IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i15p7133-d1718878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky

Author

Listed:
  • Sydney Oluoch

    (Department of Biological Science, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA)

  • Nirmal Pandit

    (Department of Biological Science, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA)

  • Cecelia Harner

    (Department of Biological Science, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA)

Abstract

A just and sustainable energy transition in historically coal-dependent regions like Kentucky requires more than the adoption of new technologies and market-based solutions. This study uses a stated preferences approach to evaluate public support for various attributes of energy transition programs, revealing broad backing for moving away from coal, as indicated by a negative willingness to pay (WTP) for the status quo (–USD 4.63). Key findings show strong bipartisan support for solar energy, with Democrats showing the highest WTP at USD 8.29, followed closely by Independents/Others at USD 8.22, and Republicans at USD 8.08. Wind energy also garnered support, particularly among Republicans (USD 4.04), who may view it as more industry-compatible and less ideologically polarizing. Job creation was a dominant priority across political affiliations, especially for Independents (USD 9.07), indicating a preference for tangible, near-term economic benefits. Similarly, preserving cultural values tied to coal received support among Independents/Others (USD 4.98), emphasizing the importance of place-based identity in shaping preferences. In contrast, social support programs (e.g., job retraining) and certain post-mining land uses (e.g., recreation and conservation) were less favored, possibly due to their abstract nature, delayed benefits, and political framing. Findings from Kentucky offer insights for other coal-reliant states like Wyoming, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois. Ultimately, equitable transitions must integrate local voices, address cultural and economic realities, and ensure community-driven planning and investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Sydney Oluoch & Nirmal Pandit & Cecelia Harner, 2025. "Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:7133-:d:1718878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/7133/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/7133/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Legg, Peter & Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Bark, Rosalind H. & Tocock, Mark & Tinch, Dugald & Rose, John M., 2020. "Cultural Values, Deep Mining Operations and the Use of Surplus Groundwater for Towns, Landscapes and Jobs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Dworkin, Michael H., 2015. "Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 435-444.
    3. Salak, B. & Kienast, F. & Olschewski, R. & Spielhofer, R. & Wissen Hayek, U. & Grêt-Regamey, A. & Hunziker, M., 2022. "Impact on the perceived landscape quality through renewable energy infrastructure. A discrete choice experiment in the context of the Swiss energy transition," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 299-308.
    4. Kwame Awuah-Offei & Sisi Que & Atta Ur Rehman, 2021. "Evaluating Mine Design Alternatives for Social Risks Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    6. Oluoch, Sydney & Lal, Pankaj & Susaeta, Andres & Wolde, Bernabas, 2021. "Public preferences for renewable energy options: A choice experiment in Kenya," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    7. Fukui, Rokuhei & Greenfield, Carl & Pogue, Katie & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2017. "Experience curve for natural gas production by hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 263-268.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    10. Wei, Max & Patadia, Shana & Kammen, Daniel M., 2010. "Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 919-931, February.
    11. Scheer, Dirk & Konrad, Wilfried & Wassermann, Sandra, 2017. "The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-100.
    12. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    13. Durán, Roi & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María Xosé, 2015. "Conservation of maritime cultural heritage: A discrete choice experiment in a European Atlantic Region," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 356-365.
    14. Gustafson, Abel & Goldberg, Matthew H. & Kotcher, John E. & Rosenthal, Seth A. & Maibach, Edward W. & Ballew, Matthew T. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2020. "Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    15. Della Bosca, Hannah & Gillespie, Josephine, 2018. "The coal story: Generational coal mining communities and strategies of energy transition in Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 734-740.
    16. Helmke-Long, Laura & Carley, Sanya & Konisky, David M., 2022. "Municipal government adaptive capacity programs for vulnerable populations during the U.S. energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    2. Campbell, Robert & Venn, Tyron & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2015. "Quantifying Social Preferences toward Woody Biomass Energy Generation in Montana, USA," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    5. Limenih, Bassie Yizengaw & Stoeckl, Natalie & O'Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne & Volker, Peter, 2024. "Managing forest residues for biodiversity, bioenergy, and smoke reduction: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Tasmania, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    7. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Fortier, Marie-Odile P. & Teron, Lemir & Reames, Tony G. & Munardy, Dynta Trishana & Sullivan, Breck M., 2019. "Introduction to evaluating energy justice across the life cycle: A social life cycle assessment approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 211-219.
    9. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    10. Rajesh K. Rai & Mani Nepal & Laxmi D. Bhatta & Saudamini Das & Madan S. Khadayat & E. Somanathan & Kedar Baral, 2019. "Ensuring Water Availability to Water Users through Incentive Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme: A Case Study in a Small Hilly Town of Nepal," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 1-26, October.
    11. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    12. Héctor M. Núñez & Adán L. Martínez-Cruz & Jaime Sainz-Santamaría, 2025. "Preferences for Renewable Energies and Green Jobs in Mexico City," Working Papers 2025-05, Banco de México.
    13. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Zafrilla, Jorge-Enrique & Arce, Guadalupe & Cadarso, María-Ángeles & Córcoles, Carmen & Gómez, Nuria & López, Luis-Antonio & Monsalve, Fabio & Tobarra, María-Ángeles, 2019. "Triple bottom line analysis of the Spanish solar photovoltaic sector: A footprint assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    16. Barbara Cavalletti & Fedra Gianoglio & Maria Rocca & Pietro Marescotti, 2025. "Economic Valuation of Geosystem Services in Agricultural Products: A Small-Sample Pilot Study on Rotella Apple and Moscatello Wine," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    18. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    19. Peri, Erez & Becker, Nir & Tal, Alon, 2020. "What really undermines public acceptance of wind turbines? A choice experiment analysis in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:7133-:d:1718878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.