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

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.

OPEN IN VIEWER

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.

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.