Sites of Ambivalence? Conflicting Attitudes Toward Coal in Southern West Virginia

Abstract

Communities with legacies of fossil fuel extraction bear the brunt of socioeconomic impacts of energy transitions, and the residents of those communities also play a role in energy policy debates. In the coalfields of southern West Virginia, residents are often portrayed as unquestionably supportive of the coal industry at the expense of the local environment. As such, the region could be categorized as a site of acceptance where locals internalize attitudes that favor the coal industry and deregulation. However, this article posits that southern West Virginia may be better categorized as a site of ambivalence—a place where communities and individuals hold complex and conflicted attitudes toward polluting industries. I use data from a mail survey of 575 southern West Virginians to illustrate community and individual ambivalence. Quantitative data from the survey show conflicting stances in the community, on average: the coal industry is simultaneously perceived as economically viable and safe, but coal companies are viewed as untrustworthy. Respondents also wrote open-ended comments that were coded based on different stances toward the coal industry. Of the comments that mentioned coal, roughly 40% of respondents were pro-coal, compared with 20% who supported economic diversification beyond coal, and 19% who opposed coal's presence in the region. Furthermore, written comments illustrated examples of residents' views that were conflicting and competing. These findings suggest that some communities—even ones that are rural, isolated, and resource-dependent—may be more conflicted about the legacy and future of the fossil fuel industry. I discuss the potential implications of this ambivalence on just transition planning in Appalachia and other extractive regions.

Introduction

Climate scientists warn that countries across the world must reduce their reliance on coal as an energy source to combat and lessen the effects of human-induced climate change.¹ In the United States, coal production has declined since the turn of the millennia, but emission reduction goals require further decreases. These international trends in energy production have a bidirectional relationship with communities near sites of resource extraction. Transitions to new energy sources can thrust communities into boom-and-bust patterns and impact livelihoods. However, extractive communities can also play a role in whether those transitions occur. Local attitudes toward wind, solar, or nuclear energy could have an outsized impact on whether those sources are seen as viable. Furthermore, advertising campaigns on behalf of oil companies often elevate the economic reliance that some communities have on oil as a reason to defer meaningful action on climate change.²

As part of these discussions, residents of fossil fuel-dependent communities are often portrayed as overwhelmingly in favor of extractive industries.

This is especially true in a region such as southern West Virginia, where journalistic accounts often portray coalfield residents as pro-coal—and declare this attitude a puzzling contradiction, given the coal industry's recent decline and its legacy of harmful impacts on the environment. Billings notes that this narrative received a boost following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as commentators sought to explain how disadvantaged rural residents came to support policies that run counter to their economic interests.³ However, these narratives do not attempt to measure public opinion in the coalfields—and qualitative studies that highlight both acceptance and resistance to coal suggest the possibility of more diverse views in the region. Therefore, this article uses survey data from southern West Virginia to examine the view from the coalfields in more detail and complexity.

The findings highlight not broad acceptance or opposition to coal, but ambivalence on two levels: (1) community ambivalence—competing community attitudes toward coal mining and the impact on local communities and (2) individual ambivalence—how individuals express conflicted feelings toward the industry. These findings may help scholars, activists, and policymakers think beyond broad categorizations of extractive regions and consider how rural and resource-dependent communities and individuals are nuanced and not always predetermined to support extractive industries.⁴

The concept of ambivalence is important to consider in environmental justice literature on sites of acceptance and resistance. Popular conceptions of the region might lead some to categorize southern West Virginia as a textbook “site of acceptance,” where the community embodies an alternative notion of environmental justice that emphasizes a neoliberal ideology of deregulation and free-market principles.⁵^,⁶ Sites of acceptance are also more likely to occur in persistently poor, isolated, and natural resource-dependent regions such as West Virginia. However, the data presented in this article show a range of attitudes toward coal and environmental harm—and a community that is difficult to label as a site of acceptance or resistance. While overt, industry-backed coal boosterism is prevalent throughout southern West Virginia, the “acceptance” label overlooks the ambivalent, complex, and conflicting attitudes toward coal within communities and individuals.⁷^,⁸

