The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Davis, C. R., M. R. Griffard, N. Koo, and L. Russell Pittman. 2024. Resiliency fatigue for rural residents following repeated natural hazard exposure. Ecology and Society 29(4):21.ABSTRACT
The world is facing an increase in hazards by rate and intensity in part due to climate change. Unfortunately, the horrific devastation of environmental hazards is felt greater by marginalized populations. The time has come for policies to abate the harmful effects of climate change by challenging the use and normalcy of terms like resilience. In this study, the authors used grounded theory to assess an alternative perspective of resilience: resilience fatigue. The authors interviewed 20 respondents from rural Eastern North Carolina who described their interpretation of resilience after Hurricanes Matthew (2016) and Florence (2018). Consistency in responses defined resiliency fatigue as, (1) physical and emotional exhaustion, (2) relentlessness toward normalcy, and (3) anxiety and fear of future hazards. Ultimately, residents provided their long-term solutions around facing hurricanes and expressing their agency on what a just-recovery resembles for their community.
INTRODUCTION
Following hazards, terrorism events, and other large-scale crises, public discourse in the United States frequently emphasizes resilience as a central recovery theme. At its core, resilience, the idea of “bouncing back” (Tierney 2019:168), aligns neatly with the hallmark ideologies of American individualism: strength, grit, and determination (Triandis 2001, Bazzi et al. 2020). Although the concept of resilience looms large in American culture, little consideration is given to the realities of what resilience demands of individuals affected by hardship, hazards, or tragedy. At its core, the term ignores contextual factors contributing to individuals’ and communities’ experiences of an event. This study highlights what Ann Masten (2013a) recognizes as a “cost” of resilience and uses grounded theory to introduce resilience fatigue. This concept explains the harmful consequences of labeling an individual resilient after facing repeated events. Here, we present how residents living in Eastern North Carolina described how they resisted being called resilient and provided strategies for an equitable and just long-term recovery.
The oversimplification and use of resilience have real-life implications, contributing to communities and people being forgotten after a disaster hits. The expectation of resilience may discount the other ongoing social ills in an affected area. It could also ignore the long-term and unequal effects of hazards on marginalized communities, especially those in regions with high poverty rates (Tierney 2019). Moreover, these places that experience hazards will likely see these events increase in intensity and frequency, thus making them more prone to future events (Michener et al. 1997, Dale et al. 2001, Gardiner 2006, Changnon 2010, Dettinger 2011).
Ignoring the cost of resilience, one could inaccurately depict these events as isolated incidents rather than considering the cumulative effects of repeated events’ exposure on communities. Given this disconnection, we use prior inductive case studies (McColl and Burkle 2012, Matarrita-Cascante and Trejos 2013) that investigated resilience by gathering qualitative data from respondents impacted by events. Through this process, we gained a better understanding of the toll associated with resilience.
For this study, we define marginalized communities as groups of individuals living in rural, low-socioeconomic communities. Although marginalization goes far beyond identifying groups based on region, we focus solely on how residents in these areas face repeated hazards. Additionally, we follow Tierney’s (2019) definition of resilience as the ability of an individual or group to bounce back or build back stronger following a disruptive event, such as a hazard. We will provide a more thorough explanation of the definition of resilience.
To add more nuance to the concept of resilience, our study gives voice to individuals whose communities have been significantly impacted by the recent rise in extreme weather events caused by global warming. We interviewed 20 residents in four counties located in the tidewater plains of Eastern North Carolina, a region particularly susceptible to flooding from hurricanes, about their experiences with resilience. Our participants endured two 500-year floods in just two years from Hurricane Matthew (2016) and Hurricane Florence (2018). Given the proximity of these major events, and the expectation of future storms, residents found the repeated expectation of being resilient fatiguing. Thus, using grounded theory, we introduce a new critique and framework centered around resilience: resilience fatigue. Our approach unpacks the contextual factors that affect hazard recovery and explains how residents in hazard-prone areas adapt to repeated exposure.
This study adds to the body of literature by introducing a new concept focusing on the cost of resilience based on the lived experiences of residents hit by repeated events. Our study also reinforces long-held best practices in qualitative research by employing grounded theory to show how participants experiencing a phenomenon make their meanings (Geer 1964, Spradley 1979, Merrick 1999). Although we hypothesized that participants would value resilience, almost none felt it was an achievable goal within their communities. Accordingly, our work emphasizes an essential ethical consideration for researchers and practitioners: to avoid the pitfalls that turn lived experiences into simplistic and binomial explanations. Doing so erodes the voices of participants (Lincoln 1993).
Furthermore, when research on policy-relevant topics oversimplifies explanations, it contributes to policies that ignore the realities of complex problems. Through our study, we show how affected communities grapple with the discourse that all communities recover and are resilient. We also give voice to the people most affected by these hazards and describe the changes they believe their communities need to truly recover and thrive.
Literature review
This section lays the groundwork for the remainder of our study by illustrating three essential and interrelated points. First, we discuss how hazard exposure exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities. Second, we describe how these challenges are especially salient in rural communities, with higher poverty rates, unemployment, and food insecurity than in other areas. The confluence of these two factors leads to the next point about the emotional recovery and experiences of individuals in under-resourced areas during repeated hazard exposure. Last, we provide context around the term resilience with a high-level introduction of the term, how it has been used in scholarship, and how its usage comes at a cost.
Hazards and vulnerability
As climate change disrupts weather patterns worldwide, repeated hazard exposure has become accepted in certain regions (Gardiner 2004). The frequency and intensity of hazards have also increased, and these events are nearly always accompanied by dramatic and unprecedented effects on people and ecosystems (Michener et al. 1997, Dale et al. 2001, Gardiner 2006, Changon 2010, Dettinger 2011). Environmental professor Stephen Gardiner explained “The planet is at serious risk of a shift in a global climate comparable in magnitude to an ice age (albeit in the other direction) but occurring over decades rather than millennia” (Gardiner 2011:11).
