Next Article in Journal
Sustainability Struggle: Challenges and Issues in Managing Sustainability and Environmental Protection in Local Tourism Destinations Practices—An Overview
Previous Article in Journal
Analyzing Regional Disparities in China’s Green Manufacturing Transition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Businesses Protect the Environment Through Appropriate Decisions in the Context of Choosing Information and Communication Technologies?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

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

Department of Biological Science, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7133; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157133
Submission received: 16 June 2025 / Revised: 16 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy, Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development)

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.
Keywords: energy transition; willingness to pay; discrete choice experiment; sustainability; political polarization; stakeholder engagement energy transition; willingness to pay; discrete choice experiment; sustainability; political polarization; stakeholder engagement

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oluoch, S.; Pandit, N.; Harner, C. Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157133

AMA Style

Oluoch S, Pandit N, Harner C. Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157133

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oluoch, Sydney, Nirmal Pandit, and Cecelia Harner. 2025. "Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157133

APA Style

Oluoch, S., Pandit, N., & Harner, C. (2025). Socio-Economic and Environmental Trade-Offs of Sustainable Energy Transition in Kentucky. Sustainability, 17(15), 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157133

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop