Coal Mines and Multi-Faceted Risks in the United States: On a Path Toward a Sustainable Future or Emptying Out?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a very interesting research question focusing on policy of coal mines. Authors have given relative data support and discussion. There are some suggestions below:

1. The main question addressed by the research may be the risk of the sustainable development in coal mines areas, and the authors propose the policy ideas for transitioning to a more sustainable local quality of life after examing the public health issues in different coal mines. It is suggested that the importance and urgency of the study can be complemented and analyzed in a comparative world context.

2. The research has providesd a very interesting perspective in the field of regional sustainable development and enriches the theme of the study. Meanwhile, it is suggeste that the authors can supplement the writing of theoretical foundations.

3. The authors raised questions about the development of coal mines regions, which contribute significantly to the assessment of sustainable policies in coal mines regions. Also, it is suggested that the authors can analysis the route of policy evolution of coal mines development.

4. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and the main question posed are analysise in the manuscript.  Meanwhile, it is suggested that a research framework diagram should be given to make the readers a better understanding of the entire research.

5. The references are appropriate, but, it is suggested that more research articles should be refered.

6. The tables span too much and the authors are advised to revise the formatting of the tables.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

It is a very interesting research question focusing on policy of coal mines. Authors have given relative data support and discussion. There are some suggestions below:

1. The main question addressed by the research may be the risk of the sustainable development in coal mines areas, and the authors propose the policy ideas for transitioning to a more sustainable local quality of life after examining the public health issues in different coal mines. It is suggested that the importance and urgency of the study can be complemented and analyzed in a comparative world context.

            RESPONSE: We do not have global data on sustainable development efforts for coal mining areas in every place in the world, but we do have health data for both coal miners and non-coal miners in the major global coal-mining regions. This has been added to the Introduction (see references 14-22). We have also added the importance of finding regional solutions to sustainable development problems.

2. The research has provided a very interesting perspective in the field of regional sustainable development and enriches the theme of the study. Meanwhile, it is suggested that the authors can supplement the writing of theoretical foundations.

            RESPONSE: Agreed. We have added literature on the theoretical foundations of sustainable regional development in the introduction with references 23 and 24.

3. The authors raised questions about the development of coal mine regions, which contribute significantly to the assessment of sustainable policies in coal mine regions. Also, it is suggested that the authors analyze the route of policy evolution of coal mine development.

            RESPONSE: We know of no single effort to compile a literature review of coal policies. The closest we can find is the idea of just transition policies, which we have mentioned in the introduction and is the focus of the final section described in the paper.

4. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and the main question posed is analyzed in the manuscript.  Meanwhile, it is suggested that a research framework diagram should be given to give the readers a better understanding of the entire research.

            RESPONSE: This doesn’t work as an image. It follows a singular path, so we added bulleted points at the end of the data and methods section on pages 11 and 12.   

5. The references are appropriate, but, it is suggested that more research articles should be referred.

            RESPONSE: Agreed. We added multiple articles on the health of mine workers and non-workers in coal mining communities around the globe, and two on how regional sustainable development theory applies to their health outcomes.

6. The tables span too much and the authors are advised to revise the formatting of the tables.

            RESPONSE: Agreed. We have simplified Table 1 and removed Table 3 from the previous version, summarizing it in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper follows a logical structure, with a well-written abstract that provides a good presentation of the research.

The abstract could start with one or two sentences addressing the issue of coal mine contamination and its associated risks, and then briefly describe the methodology.

The introduction could be improved, the initial part describes a book/author who reported the importance of coal for the development of the world, but he was not the only one. In addition, only the issue of coal in the USA is mentioned, I suggest a brief description of this issue in other countries that are relevant worldwide in coal production (China, India and Australia). This scenario should be supported by numbers/information that confirm the relevance of the topic, presenting data on contamination in other regions of the world, as they provide the reader with a better comparative notion of reality. I think there are sentences that should be corrected, for example, there is a direct mention of President Trump, I think it would be more appropriate to describe it as being under this president's administration and not to name the President.