I illustrate this point using descriptive quantitative and qualitative data from mail survey responses of 575 residents in five southern West Virginia counties. The survey asked residents about their trust in the coal industry, how harmful they believe coal is to the health of their community, and the possibility of coal providing more jobs in their community. The responses illustrate community ambivalence—that residents, on average, believe coal to be a job provider and do not perceive much environmental harm from coal, but also lack trust in the coal industry. In addition to the quantitative analysis on community sentiment, written responses to open-ended survey questions further highlight the disparate views people have toward the coal industry. While less prevalent, the data also provide examples of individual ambivalence—where people grapple with competing and contradictory views toward the coal industry.

This research moves beyond questions about why people act or vote against their “interests” and toward considering the variation of interests within communities and individuals experiencing legacies of environmental harm. Community and individual ambivalence may be especially acute in coalfields—where the continued downturn of the industry is inevitable and coal-dependent communities simultaneously grapple with their heritage and future.⁹ The acknowledgment that coalfields residents have more diverse views could inspire more community-led discussion, collaboration, and activism. This work also opens new questions for environmental justice researchers to consider ambivalence in other contexts where community sentiments have real-world consequences for mobilizing people to support just and sustainable policies.

Literature review

Environmental justice research has long been attentive to cases of community mobilization and resistance in the face of environmental injustices. Foundational literature on environmental inequality highlights how communities have organized in opposition to proposed or preexisting hazards.¹⁰^,¹¹ These studies of “sites of resistance” often begin with an environmental movement and analyze how it formed and what caused it to fail or succeed.¹² Malin defines sites of resistance as places where people mobilize against polluting industries and prioritize environmental regulation and human health above industry interests.¹³ Recent environmental justice scholarship in rural areas highlights places that outwardly lobby for polluting industries—or sites of acceptance. As Malin argues, these places show how communities construct alternative notions of environmental justice that emphasize free-market, neoliberal ideology.

In sites of acceptance, market logic becomes embedded in communities and individuals, who (1) accept the risks of industry for the associated economic benefits, (2) trust in corporations to self-regulate, and (3) believe in local control of land use. This generates a community view of environmental justice as advocating in favor of socially affirming industries that will bring jobs to a region, even if there are potential environmental costs.¹⁴ Malin applies this dichotomy to different towns in a uranium mining region of the Southwestern United States—which has different social dynamics than the Appalachian coal mining region.

Southern West Virginia: site of acceptance or resistance?

It is difficult for southern West Virginia to neatly fit within the definition of a site of acceptance or resistance. The history of the Appalachian coalfields suggests shifting attitudes toward coal and its impact on the environment. For example, southern West Virginia has a legacy of labor organizing. The Mine Wars in the early twentieth century—which involved one of the largest labor uprisings in U.S. history, The Battle of Blair Mountain—occurred in Mingo and Logan counties (part of this article's study site).¹⁵ Prounion activism also laid the organizing groundwork for community resistance to increasingly destructive strip-mining practices such as mountaintop removal in the latter half of the twentieth century.¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁸

However, many scholars point to the dismantling and weakening of mine workers' unions in the 1970s and 1980s as a turning point in the region. Pro-coal loyalty filled the gap left by busted unions—even as the mechanization of strip-mining practices such as mountaintop removal displaced thousands of workers.¹⁹ In the last two decades, coal industry-backed “astro-turf” movements such as the Friends of Coal and Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security of Coal have proliferated amid the industry's continued decline. Industry public relations campaigns extend into many aspects of public life: school science and business fairs, local sporting events, and politics.²⁰ These campaigns and other local dynamics have been successful in manufacturing a cultural conception of “coal heritage” that helps maintain the industry's historic prominence and political dominance in the region.²¹

Another line of Appalachian research highlights quiescence among many people in the region—the lack of sustained collective action toward coal due to power imbalances.²² Gaventa's seminal work on power and powerlessness posits that the dominance of coal companies and local elites has caused residents to resign from the political process due to barriers to effective and fair participation. Gaventa uses Stephen Lukes' three dimensions of power to show how coal companies do not simply dominate in the public domain (the first dimension of power), but also control and set the local agenda (the second dimension of power) and over time shape residents' own preferences, actions, and inactions (the third dimension of power).

Scholars have also identified these dynamics in other geographic contexts across the world.²³ However, other scholars suggest that what might appear to be quiescence or resignation among the powerless may be more covert forms of resistance. Scott notes that people in subordinate positions often act in ways that appease those in power—but in fact have “hidden transcripts” of resistance in private.²⁴ Applied to southern West Virginia, the populace may appear quiescent because of the dominance of the coal industry, but resist the industry in other ways. Fisher suggests that small, everyday actions such as gossip, violation of local laws, keeping one's accent, and migration can be a form of resistance.²⁵ Cable highlights how some residents in the Appalachian region readily take on individual forms of resistance such as “fussin”—filing complaints to relevant local and state agencies, which may not be considered traditional collective action or resistance.²⁶

The coexistence of movement activism, pro-coal acceptance, quiescence, and subtle forms of resistance in southern West Virginia are complicated by another less-studied social dynamic: ambivalence. For this study, I conceive of two types of ambivalence: community ambivalence and individual ambivalence. Community ambivalence refers to a mix of opposing and contradictory sentiments around certain topics or issues in a community. While the term “ambivalence” is often used to describe an individual grappling with conflicted feelings, scholars across different fields of study have ascribed the term to communities as well.

For example, Brown and Eckhold find that survey data and participatory mapping illustrate community ambivalence about local land use decisions—as opposed to public comment periods, which indicate more one-sided views on behalf of the community.²⁷ Public comment periods indicated 85% and 93% support for proposed development projects, while surveys found just 42% and 40% support for the same projects. I use the term “community ambivalence” in a similar manner.

In addition to community ambivalence, I also contend that individual ambivalence exists in southern West Virginia—where people simultaneously hold complex and competing views about the coal industry. Carolan has documented individual ambivalence in attitudes toward climate change—noting that people simultaneously report worrying about climate change, but also believe that it is exaggerated by the news.²⁸ Likewise, coal communities may contain individuals with similar conflicting views. For example, women in Appalachia—who are often at the forefront of environmental justice movements in the region—may see tension between their roles as protective mothers (who should oppose polluting industries) and yet have a deep connection to the coal industry through family ties.²⁹

Ambivalence may be a result of the same power dynamics (i.e., hegemony, domination, and ideological control) noted in other studies and contexts, but it could also stem from people's complex feelings about “home” and their attachment to place. McMillian Lequieu finds that people in a historic iron mining town advocate for the opening of a new mine due to their collective memory, social networks, and attachment to industrial landscapes—rather than purely economic reasons.³⁰

This literature review illustrates the potential complexity of social dynamics occurring in a community all at once: coal industry influence campaigns, feelings of “home,” concern for the local environment, legacies of industry resistance, outward signs of environmental and health damage from coal, and the influence of tight-knit rural social networks. While the cultural norms and expectations of the coalfields may be decidedly pro-coal, these dynamics could result in complex and competing attitudes toward the coal industry instead of acceptance or resistance.³¹

Materials and Methods

The survey used in this article was conducted in Boone, Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Wyoming counties in West Virginia in March and April 2017. These counties have historically made up the core of West Virginia's southern coalfields and felt the economic and social brunt of coal jobs nearly halving between 2005 and 2015.³² The region has also dealt with a bevy of environmental issues stemming from active mountaintop removal mining and the storage of coal waste in underground injection sites and large slurry dams.³³