The United States provides multiple recent examples of consecutive hazards. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans has experienced significant damages from other hurricanes, such as Hurricane Wilma (2005), Hurricane Gustave (2008), Hurricane Isaac (2012), Hurricane Nate (2017), and Hurricane Barry (2019), to name a few (Roth 2012). California repeatedly faces record-breaking, lethal and damaging wildfires (Arango et al. 2019). In other parts of the country, the intensity and frequency of tornadoes and violent thunderstorms have also risen (NOAA 2018). Each of these events results in loss of life, destruction of property, and devastating social and emotional impacts. As the number of such events increases, so does exposure to these effects, leaving residents responding to the compounding hazards impacting their communities (Santos 2019, Sullivan et al. 2019).
Rural community conditions
Pre-storm conditions, such as socioeconomic status, resources, family background, and social support are significant predictors of whether an individual can successfully recover after a hazard (Fothergill and Peek 2015). Rural areas often have higher rates of poverty, food insecurity, and unemployment than suburban and urban areas (USDA ERS 2024). These challenges have persisted for decades (Elder and Conger 2000).
Economically, rural communities have struggled to keep pace with the economic growth of the rest of the U.S., especially as agricultural production has declined. Rural communities struggled to keep up as a larger proportion of the U.S. economy moved toward service-based industries. Their educational attainment, human capital attributes, industrial infrastructure, and household incomes tend to be lower than more urban areas (Falk and Lobao 2003). Because of these factors, attempts to maintain pace with or catch up to non-rural economic development often prove fruitless, further marginalizing rural communities from urbanized regions (Biermacher et al. 2007).
Social and political capital related to the ability to obtain resources and navigate bureaucracy are essential predictors of hazard recovery (Tierney 2019). Prior research shows that hazardous events exacerbate socioeconomic differences, making it more difficult for communities to recover (Kates et al. 2006, Tierney 2019). In contrast, socioeconomically advantaged communities have greater social and political capital, a more significant measure of resources, knowledge, and networks.
Additionally, marginalized populations in rural communities may be reluctant to relocate to a less hazard-prone area. Rural residents experience high social-place attachment, which binds people generationally, socially, and religiously to their land (Lewicka 2011, Davis et al. 2022). Living and belonging to a community, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years, is an intrinsic part of individuals’ and families’ identities and shared experiences (Lehman 2008, Morgan 2010, Lewicka 2011, Stewart and Abbott-Chapman 2011).
Emotional recovery from a hazard
Research on trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has often focused on the aftermath of manmade disasters, such as terrorist attacks, war, and gun violence (Başoğlu and Salcioglu 2011, Peek 2011, Hutchison 2016). However, hazards also produce stress and can negatively impact survivors’ mental health and well-being (Davis et al. 2021). Further, as Clemens and colleagues (2013) found, survivors reported feeling petrified and hopeless in the immediate aftermath of an event. In the long-term, residents stated they continued being stressed and worried about how they would manage.
Researchers have identified several vital predictors that foreshadow how an individual will process and recover from the trauma of a hazard (Fothergill and Peek 2015). These indicators focus on the types of loss, pre-existing mental health conditions, and community support. For instance, a person’s recovery can be impeded by a greater loss, such as losing a home or a loved one. Pre-existing mental health conditions can exacerbate or prolong the experience of trauma. Additionally, the lack of community support can strengthen the intensity or duration of PTSD symptoms and other feelings of helplessness, fatigue, or guilt (Boon et al. 2012, Neria et al. 2008, Osofsky et al. 2009). When the effects of trauma linger, they can negatively impede growth, progress, and quality of life in a community. In school-age children, hazard-related traumas are linked to lower student achievement, higher rates of student misbehavior, and higher rates of absenteeism (Ceyhan and Ceyhan 2007, Pane et al. 2008).
Romano et al. (2006:208) described grief after a hazard as a “double psychic event.” The two reasons include: (1) individuals have witnessed and survived a traumatic event that has potentially cost the lives of people whom they know; and (2) they must also deal with massive loss of homes, routines, jobs, and a sense of normalcy. In mental health research and clinical practice, this layered experience of grief is known as complicated grief or traumatic grief (Romano et al. 2006, Kristensen et al. 2010).
In addition to the internal experiences of grief, communities affected by hazards experience collective grief, a phenomenon in which groups of people experience and process the same negative emotions together (Warnick 2016). Researchers have found that the collective experience of negative emotions strengthens social bonds and facilitates social cohesion (Rennung and Göritz 2015). At the same time, social bonds and social support systems are necessary for grief recovery (de Volo 2006, Kristensen et al. 2010, Ekanayake et al. 2103, Dyregrov et al. 2015, Sveen et al. 2018). Ultimately, the individual and social experience of grief are complicated and time-consuming, two aspects of the emotion that are interrupted by the experience of a second (or third or fourth) hazard.
Unpacking resilience
We begin with a deconstruction of resilience that looks at the meaning of the term. Masten (2014:10) defined resilience as “the capacity of a dynamic system to withstand and recover from significant challenges that threaten its stability, vitality, and development.” Norris et al. (2008:130) argued that resilience is “a process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance.” By focusing on the idea of a positive trajectory and positive functioning, resilience takes the aftermath of an event a step beyond recovery. At its core, resilience, the concept of “bouncing back” (Tierney 2019:168), aligns neatly with the hallmark ideologies of American individualism (Triandis 2001, Bazzi et al. 2020). As a result, it has been widely used in policy, research, and the media as the benchmark for communities and individuals who have experienced hazards.
When used colloquially, resilience ignores the contextual factors of the individual and community. Existing empirical research on resilience sheds light on how pre-hazard conditions influence post-hazard outcomes. For instance, Frankenberg et al. (2013) found that individuals with higher educational attainment were better able to achieve resilience after a hazard. Research has also identified another contextual factor: the urban-rural classification of communities. Two studies (Sturgis 2018, Mower 2019) pointed to the heightened vulnerability and the long recovery process for homes in rural areas. Their results showed that rural communities were more likely to experience damage after a hazard and had longer wait times for insurance payouts and governmental assistance than their non-rural peers. Here, residents living in rural communities were less able to achieve resilience after a hazard.
