural Education 25(2):1–19.

39.

Ose

Solveig Osborg

. 2016. “Using Excel and Word to Structure Qualitative Data.” Journal of Applied Social Science 10(2):147–62.

40.

Pelling

Mark

O’Brien

Karen

Matyas

David

. 2015. “Adaptation and Transformation.” Climatic Change 133(1):113–27.

41.

Pew Charitable Trusts. 2017. “Flooding Threatens Public Schools Across the Country.” Chartbook.” Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.

42.

Post

David

Stambach

Amy

. 1999. “District Consolidation and Rural School Closure: E Pluribus Unum?” Journal of Research in Rural Education 15(2):106–17.

43.

Reynolds

David R.

1999. There Goes the Neighborhood: Rural School Consolidation at the Grassroots of Early Twentieth Century Iowa. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.

44.

Rivera

Fernando

Kapucu

Naim

. 2015. Disaster Vulnerability, Hazards, and Resilience: Perspectives from Florida. New York: Springer.

45.

Ross

Ashley

. 2014. Local Disaster Resilience: Administrative and Political Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

46.

Rubenstein

Jennifer

. 2007. “Distribution and Emergency.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15(3):296–320.

47.

Rufat

Samuel

Tate

Eric

Burton

Christopher G.

Maroof

Abu Sayeed

. 2015. “Social Vulnerability to Floods: Review of Case Studies and Implications for Measurement.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14(2–15):470–86.

48.

Schlosberg

David

Collins

Lisette B.

Niemeyer

Simon

. 2017. “Adaptation Policy and Community Discourse: Risk, Vulnerability, and Just Transformation.” Environmental Politics 26(3):413–37.

49.

Sheffield

Perry E.

Uijttewaal

Simone A. M

Stewart

James

Galvez

Maida P.

2017. “Climate Change and Schools: Environmental Hazards and Resiliency.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(11):1397

50.

Siders

A. R.

Hino

Miyuki

Mach

Katharine J.

2019. “The Case for Strategic and Managed Climate Retreat.” Science 365(6455):761–63.

51.

Sipple

John W.

Francis

Joe D.

Fiduccia

Peter Cody

. 2019. “Exploring the Gradient: The Economic Benefits of ‘Nearby’ Schools on Rural Communities.” Journal of Rural Studies 68:251–63.

52.

Stoll

Steven

. 2017. Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia. New York: Hill and Wang.

53.

Stone

Deborah

. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Revised Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

54.

Surface

Jeanne

. 2011. “Assessing the Impact of Twenty-first Century Rural School Consolidation.” The Connexions Project. National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (http://cnx.org/content/m37444/1.2/).

55.

Thompson

David C.

1990. “Consolidation of Rural Schools: Reform or Relapse?” Journal of Education Finance 16(2):192–212.

56.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1951. “1950 Census of Population. Volume 1: Number of Inhabitants, West Virginia: Population of Counties by Minor Civil Divisions, Table 6 and 7.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

57.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.” Narrative Profiles for Nicholas County and Selected Zip Codes. Retrieved March 18, 2021 (https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/narrative-profiles/2015/report.php?geotype=county&state=54&county=067).

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Narrative Profiles for Nicholas County and Selected Zip Codes. Retrieved March 18, 2021 (https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/narrative-profiles/2018/report.php?geotype=county&state=54&county=067).

59.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. “County Population Totals 2010-2019.” Retrieved March 18, 2021 (https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html).

60.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “What Climate Change Means for West Virginia.” (August) EPA 430-F-16-050. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc949459/).

61.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. “Richwood Middle School and Richwood High School.” July. Draft Environmental Assessment. Retrieved March 18, 2021 (https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cherry_river_final_ea_october2019.pdf).

62.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. “Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide.” (June). FP 104-009-2. Retrieved March 18, 2021 (https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema_public-assistance-program-and-policy-guide_v4_6-1-2020.pdf).

63.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. “Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-brief.” Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

64.

Vaismoradi

Mojtaba

Turunen

Hannele

Bondas

Terese

. 2013. “Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis: Implications for Conducting a Qualitative Descriptive Study.” Nursing & Health Sciences 15:398–405.

65.

Vidich

Arthur J.

Bensman

Joseph

. 1960. Small Town in Mass Society. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

66.

Walker

Brian

Salt

David

. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosytems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

67.

WV Metro News . 2017. “Nicholas County School Board Files Lawsuit over Consolidation Rejection.” June 29. Retrieved March 12, 2021 (https://wvmetronews.com/2017/06/29/nicholas-county-school-board-files-lawsuit-over-consolidation-rejection/).

68.

West Virginia State Board of Education. 2018. “Rebuilding Nicholas County Schools Mediation Process: Compilation of Public Record.” Prepared by Consensus Building Institute. Retrieved April 26, 2018. (https://wvde.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Public-input-compiled-180426.pdf).

69.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. 2017. “West Virginia Board of Education and Paine v. Board of Education of County of Nicholas, West Virginia.” No. 17-0767. September 2017 Term (October 17). Retrieved March 12, 2021 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1877605.html).

70.

Yackee

Susan Webb

. 2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1):103–24.