I think it is also important to provide figures/information that confirm the relevance of the topic, describing the amount of coal mined in the world, as well as the main producing countries.

The Context section could be rewritten, although it can be seen that from line 99 onwards the text begins to refer in a more technical and assertive way to the issue of coal and its environmental impacts. From line 130 onwards the text becomes confusing again and, despite addressing the issue of regulatory bodies and financing for the recovery of abandoned mines, what we see is a confusing text in which the ideas are not presented in a sequenced manner. I also felt that relevant information was missing in this topic, such as: when did coal mining begin in the US? I think it is necessary to contextualize this issue. The historical context of the legislation should also be rewritten, sectioning the paragraphs and making it more didactic.

The methodology is well described, but some aspects could be improved. In line 220, the company Niche is mentioned. This is the first time the company appears in the text. I suggest a brief presentation of the organization to make it relevant to the study. In the results section (line 270), the classification system is presented. However, I think this is part of the methodology. It is also important to mention which previous study this classification system was based on, as well as to describe the scoring criteria used. I think Table 1 is too long and could be made easier to understand by using images/flowcharts. As mentioned, I suggest that some points in the methodology be removed from the results section. On the other hand, issues that are presented in the results section should be included in the methodology section.

The Results and Discussion chapters describe in an integrated manner the difficulties and problems of the municipalities and people who live/lived in the coal mining regions. However, I suggest that the tables be reduced and several pieces of information be presented in the form of graphs that demonstrate the differences between the parameters. Furthermore, in Table 3, it is not clear what the numbers mean or which parameters/counties presented significant statistical differences. I think it would also be advisable to present data related to the municipalities/states in the form of maps, as this makes it easier to understand and more didactic. Finally, I also suggest that the Discussion section carry out a comparative analysis of the reality found in the US counties with other studies in other regions of the world.

The paper presents very extensive tables. Therefore, I suggest that some of the data be demonstrated in graphs, since a visual approach facilitates understanding and nowadays we have many resources in this regard. In addition, the paper has a strong spatial component, with the presentation/discussion of several counties in the USA. In this context, I strongly suggest that some of the information be presented in maps.

All these issues are described in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

The paper follows a logical structure, with a well-written abstract that provides a good presentation of the research.

 

RESPONSE: Thanks.

 

The abstract could start with one or two sentences addressing the issue of coal mine contamination and its associated risks, and then briefly describe the methodology.

 

RESPONSE: Agreed. Modified the abstract.

 

The introduction could be improved, the initial part describes a book/author who reported the importance of coal for the development of the world, but he was not the only one. In addition, only the issue of coal in the USA is mentioned, I suggest a brief description of this issue in other countries that are relevant worldwide in coal production (China, India and Australia). This scenario should be supported by numbers/information that confirm the relevance of the topic, presenting data on contamination in other regions of the world, as they provide the reader with a better comparative notion of reality.

 

RESPONSE: This is a good idea, but it is infeasible to do this kind of analysis in a single paper. It would require a special issue of a journal or a book that would have a single methodology and separate chapters on each country or sets of countries. See last few sentences at the end of the paper for more thoughts about this question.  

 

I think there are sentences that should be corrected, for example, there is a direct mention of President Trump, I think it would be more appropriate to describe it as being under this president's administration and not to name the President.

 

RESPONSE: Worked on the language, but it is hard to distinguish between President Trump and his administration. Our compromise was to include it under his administration during the first mention. The references include Trump’s name because he is specifically pushing these policies.

 

I think it is also important to provide figures/information that confirm the relevance of the topic, describing the amount of coal mined in the world, as well as the main producing countries.

 

RESPONSE: This paper is about the United States, but we understand the relevance of providing global figures.  We could not find global production figures, only use. That information is now included along with the reference.