Resilience requires a great deal of social support and networking capacity (Ronan and Johnston 2005, Wright et al. 2012, Masten et al. 2021, Ungar 2021). These social supports are crucial for mitigating the harmful mental health impacts hazards can have on individuals (Prinstein et al. 1996, Ronan and Johnston 2005, Neria et al. 2008, Osofsky et al. 2009, Boon et al. 2012, Masten and Narayan 2012). However, access to social support is often limited in the near term of a hazard, especially in rural areas where utilities and roads may be out of service for days and weeks.
Recent research explores how resilience can also come as a cost to residents impacted by an event (Brody et al. 2013, Masten et al. 2021, Ungar 2021, Wilbur and Gone 2023). Masten (2013a) questioned the weight or toll of resilience given deeply challenging adversity. Scholars have also noted the lingering effects of experiencing harsh conditions, such as hazards, may represent the hidden cost of resilience (Brody et al. 2013, Masten et al. 2021). Brody and colleagues (2013) conducted a longitudinal study to assess the extent to which Black children living in high-risk, low-socioeconomic communities remained “resilient” given their environment. Respondents completed a survey at roughly age 11 and a final one at 19 to determine the extent to which their resilience persisted. Their findings revealed students exhibited high levels of psychological risk, suggesting that resilience was temporary and not long-term.
Ungar (2018, 2021) and Masten (2013a, 2014) have written extensively about resilience and the usefulness of a multisystemic approach to limit its cost. Ungar (2018) stated that a resilient system is open, encourages connectivity, creates spaces to evolve and learn, and is diverse and inclusive of various types of supports. Ungar also argued that focusing on resilience across multiple multisystemic approaches can inform practices and policies that ultimately help those who are impacted by hazards. He furthered surmises that resilience has more to do with the types of resources we receive, rather than an innate characteristic to push through from within (Ungar 2019).
Masten has since revised her definition of resilience to reflect current multisystemic understandings of resilience (Masten 2013a, b). Through this work Masten and colleagues argued the importance of using complete multifaceted approaches to highlight critical aspects of evidence. Further, Masten (2014) and Wilbur and Gone (2023) critiqued the process of identifying who gets to determine who is resilient and who is deemed resilient. Masten questioned who constructed this process and highlighted clear power dynamics between the one who labels and the labeled.
Theoretical approach
We employed grounded theory in our study to understand how the experience of repeated hazards impact rural communities. Grounded theory is a “systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories from the data themselves” (Charmaz 2014:1). It is a process by which the data guide the development of theory, as opposed to applying an existing theory to data (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The theory-building process is not linear (Charmaz 2014) and requires the constant comparative method used through interactive data collection and analysis (Glaser 1965, Glaser and Strauss 1967, Strauss and Corbin 1990). Researchers primarily use qualitative data from interviews or focus groups to inform the formation of the theory (Creswell 2011).
Working toward a theory grounds the data into an appropriate framework (Charmaz 2014). It allows researchers to create a theory based on the data without forcing it to align with an ill-fitting theory. The use of grounded theory provides flexibility to the real world by working to identify a concern or point of interest for a targeted population (Creswell 2011, Charmaz 2014). This approach is essential in our study given that there is limited research on notions of fatigue around resilience and that it allows us to consider alternative meanings of phenomena.
Context of the study
The low-lying coastal plains of Eastern North Carolina are prone to flooding, especially during the hurricane season, which lasts from June through November each year. According to the North Carolina State Climate Office (2018), one tropical storm has hit the state every two years between 1851 and 2016. Additional data revealed that parts of Eastern North Carolina were affected by nearly 20 hurricanes between 2017 and 2019 (North Carolina Climate Office 2018). Sturgis (2018) found that the counties that experienced the most storm damage between 2016 and 2019 had populations with higher proportions of people of color than the rest of the state on average. This paper focuses on Hurricanes Matthew and Florence, two hazards that impacted Eastern North Carolina in 2016 and 2018, respectively. Together the two storms caused 110 direct deaths, produced more than $23.5 billion in damage to North Carolina communities, and disrupted the lives of millions across the state (NOAA 2017, 2018).
Over half of North Carolina’s 3.2 million rural residents reside in the 28 counties that compose its eastern region (NC East Alliance 2014). The region is more racially diverse than the rest of the state, although cities and counties are highly segregated by race. Although most urban areas have experienced an unprecedented influx of new residents from other parts of the U.S., rural county populations in North Carolina remained flat or have decreased in the last decade (U.S. Census Bureau 2012, Stanford 2017). Research shows repeated hurricane exposure has contributed to population loss in Eastern North Carolina (Stanford 2017, Liu et al. 2024).
Residents of these eastern counties have deep, ancestral ties that emotionally bind them to the land (Davis et al. 2022). For Native American residents, these ties may date thousands of years to the Eurasian migration across the Bering Strait. These ties may date back to early colonial settlements in North Carolina for White residents. For Black residents, these ties may date back to forced enslavement and land grants given to formerly enslaved people via the Freedmen’s Bureau.
Although the region once prospered, it is now the poorest region in the state and among the poorest areas in the U.S. (Saporito and Sohoni 2007, Berner et al. 2016, Nichol and Hunt 2018). Eastern North Carolina flourished in the 18th and 19th centuries because of slavery, thanks to tobacco, cotton, and other agricultural production. Later, railroading and textile mills contributed to the region’s robust industry. Today, nearly all 41 counties east of North Carolina’s Research Triangle region have higher poverty rates than the rest of the state (Sher 1988).
Together, the region’s environmental, social, and economic realities explain why Eastern North Carolina is a perfect case study for unpacking resilience. As our findings will highlight, the existing inequities and vulnerabilities in the area make achieving resilience for one storm and successive hazards difficult.