 

The Context section could be rewritten, although it can be seen that from line 99 onwards the text begins to refer in a more technical and assertive way to the issue of coal and its environmental impacts. From line 130 onwards the text becomes confusing again and, despite addressing the issue of regulatory bodies and financing for the recovery of abandoned mines, what we see is a confusing text in which the ideas are not presented in a sequenced manner. I also felt that relevant information was missing in this topic, such as: when did coal mining begin in the US? I think it is necessary to contextualize this issue. The historical context of the legislation should also be rewritten, sectioning the paragraphs and making it more didactic.

 

RESPONSE: We did some adjustments on the topics by linking the sequence to the four research questions and adding expectations that are highlighted in the discussion.

 

The methodology is well described, but some aspects could be improved. In line 220, the company Niche is mentioned. This is the first time the company appears in the text. I suggest a brief presentation of the organization to make it relevant to the study. In the results section (line 270), the classification system is presented. However, I think this is part of the methodology. It is also important to mention which previous study this classification system was based on, as well as to describe the scoring criteria used. I think Table 1 is too long and could be made easier to understand by using images/flowcharts. As mentioned, I suggest that some points in the methodology be removed from the results section. On the other hand, issues that are presented in the results section should be included in the methodology section.

 

RESPONSES: We see your point. Niche is now mentioned on page 5 because it is part of what we used for question 3. We created the new classification system and explain that in the text. We also added a few details in the text about the use of short-tons. Table 1 was simplified, as requested. We have checked and are sure the methods section is inclusive. Our personal experience is that readers don’t remember an earlier explanation of discriminant analysis, so it is the only method repeated in the results.

 

The Results and Discussion chapters describe in an integrated manner the difficulties and problems of the municipalities and people who live/lived in the coal mining regions. However, I suggest that the tables be reduced and several pieces of information be presented in the form of graphs that demonstrate the differences between the parameters. Furthermore, in Table 3, it is not clear what the numbers mean or which parameters/counties presented significant statistical differences. I think it would also be advisable to present data related to the municipalities/states in the form of maps, as this makes it easier to understand and more didactic. Finally, I also suggest that the Discussion section carry out a comparative analysis of the reality found in the US counties with other studies in other regions of the world.

 

RESPONSE: We dropped the old Table 3 and summarized the results in the text.  As for maps and charts, we think that the tabular data is much more precise and less subject to misinterpretation compared to maps and figures. But even if we put in maps and figures, we would want to keep the tables. We believe readers should see the numbers.

 

The paper presents very extensive tables. Therefore, I suggest that some of the data be demonstrated in graphs, since a visual approach facilitates understanding and nowadays we have many resources in this regard. In addition, the paper has a strong spatial component, with the presentation/discussion of several counties in the USA. In this context, I strongly suggest that some of the information be presented in maps. All these issues are described in the attached pdf.

 

RESPONSE: Please see the above response. We don’t believe maps and figures for this analysis would help.  Frankly, we believe the correlations are more important.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study by Greenberg, titled “Coal Mines and Multi-Faceted Risks in the United States: On a 2 Path Toward a Sustainable Future or Emptying Out?” presents an in-depth discussion on the public health, community, and demographic characteristics of 130 U.S. counties with coal mines, exemplifying how this type of land use contributes to both natural and anthropogenic risks. First, I commend the author for the effort in developing this study. Overall, the work addresses a highly relevant topic within the current U.S. context and is structured around four well-formulated research questions that are methodologically well-supported. However, in its current form, the manuscript requires several refinements. Below, I provide my individual comments:

In the abstract, it is important to clarify how the study is structured, similar to the explanation provided in lines 68–73. Clearly delineating the different individual aspects addressed in this study will improve the readability and coherence of the abstract.

Line 25: Remove the hyperlink.

In some instances, the manuscript needs a clearer temporal context to ensure its comprehension remains relevant over time. For example, in line 52: “President Donald Trump has been a supporter of the industry and likely will continue his support by trying to reduce environmental regulations that have tightened around coal mining and use.” Verify whether this statement is still accurate and adjust to provide clear timeframes where needed throughout the manuscript.