METHODS
We identified the 51 North Carolina counties as part of the FEMA disaster declarations[1] after either Hurricanes Matthew or Florence (FEMA 2016, 2018). We then narrowed the counties to only those in the eastern part of the state, equally 41 counties (Eastern North Carolina Dataset Project 2006). From there, we selected four counties representing the racial makeup of the region’s population: two were majority White, one was majority Black, and the fourth county was majority American Indian/Native American (see Table 1). Moreover, the economic characteristics of these counties reflect the educational and economic composition of the region (see Table 2).
In October 2018, just weeks after Hurricane Florence made landfall, a team of undergraduate researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducted field interviews with residents of these four counties. We identified participants who were active members of local government agencies, non-profits, businesses, church offices, and other volunteer groups that were active in recovery efforts during both storms. Narrowing our focus to these individuals’ perspectives was necessary because their work provided more intimate, firsthand knowledge and experiences with recovery and resilience across the community. These participants are best equipped to explain the community’s collective experiences with resilience. Once identified, the research team contacted individuals to assess their interest in participating. A total of eight participants agreed to participate.
From there, we used a snowball sampling technique to generate new participants who met these criteria. In total, 20 in-depth interviews were conducted. The final sample included seven participants from County A, three from County B, three from County C, and seven from County D (see Table 3). The interviews followed a semi-structured format, each lasting between 20 and 60 minutes face-to-face. The interviews specifically asked participants about their community’s experience with the expectation of resilience and how they managed their expectations across multiple hazards.
Data process
Interviewers completed debriefing summaries after each interview. Qualitative interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the interviewers. Identifying information was redacted from the transcribed interviews to protect the privacy of our respondents. The resulting cleaned transcripts were then thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, ensuring the reliability of our data.
Our analyses consisted of three cycles of rigorous coding. In the first cycle, the authors replaced all names with pseudonyms where the first letter of their identifier matched the county’s name. For instance, respondents from County A received names that began with A and so forth. Next, we used an exploratory-descriptive approach (Brink 1998) to analyze the data. In this step, we identified patterns, similarities, and differences across the interviews. Here, we combined complementary approaches to coding: descriptive, process, and emotional, which allowed us to see the actions and reactions participants experienced and observed in their communities following the hurricanes (Saldaña 2021). Often, this involved coding texts across multiple codes, reflecting the interrelatedness of the data. During this first step, we observed resilience fatigue as a noteworthy construct that describes how affected communities feel about the expectation of recovery in their context.
In the second step, we narrowed our focus to resilience fatigue. This process involved reorganizing and refining the codes from the first step to capture patterns we observed during the first cycle. Our participants then perceived resilience as a negative expectation for their communities, given their current circumstances and persistent socioeconomic conditions. The analysis of respondents’ interpretations of resilience and the existing literature that critiques the use of resilience as a framework, allowed us to develop a three-pronged theory representing resilience fatigue. The three facets are as follows: (1) physical and emotional exhaustion, (2) relentlessness toward normalcy, and (3) anxiety and fears of future hazards.
In the third step, we addressed the validity of these new themes. To do this, we followed the process outlined by Boyatzis (1998) to quantify and systematize the content of thematic quotes. We identified the number of participants that aligned with each theme. This process ensured that the themes identified were indeed noteworthy across the sample. This step also prohibited us from applying biases to participants’ meanings and experiences (Merrick 1999). The following section presents the findings that emerged through this analytic process, demonstrating how resilience fatigue emerged as central to our data. We show how resilience functions as an unjust expectation that undermines communities’ social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities in hazard-prone regions.
RESULTS
Findings from interviews and the literature highlighted three significant facets: (1) physical and emotional exhaustion, (2) relentlessness toward normalcy, and (3) anxiety and fear of future hazards. Using grounded theory to guide our analysis, we surmise that these facets represent the overarching theme of resilience fatigue (Fig. 1). Our results demonstrate how resilience language is often problematic, especially for those who face repeated hazards with little support to assist recovery. In this section, we break down each theme, discuss the related evidence our participants provided, and conclude with a summation of how respondents advocate for more permanent resilient tactics for their communities.
Physical and emotional exhaustion
When Hurricane Florence hit Eastern North Carolina in 2018, many communities were actively recovering from Hurricane Matthew in 2016. Participants described how the proximity of the two storms compounded the stresses and strains placed on their community. They expressed frustration about starting a new recovery when the old one was still ongoing. During this chaotic environment, participants still felt pressure to come back stronger and more resilient, although the compounding impacts on top of the pre-existing inequalities made that impossible. Abigail summarized this sentiment by saying: “If we hear the d@mn word resiliency one more time ... we’re not resilient ... I just want to go back to my life.”
Other participants expressed a longing to get back to their lives, a chance to return to normalcy. At the same time, participants recognized the inability to recover given the current circumstances. The length of recovery was one of the reasons participants felt resilience was beyond their grasp. Donahue was still waiting for his insurance settlement from Matthew when Florence hit. Despite the passage of time, he noted that his community was still experiencing a lot of uncertainty and disorganization. He stated, “It’s been two years, and we still don’t know what we’re doing.”
Donahue’s sentiment was common amongst residents. He noted that financial relief promised for Hurricane Matthew had not arrived before Hurricane Florence, thus making the ability to be resilient impossible without physical recovery. DeShawna, also from the same county, described how community members experienced different wait times and separated members of the community based on their experiences. She said,
I was fine. We bounced back pretty quickly, but if you go down the hall and you talk to [neighbor], she still hasn’t gotten her FEMA money from the first disaster. Two years later so no she’s not recovered. Her definition of recovery is going to be very, very different than my definition.
As the literature shows, social support is a necessary element of recovery. For our respondents, the more time passed without support for everyone, the more fragmented the community became. David explained how feelings of frustration about the absence of support contributed to emotional exhaustion and tension in his community. The long wait eroded his community’s ability to be resilient. David explained,
From a community standpoint, you always feel like it’s strong. Everybody’s in the same boat, and everyone tends to pull together instead of pulling apart. The longer the event goes on, the less that tends to be the case. People start to get frustrated; people start to compete for resources like gas, generators, and food.