In all tables presented, first, adjust them to align with the journal’s formatting guidelines. Additionally, include the reference numbers within the tables rather than listing them separately as footnotes. In the current format, this information appears repetitive.

In line 235, provide the total number of non-coal counties within coal-producing states, as well as the total number of counties without coal production.

A significant portion of the information described in lines 269–307 is better suited for the methodology section rather than the results. I strongly recommend moving this content to the methodology section (Section 3) and expanding it there. Additionally, with this adjustment, it would be beneficial to create subsections in Section 3 to better delineate the methodological approaches employed in the study.

In Table 1, include a descriptive analysis of the presented data (such as percentages) to enhance the exploration of the information. There are several interesting data points that deserve more detailed discussion.

Line 169: Ensure correct punctuation out of the parentheses.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The study by Greenberg, titled “Coal Mines and Multi-Faceted Risks in the United States: On a Path Toward a Sustainable Future or Emptying Out?” presents an in-depth discussion on the public health, community, and demographic characteristics of 130 U.S. counties with coal mines, exemplifying how this type of land use contributes to both natural and anthropogenic risks. First, I commend the author for the effort in developing this study. Overall, the work addresses a highly relevant topic within the current U.S. context and is structured around four well-formulated research questions that are methodologically well-supported.

 

RESPONSE: Thanks

 

However, in its current form, the manuscript requires several refinements. Below, I provide my individual comments:

 

In the abstract, it is important to clarify how the study is structured, similar to the explanation provided in lines 68–73. Clearly, delineating the different individual aspects addressed in this study will improve the readability and coherence of the abstract.

 

RESPONSE: Agreed. Abstract was rewritten

 

Line 25: Remove the hyperlink.---

 

            RESPONSE:   Hyperlink removed.

 

In some instances, the manuscript needs a clearer temporal context to ensure its comprehension remains relevant over time. For example, in line 52: “President Donald Trump has been a supporter of the industry and likely will continue his support by trying to reduce environmental regulations that have tightened around coal mining and use.” Verify whether this statement is still accurate and adjust to provide clear timeframes where needed throughout the manuscript.

 

RESPONSE: President Trump’s administration has been a major supporter of coal. We have included multiple references, some of which are 2024 and 2025.  But he and his new EPA Administrator could change their views. The situation is unclear and we don’t feel comfortable going further because it is too speculative.    

 

In all tables presented, first, adjust them to align with the journal’s formatting guidelines. Additionally, include the reference numbers within the tables rather than listing them separately as footnotes. In the current format, this information appears repetitive.

 

RESPONSE: The footnotes have been moved into the tables.

 

In line 235, provide the total number of non-coal counties within coal-producing states, as well as the total number of counties without coal production.

 

RESPONSE: See pages 7 and 11 for the totals in each group.

 

A significant portion of the information described in lines 269–307 is better suited for the methodology section rather than the results. I strongly recommend moving this content to the methodology section (Section 3) and expanding it there. Additionally, with this adjustment, it would be beneficial to create subsections in Section 3 to better delineate the methodological approaches employed in the study.  

 

RESPONSE: Section 3 now has 3 subsections. Our experience with other reviewers tells us that while all of the analyses should be listed in the methods, further explaining discriminant analysis is required in the results section.

 

Also, Section 4 needed and now has more subsections.  In Table 1, include a descriptive analysis of the presented data (such as percentages) to enhance the exploration of the information. There are several interesting data points that deserve more detailed discussion.

 

RESPONSE: Table 1 was simplified at the request of another reviewer. Percent is now inserted for the variables measured as percent. 

 

Line 169: Ensure correct punctuation out of the parentheses.

 

RESPONSE: Thank you. We believe we found those errors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting and can attract attention of a wider scientific community, but there are some issues that need to resolved. Those are:

·                  · The abstract should be more concise and explicitly state the study’s key findings.

           ·  The introduction is too historical and should focus more on the current challenges and the research gap this study aims to fill.