Some respondents also spoke of the loss of basic needs such as food and shelter, while others addressed the loss of life. Cameron lost his daughter to suicide several years before Hurricane Matthew, a wound he says he is still dealing with every day. He likens his experience to what many people affected by hazards will go through for years. As he explains,
For some of them, it won’t really heal. It’s like when I lost my daughter. Some people will lose people, they’ll lose precious things that bring memories, maybe they’ve lost all their photos. You just learn to get through it. You don’t get over it, you get through it.
Cameron’s words acknowledge that coming back stronger or bouncing in the face of tremendous loss, like the loss of life, is an infeasible and unfair expectation that neglects the multitude of tragedies the hazards brought.
Relentlessness toward normalcy
Participants described their constant drive toward normality, a moment that existed before the hurricanes. Respondents described difficulty in maintaining habits and traditions given the constantly changing environment. In some instances, residents spoke of creating new norms to survive, while others described pushing through emotionally turbulent times to maintain some form of normalcy. Arthur equated normality to freedom. He stated,
It’s discouraging and disorienting, but I think there’s a desire to get back to normalcy, to get back into whatever routine you had, and to have a normal day with normal interactions. I think it’s freedom: freedom of movement, the luxuries that we have here with clean water and plentiful food. When a natural disaster comes, your freedom is taken. I think that’s the biggest psychological challenge, is getting that back.
Darlene is an educator who spoke about the tremendous effort to foster normalcy by reopening schools after the hurricanes. Darlene expressed her pressures to support students representing low-socioeconomic and rural households. Darlene stated,
I know we need to return to normalcy as quickly as people. Schools opening on a full schedule provides a bit of normalcy. Schools are the hope of the community. I tried to get our schools opened in a safe and orderly manner as quickly as we possibly could. That is very tedious, time-consuming work ... We are an economically distressed county, especially with the impact of the hurricanes. One of the things we can provide in the school system is a caring environment. And a breakfast and lunch for the students. Our folks depend on us to take care of 2300 students from 7 am to 4 pm so they can go back to work and their lives.
Participants also described managing the psychological and emotional fallout from each successive storm more efficiently. With each hazard, participants recalled spending less and less time processing grief, loss, and trauma and more time focusing on regaining a sense of normalcy. DeShawna explained how people in her community were not afforded the opportunity to mourn. Further, their economic survival depends on returning to their routines as quickly as possible. She explained,
You can't really [mourn] if you’ve got a family. You need an income. You don’t have a choice. Really. You’ll find 95 percent of the people in this world are dependent on their livelihood. The minute our doors open, I’m back at work. I’m not taking off days to mourn the hurricane. You know you’ve got to bounce back ... It’s mandated by just life in general. I have to keep sending my kids to school. I can’t just say, “Oh, we had a hurricane here last year, we’re not recovered.”
When asked what a successful recovery looked like for their community, Colleen provided a dilemma for residents living in a similar place. Colleen stated, “Going back to normal. Some people can’t go back to normal.”
Anxiety and fear of future disasters
Although some participants believed their responses to hazards improved over time, others recognized that their abilities were limited. Respondents knew that another hurricane that impacted their community would be inevitable and that this imminent danger created great anxiety in their communities. Beatrice said that every instance of inclement weather brought up the traumas of past storms:
I think when storms come now, people get more anxious. You don’t remember hearing about people doing that. I would be in class sometimes, and we would have a bad storm, and you could just see some of the students start shaking. It was just an anxiety reaction.
Other participants feared what another major hazard would do to their communities. Abigail worried that a storm of the same magnitude as previous storms would wipe out local businesses. She stated, “I feel really bad for the town. I honestly don’t know how much more we could take, like if in another two years, we get another 500-year flood.”
Although the participants expressed fear of future storms, their strong attachment to their communities and the land kept them rooted. To them, the storms were just another part of life. Just as participants placed a value on keeping their families safe, they also valued living in an area intertwined with their family and previous generations. DeShawna stated:
Well, this is where your roots are. And you know we think about people that live in other parts of the country that are always hit with tornadoes or earthquakes, why did they stay there? I guess you can’t live your life worrying so much about, ‘Oh, we’re always at risk of flooding and hurricanes here in North Carolina.’ Your home’s in North Carolina, your family’s here, and everything that you know is here. Your friends are here. Those are things that you need in your life to kind of subsist. You can’t just pack up and go because you’re scared of another hurricane coming, and you don’t know when it’s going to come.
For the residents of this region, the fear is not stronger than the emotional bonds that tie them to the land and people. It explains how they adapt and learn to live with the danger.
Systemic changes needed for lasting resilience
Despite the numerous difficulties and losses participants experienced during the two hurricanes, they still spoke of a desire to be resilient. Given their experiences with the storms and the socioeconomic climate of their communities, our participants have come to define resilience as something achieved by long-term, systemic improvements to their local contexts. To become resilient after a storm, measures must be implemented before the storm to improve conditions on the ground and keep the local economy and local community from collapsing. Donte explained this rationale in this way:
Dana explained how outside organizations’ lack of support impeded her community’s resilience. Participants described in the earlier section that the process to recover divided the community and widened inequalities between those who were privileged to receive support and those who were not. Dana explained:
The distinctions between the haves and the have nots has grown significantly and along with that unfortunately, the rhetoric and the angst between class members has been difficult to watch ... I think we’ve seen it particularly in the differences between Matthew and Floyd because after Floyd there were all sorts of programs available. If you were a survivor, there was state-sponsored childcare at no cost. If you’d been through the storm and had moderate to severe damage, your children got free lunch at school and all of these were state-funded and I mean, it just it went on and on and on. Those are no longer available. I think a great deal of it is simply who’s in control of the money. Most of the money trickles down from the federal level. Helping poor people is not a priority ... In the end, the people who really, really suffer and struggle are those who were barely making it to begin with-nothing new there. And so, the resources have been less.
Other respondents echoed this logic and added that economic interventions and policies would enable their communities to face future hazards. Chavis, a local leader in the American Indian tribal council called on political and business leaders from outside the region to invest in the redevelopment and revitalization of his community’s industry. Doing so would allow people to empower themselves in the future. He explained,
They need to do the right thing and help, help us develop and bring something in that what tobacco took from us, bring in industry besides chicken farms and hog farms. We [don’t need more of] the lower jobs, but at the same time we know we’re not going to get the Google jobs, either. [We need] something that a person can go to work, do, feel good about themselves, feel, take pride in, come home, and feed their family, drive a good car, and pay taxes.
Additional respondents described measures that could bring jobs and environmental protection to the area, including projects such as roadway improvements, natural dam removal, and better irrigation systems for flooding. Participants agreed that the region had the potential to be economically stronger, but that significant outside support would be needed to achieve it.
DISCUSSION
The oversimplification around the use of resilience causes harm to marginalized communities, especially those impacted by repeated hazards. One way is to place the burden and responsibility of recovery on the individual instead of recognizing the influence of contextual factors. In essence, to be resilient focuses away from the persistent socioeconomic and contextual conditions that impede long-term recovery. Instead, we should focus on the histories of disinvestment and current structures that force individuals and communities to remain in spaces that make them more susceptible to hazards.
Our findings show that resilience comes at a cost; one form is fatigue. Our framework, resilience fatigue, illustrates that marginalized populations who face repeated hazards grapple with exhaustion, urgency, and anxiety. Moreover, our findings suggest that the expectation of resilience is only feasible with long-term economic and infrastructure investments in hazard-prone regions.
Wilbur and Gone (2023) explored how “survivance” provides a better descriptor than resilience. This term derives from the combination of survival and resistance and is situated within Indigenous spaces that focus on maintaining health. Where resilience speaks to thriving after one isolated instance, “survivance” addresses the long-term process of thriving, given a marginalized community’s complex relationship to historical trauma and colonialization. “Survivance” speaks to the systemic injustice that resilience overlooks. Although a small sample represented an Indigenous population, we find similarities in the term’s applicability to other respondents. Future research should assess how the term “survivance” can be applied to other historically marginalized groups with longstanding relationships to their land.
Although the resilience fatigue framework presents a valuable new way to understand the experiences of individuals and communities in hazard-prone regions, this study has limitations. First, our sample is derived from one area of the country that has experienced one type of hazard. Future research could apply the framework in other contexts and samples to see whether resilience fatigue persists. Second, we consider resilience an abstract imperative derived from American cultural ideology rather than concrete benchmarks communities must reach after an event. Future research could measure resilience fatigue causally using rubrics that account for specific aspects of recovery.
Nevertheless, our study offers an assessment of the cost of resilience. Additional work could explain alternative costs of resilience or assess the extent to which those costs intersect. This work could also help explain critical early insights into the effects of repeated hazard exposure on the collective perspectives of community members.
From a policy perspective, our findings suggest that the extent to which hazards exacerbate existing social and economic problems is far greater in marginalized communities. As major hurricanes continue to plague rural coastal and tidewater communities, those from the lowest socioeconomic background will continue to suffer without recourse. Our findings indicate that their disadvantage will only grow with time. Methodologically, our results reinforce a long-held tradition in qualitative social science research: to allow participant perspectives and viewpoints to drive understanding. By doing this, we uncovered how expectations of resilience cause harm rather than improve outcomes in hazard-affected regions.
CONCLUSION
Communities that are repeatedly expected to be resilient are worn out by resilience demands. Our findings created a theory grounded in respondents’ perspectives entitled resilience fatigue. This theory represents three facets. The first facet, physical and emotional exhaustion, captures the extreme toll that constant hazards have on people in affected areas. It reflects the trauma of their losses and the weariness they feel at constantly having to rebuild. The second facet, relentlessness toward normalcy, reflects how residents in these areas strive for some form of normalcy to help them and others cope with hazards, even at their own expense. The final facet, anxiety and fear of future hazards, describes how hazard victims fear the toll of the inevitable next big storm, specifically for residents of hazard-prone areas. This new theory better contextualizes the experience and cost of residence in communities that face repeated hazards. It showed how positive perceptions and resilience diminished over time in the face of cultural and social realities.
Our findings present an interesting moral dilemma for policy makers. Participants describe the process of hazard recovery as a learned skill, something that they become better at over time with more hazard exposure. Gardiner (2004) states that governments still need to enact policies that reduce hazard exposure, leaving marginalized communities to adapt to the danger. The question then becomes whether this adaptation is a skill that should be encouraged through policy or whether the time has finally come for policies to abate the harmful effects of climate change. Our findings and the resilience fatigue framework suggest that abatement efforts are policies whose time is long overdue, as their absence has had persistent adverse effects on already marginalized communities. We encourage future research to consider this question.
__________
[1] This is the highest tier of financial support available from the federal government following a disaster.
RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE
Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted Tools
We did not use any AI-assisted tool to write this paper.
DATA AVAILABILITY
We will make data available from interviews.
LITERATURE CITED
Arango, T., J. A. Del, and I. Penn. 2019. 5 lessons we learned from the California wildfires in 2019. The New York Times, 4 November. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/us/fires-california.html
Basoglu, M., and E. Salcioglu. 2011. A mental healthcare model for mass trauma survivors: control-focused behavioral treatment of earthquake, war and torture trauma. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975936
Bazzi, S., M. Fiszbein, and M. Gebresilasse. 2020. Frontier culture: the roots and persistence of “rugged individualism” in the United States. Econometrica 88(6):2329-2368. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16484
Berner, M., A. Vazquez, and M. McDougall. 2016. Documenting poverty in North Carolina. UNC School of Government, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Biermacher, J. T., S. Upson, D. C. Miller, and D. Pittman. 2007. Economic challenges of small-scale vegetable production and retailing in rural communities: an example from rural Oklahoma. Journal of Food Distribution Research 38(856-2016-57843):1-13.