·        The paper presents four key research questions but does not provide a clear hypothesis for each. The introduction should explicitly state what the authors expect to find and why.

·        The rationale for distinguishing counties based on coal presence is useful but should be justified with references to prior studies that have used similar classification methodologies.

·        The study relies on county-level data, but this approach may overlook important intra-county variations, particularly in larger, rural counties. A discussion of how this limitation affects the findings is needed.

·        The use of discriminant analysis is reasonable but needs a stronger explanation of why it was chosen over other classification techniques like principal component analysis or clustering methods.

·        The interpretation of discriminant functions should be expanded. While the first function distinguishes counties based on health outcomes, the second function’s focus on civic engagement is less intuitive. The authors should discuss why this is an important factor for coal communities.

·        The study assumes that coal miners are disproportionately affected by poor health outcomes, but without individual-level data, this remains speculative. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and, if possible, cite studies that have directly linked coal mining to negative health effects in individuals.

·        Tables 3 and 4 contain a large amount of numerical data but lack a clear narrative. Consider summarizing key findings visually (e.g., bar charts or heat maps).

·        The paper suggests that federal aid is directed toward the most affected counties, but the analysis relies on correlation rather than causation. It is unclear whether federal aid is truly addressing the needs of these communities. A qualitative component (such as case studies or interviews with policymakers) would add depth.

·        The role of political influence in the distribution of federal aid should be examined. Given that many coal-heavy states voted for Donald Trump in 2024, could political considerations be shaping funding decisions?

·        The discussion draws comparisons with deindustrialization in steel and automobile manufacturing. However, it lacks a discussion of how coal-dependent counties differ from these other cases.

·        Unlike the steel industry, coal mining is deeply tied to land use policies and environmental degradation. A stronger emphasis on land reclamation policies and their effectiveness would improve the discussion.

·        The authors discuss government programs for coal transition but do not provide a detailed roadmap for what a successful transition would look like. The concept of "just transition" is mentioned briefly. Expanding this section with international examples (e.g., Germany’s coal phase-out policies) would strengthen the argument.

·        The discussion on coal’s political relevance (e.g., regulatory rollbacks, state-level policies) should be expanded. How do state policies differ in their approach to coal decline?

·        The paper suggests that many coal counties are at risk of becoming ghost towns but does not explore alternative economic models in depth.

·        Some rural communities have successfully transitioned to tourism, renewable energy, or remote work industries. Incorporating examples of such transformations would add practical insights.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The topic of the paper is interesting and can attract attention of a wider scientific community, but there are some issues that need to resolved. Those are:

 

1. The abstract should be more concise and explicitly state the study’s key findings.

 

RESPONSE: Yes, edited

 

2. The introduction is too historical and should focus more on the current challenges and the research gap this study aims to fill.

 

RESPONSE: Understood. The Introduction has been rewritten to focus on the health and development challenges of global coal-producing regions. The literature review has been tightened to remove some historical information from the Context section.

 

3. The paper presents four key research questions but does not provide a clear hypothesis for each. The introduction should explicitly state what the authors expect to find and why.

 

RESPONSE: Okay, we added these immediately after each question.

 

4. The rationale for distinguishing counties based on coal presence is useful but should be justified with references to prior studies that have used similar classification methodologies.

 

RESPONSE: Please see the paragraph following Table 2 on page 12. There are no prior studies that have classified coal regions in the U.S. in this way. This approach is novel in that it addresses production levels for both surface and underground mines at the county level.

 

5. The study relies on county-level data, but this approach may overlook important intra-county variations, particularly in larger, rural counties. A discussion of how this limitation affects the findings is needed.

 

RESPONSE: Please see page 7, first full paragraph in Materials and Methods addressing this limitation. Alas, the problems of ecological fallacy, modifiable areal unit, and small numbers problems are notable.

 

6. The use of discriminant analysis is reasonable but needs a stronger explanation of why it was chosen over other classification techniques like principal component analysis or clustering methods.