Boon, H. J., A. Cottrell, D. King, R. B. Stevenson, and J. Millar. 2012. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural Hazards 60(2):381-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0021-4
Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Brink, P. J. 1998. Exploratory designs. Pages 308-334 in P. J. Brink and M. J. Wood, editors. Advanced design in nursing research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204840.n12
Brody, G. H., T. Yu, E. Chen, G. E. Miller, S. M. Kogan, and S. R. H. Beach. 2013. Is resilience only skin deep?: Rural African Americans’ socioeconomic status-related risk and competence in preadolescence and psychological adjustment and allostatic load at age 19. Psychological Science 24(7):1285-1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612471954
Ceyhan, E., and A. A. Ceyhan. 2007. Earthquake survivors’ quality of life and academic achievement six years after the earthquakes in Marmara, Turkey. Disasters 31(4):516-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01023.x
Changnon, S. A. 2010. Trend analysis: are storms getting worse? Weatherwise 63(2):38-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00431671003621932
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Clemens, S. L., H. L. Berry, B. M. McDermott, and C. M. Harper. 2013. Summer of sorrow: measuring exposure to and impacts of trauma after Queensland’s natural disasters of 2010-2011. Medical Journal of Australia 199(8):552-555. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.10307
Creswell, J. W. 2011. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Fourth edition. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
Dale, V. H., L. A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R. P. Neilson, M. P. Ayres, M. D. Flannigan, P. J. Hanson, L. C. Irland, A. E. Lugo, C. J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F. J. Swanson, B. J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances: climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. BioScience 51(9):723-734. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD]2.0.CO;2
Davis, C. R., S. R. Cannon, and S. C. Fuller. 2021. The storm after the storm: the long-term lingering impacts of hurricanes on schools. Disaster Prevention and Management 30(3):264-278. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-2020-0055
Davis, C. R., M. R. Griffard, A. Burton, J. Weinberg, K. Kaneria, M. Smith, G. Sabin, and T. Barnes. 2022. A band-aid fix to a problem that’s going to be persistent”: the influence of social place attachment on rural residents’ perceptions of natural hazard relief efforts. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 67:102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102640
Dettinger, M. 2011. Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California–a multimodel analysis of storm frequency and magnitude changes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(3):514-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x
de Volo, L. 2006. The dynamics of emotion and activism: grief, gender, and collective identity in revolutionary Nicaragua. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 11(4):461-474. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.11.4.q21r3432561l21t7
Dyregrov, A., A. Salloum, P. Kristensen, and K. Dyregrov. 2015. Grief and traumatic grief in children in the context of mass trauma. Current Psychiatry Reports 17:48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-015-0577-x
Eastern North Carolina Dataset Project. 2006. The 41 Counties of Eastern North Carolina. Eastern North Carolina Dataset Project, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. http://core.ecu.edu/umc/enc/index.htm
Ekanayake, S., M. Prince, A. Sumathipala, S. Siribaddana, and C. Morgan. 2013. “We lost all we had in a second”: coping with grief and loss after a natural disaster. World Psychiatry 12(1):69-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20018
Elder Jr, G. H., and R. D. Conger. 2000. Children of the land: adversity and success in rural America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226224978.001.0001
Falk, W. W., and L. M. Lobao. 2003. Who benefits from economic restructuring? Lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Pages 152-165 in D. L. Brown and L. E. Swanson, editors. Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp32b.17
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. North Carolina Hurricane Matthew (DR-4285-NC). FEMA, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA. https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4285
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Declared disasters. https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4393
Fothergill, A., and L. Peek. 2015. Children of Katrina. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA.
Frankenberg, E., B. Sikoki, C. Sumantri, W. Suriastini, and D. Thomas. 2013. Education, vulnerability, and resilience after a natural disaster. Ecology and Society 18(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05377-180216
Gardiner, S. M. 2004. Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555-600. https://doi.org/10.1086/382247
Gardiner, S. M. 2006. A perfect moral storm: climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values 15(3):397-413. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327106778226293
Gardiner, S. M. 2011. A perfect moral storm: the ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001
Geer, B. 1964. First days in the field. Basic Books, New York, New York, USA.
Glaser, B. G. 1965. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems 12(4):436-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Hutchison, E. 2016. Affective communities in world politics. Cambridge Studies in International Relations Vol. 140. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316154670
Kates, R. W., C. E. Colton, C. Laska, and S. P. Leatherman. 2006. Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a research perspective. PNAS 103(40):14653-14660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605726103
Kristensen, P., L. Weisæth, and T. Heir. 2010. Predictors of complicated grief after a natural disaster: a population study two years after the 2004 South-East Asian tsunami. Death Studies 34(2):137-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180903492455
Lehman, G. 2008. Two thousand generations of place making. Pages 205-208 in F. Vanclay, M. Higgins, and A. Blackshaw, editors. Making sense of place. National Museum of Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Lewicka, M. 2011. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(3):207-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Lincoln, Y. S. 1993. I and thou: method, voice, and roles in research with the silenced. Pages 29-47 in D. McLaughlin, W. G. Tierney, editors. Naming silenced lives: personal narratives and processes of educational change. Routledge, London, UK.
Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE, Newbury Park, California, USA.
Liu, D., J. Li, I. S. Wing, B. Blanton, J. Kruse, L. Nozick, and M. Millea. 2024. Unequal economic consequences of coastal hazards: hurricane impacts on North Carolina. Environmental Research Letters 19(10):104003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6d81
Masten, A. S. 2013a. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Society for Research in Child Development 85(1):6-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205
Masten, A. S. 2013b. Risk and resilience in development. Pages 579-608 in P. D. Zelazo, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 2: Self and Other. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199958474.013.0023
Masten, A. S. 2014. Ordinary magic: resilience in development. Guilford Publications, New York, New York, USA.
Masten, A. S., C. M. Lucke, K. M. Nelson, and I. C. Stallworthy. 2021. Resilience in development and psychopathology: multisystem perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 17(1):521-549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307
Masten, A. S., and A. J. Narayan. 2012. Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology 63:227-257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100356
Matarrita-Cascante, D., and B. Trejos. 2013. Community resilience in resource-dependent communities: a comparative case study. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 45(6):1387-1402. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45361
McColl, G. J., and F. M. Burkle. 2012. The new normal: twelve months of resilience and recovery in Christchurch. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 6(1):33-43. https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.8
Merrick, E. 1999. “Like chewing gravel”: on the experience of analyzing qualitative research findings using a feminist epistemology. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23(1):47-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00340.x
Michener, W. K., E. R. Blood, K. L. Bildstein, M. M. Brinson, and L. R. Gardner. 1997. Climate change, hurricanes and tropical storms, and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7(3):770-801. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0770:CCHATS]2.0.CO;2
Morgan, S. 2010. My place. Fremantle Press, Fremantle, Australia.
Mower, L. 2019. Why are 20,000 Hurricane Michael insurance claims unpaid? State officials are asking. Miami Herald, 29 August. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article234323522.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Matthew. NOAA, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL142016_Matthew.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season. NOAA, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.php?season=2018&basin=atl
NC East Alliance. 2014. Eastern North Carolina regional economic development review. NC East Alliance, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. https://www.nceast.org/nceast-alliance-releases-eastern-north-carolina-regional-economic-development-review-2015-16/
Neria, Y., A. Nandi, and S. Galea. 2008. Post-traumatic stress disorder following disasters: a systematic review. Psychological Medicine 38(4):467-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707001353
Nichol, G., and H. Hunt. 2018. Goldsboro: isolation and marginalization in Eastern North Carolina. North Carolina Research Fund. https://www2.law.unc.edu/documents/poverty/publications/goldsboro_final_web.pdf
Norris, F. H., S. P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K. F. Wyche, and R. L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1):127-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
North Carolina Climate Office. 2018. Hurricane statistics. North Carolina State Climate Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. https://products.climate.ncsu.edu/weather/hurricanes/statistics/
Osofsky, H. J., J. D. Osofsky, M. Kronenberg, A. Brennan, and T. C. Hansel. 2009. Posttraumatic stress symptoms in children after Hurricane Katrina: predicting the need for mental health services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 79(2):212-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016179
Pane, J. F., D. F. McCaffrey, N. Kalra, and A. J. Zhou. 2008. Effects of student displacement in Louisiana during the first academic year after the hurricanes of 2005. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 13(2-3):168-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350169
Peek, L. 2011. Behind the backlash: Muslim Americans after 9/11. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrdf3dw
Prinstein, M. J., A. M. La Greca, E. M. Vernberg, and W. K. Silverman. 1996. Children’s coping assistance: how parents, teachers, and friends help children cope after a natural disaster. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 25(4):463-475. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2504_11
Rennung, M. and A. S. Göritz. 2015. Facing sorrow as a group unites. Facing sorrow in a group divides. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0136750. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136750
Romano, H., T. Baubet, D. Rezzoug, and I. Roy. 2006. Psychotherapy of children with post-traumatic grief following a natural disaster. Annales Médico-psychologiques, revue psychiatrique 164(3):208-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2006.01.010
Ronan, K. R., and D. M. Johnston. 2005. Promoting community resilience in disasters: the role for schools, youth, and families. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/b102725
Roth, D. M. 2012. Hydrometeorological prediction center: Louisiana hurricane history. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., USA.. https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/lahur.pdf
Saldaña, J. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Santos, N. 2019. Fourteen years later, New Orleans is still trying to recover from Hurricane Katrina. Environment and Energy Study Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/fourteen-years-later-new-orleans-is-still-trying-to-recover-from-hurricane-katrina
Saporito, S., and D. Sohoni. 2007. Mapping educational inequality: concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces 85(3):1227-1253. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0055
Sher, J. P. 1988. North Carolina today: a state of emergency, a state of grace, a state of anticipation. North Carolina Association of Educators, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED304246.pdf
Sherrieb, K., C. A. Louis, R. L. Pfefferbaum, J. B. Pfefferbaum, E. Diab, and F. H. Norris. 2012. Assessing community resilience on the US coast using school principals as key informants. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2:6-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.06.001
Spradley, J. P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois, USA.
Stanford, J. 2017. Examining decline in North Carolina’s municipalities. Carolina Demography, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Stewart, A., and J. Abbott-Chapman. 2011. Remote island students' post-compulsory retention: emplacement and displacement as factors influencing educational persistence or discontinuation. Journal of Research in Rural Education 26(6).
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE, Newbury Park, California, USA.
Sturgis, S. 2018. Recent disasters reveal racial discrimination in FEMA aid process. Facing South, 24 September.
Sullivan, P., K. Ross, and R. Thebault. 2019. First there was Matthew. Then Florence. For the third time in four years, the Carolinas brace for a hurricane. The Washington Post, 5 September.
Sveen, J., K. Bergh Johannesson, M. Cernvall, and F. K. Arnberg. 2018. Trajectories of prolonged grief one to six years after a natural disaster. PLoS ONE 13(12):e0209757. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209757
Tierney, K. 2019. Disasters: a sociological approach. Polity, Cambridge, UK.
Triandis, H. C. 2001. Individualism‐collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality 69(6):907-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Ungar, M. 2018. Systemic resilience: principles and processes for a science of change in contexts of adversity. Ecology and Society 23(4):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10385-230434
Ungar, M. 2019. Change the world: the science of resilience and the true path to success. Sutherland House Books, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ungar, M. 2021. Multisystemic resilience: adaption and transformation in contexts of change. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.001.0001
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Growth in urban population outpaces rest of nation, Census Bureau Reports - 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html
U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American community survey. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., USA. https://data.census.gov/table?y=2019&d=ACS%201-Year%20Estimates%20Detailed%20Tables
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service State Data (USDA ERS). 2024. Rural economy and population. USDA ERS, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/
Warnick, M. 2016. The power of public grief. Psychology Today, 28 April. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/is-where-you-belong/201604/the-power-public-grief?collection=1091786
Wilbur, R. E., and J. P. Gone. 2023. Beyond resilience: a scoping review of Indigenous survivance in the health literature. Development and Psychopathology 35(5):2226-2240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000706
Wright, M. O. D., A. S. Masten, and A. J. Narayan. 2012. Resilience processes in development: four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. Pages 15-37 in S. Goldstein and R. B. Brooks, editors. Handbook of resilience in children. Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_2