 

RESPONSE: The options for this kind of dependent variable are discriminant analysis, multinomial or ordinal regression. Principal component and cluster analysis, which we have used elsewhere, don’t work for a dependent variable with three categories. Described multinomial, ordinal, and discriminant on pages 11 and 16.

 

7. The interpretation of discriminant functions should be expanded. While the first function distinguishes counties based on health outcomes, the second function’s focus on civic engagement is less intuitive. The authors should discuss why this is an important factor for coal communities.

 

RESPONSE: Yes, added more on page 16.   

 

8. The study assumes that coal miners are disproportionately affected by poor health outcomes, but without individual-level data, this remains speculative. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and, if possible, cite studies that have directly linked coal mining to negative health effects in individuals.

 

RESPONSE: While there is a wealth of information on the health of coal miners at the individual level, we cannot use that information at the county scale as not all residents of a county are coal miners, and not all coal miners live in the county where they are employed. Please see paragraph 3 in Materials and Methods and also the Results section, paragraph 2 under Question 1.

 

9. Tables 3 and 4 contain a large amount of numerical data but lack a clear narrative. Consider summarizing key findings visually (e.g., bar charts or heat maps).

 

RESPONSE: Agreed. Table 3 has been removed. Table 4 has been further described in the narrative. We don’t believe a visual summary would work here. 

 

10. The paper suggests that federal aid is directed toward the most affected counties, but the analysis relies on correlation rather than causation. It is unclear whether federal aid is truly addressing the needs of these communities. A qualitative component (such as case studies or interviews with policymakers) would add depth.

 

RESPONSE: We agree that a qualitative component would make the paper richer, but the word limitation of the journal precludes that option. See pages 21 and 22 of the Conclusions section with a call for future studies. The focus should be on the high coal presence counties.

 

11. The role of political influence in the distribution of federal aid should be examined. Given that many coal-heavy states voted for Donald Trump in 2024, could political considerations be shaping funding decisions?

 

RESPONSE: The current administration’s support for coal is discussed in the Introduction and again in the Conclusions section.

 

12. The discussion draws comparisons with deindustrialization in steel and automobile manufacturing. However, it lacks a discussion of how coal-dependent counties differ from these other cases.

 

RESPONSE: Yes, good point, added to the discussion on page 23.

 

13. Unlike the steel industry, coal mining is deeply tied to land use policies and environmental degradation. A stronger emphasis on land reclamation policies and their effectiveness would improve the discussion.

 

RESPONSE: Agreed, see page 23-24.

 

14. The authors discuss government programs for coal transition but do not provide a detailed roadmap for what a successful transition would look like. The concept of "just transition" is mentioned briefly. Expanding this section with international examples (e.g., Germany’s coal phase-out policies) would strengthen the argument.

 

RESPONSE: Good point. See page 23-24 for a discussion of the SEI perspective and from the U.S. perspective by Haggerty.

 

15. The discussion on coal’s political relevance (e.g., regulatory rollbacks, and state-level policies) should be expanded. How do state policies differ in their approach to coal decline?

 

RESPONSE: Yes, there is a great need for realistic interactions between the federal government, state governments and local representatives. One of our favorites is in West Viginia (see Thurmond example on page 25.) Thurmond is actually a ghost town, but serves the surrounding area. 

 

16. The paper suggests that many coal counties are at risk of becoming ghost towns but does not explore alternative economic models in depth.

 

RESPONSE: Fair enough, we worry about them more than former gold and silver mine areas, but there is hope for some, especially in metropolitan areas. See pages 23, 24, and 25. Thurmond is a ghost town.

 

17. Some rural communities have successfully transitioned to tourism, renewable energy, or remote work industries. Incorporating examples of such transformations would add practical insights.

 

RESPONSE: Yes, we added a few examples on pages 24 and 25.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all my comments, and I think the manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately addressed all of my previous suggestions. Therefore, i recommend accepting the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors provided much improved version of the per and responded adequately to the reviewer's comments. I suggest accepting it.