The survey was administered by the Washington State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center and approved by the Washington State University Institutional Review Board. We distributed the survey by mail, due to the region's rural remoteness, older population, and internet access issues. The survey used a simple random sample of 2800 residential households receiving mail and consisted of four mailings: an invitation and questionnaire, a reminder letter, a replacement questionnaire, and a final reminder post card. We received 575 returned questionnaires for a response rate of 22.2%.³⁴ Table 1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of the sample. The respondents of the survey skewed slightly older and had slightly higher educational attainment compared with the 2010 U.S. Census data of the target counties (Appendix Table A1).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Race (%)
White	93.0
American Indian	2.6
Black	1.9
Annual income (%)
Less than $25,000	43.7
Between $25,000 and $49,999	32.1
More than $50,000	24.2
Gender
Female	52.2
Male	47.8
Age (%)
18–34	6.2
35–54	24.2
55–64	27.5
65–74	28.7
75 and older	12.9
Educational attainment (%)
Less than high school	18.3
High school graduate	38.3
Some college or associate degree	29.7
Four-year degree or above	9.7

Note: Respondents could select multiple racial identifications. Some categories across each variable were collapsed for ease of interpretation.

The survey—titled “What's Next for Southern West Virginia?”—contained questions about quality of life, environmental risk perceptions, and perceptions of the coal industry and the local economy. The questionnaire had high levels of engagement on open-ended questions, with nearly half of the respondents answering a question on the back of the survey that simply asked for additional thoughts on the topics addressed in the questionnaire. We coded these data and included qualitative comments to complement the quantitative findings below.

Results

Community ambivalence

First, I examine the distribution of responses to several closed-ended questions related to the coal industry: (1) the level of trust in the coal industry, (2) how harmful respondents consider coal to the health of their community, and (3) how possible the coal industry is to create jobs in the future. While these questions were not operationalized to measure sites of acceptance or resistance, there is some face validity to the measures (i.e., high trust in coal is likely a dimension of sites of acceptance, given neoliberalism's faith in corporations).³⁵ Furthermore, each of the questions measures distinctly different concepts, which allows for an analysis of community ambivalence.

Table 2 shows that about 67% of respondents report “some but not much” (26.16%), “very little” (26.7%), or “none or almost none” (14.52%) trust in coal companies to protect the health and safety of their community. However, most respondents do not consider the coal industry very harmful to the health of people in nearby communities: only about 20% report coal mining as “very harmful” or “harmful.” Furthermore, a large majority of respondents believe the coal industry is likely to provide more jobs in the future (more than 83%).

Table 2.

Distribution of Responses to Coal-Related Questions

Concept	Question wording
		A great deal	A good bit	Some but not much	Very little	None or almost none
Trust in coal companies	How much trust do you have in coal companies to protect the health and safety of your community?	10.57% (59)	22.04% (123)	26.16% (146)	26.7% (149)	14.52% (81)

		Very harmful	Harmful	Somewhat harmful	A little harmful	Not at all harmful
Perceived harmfulness of coal industry	How harmful or not harmful do you think coal mining is to the health of people living in nearby communities?	8.96% (51)	10.90% (62)	25.13% (143)	27.59% (157)	27.42% (156)

		Very possible	Somewhat possible	Not very possible	Not at all possible	Don't know
Future outlook on coal jobs	How would you rate the possibility of the following industries creating more jobs in your community? Coal mining.	51.79% (289)	32.62% (182)	8.42% (47)	3.58% (20)	3.58% (20)

These findings illustrate that while trust in coal companies is low, respondents do not perceive coal as very harmful to the environment, on average. Furthermore, people still perceive coal as a job provider for the region in the future—a notion that can exist separately from one's feelings toward the industry. (It is important to note that the timing of the survey was in the beginning months of the Trump administration—which had campaigned on reviving the coal industry.) These results illustrate community ambivalence toward coal—residents lacking full trust in coal companies, but still seeing them as a primary and viable job provider for the region.

Qualitative analysis

The survey had high levels of engagement with a simple open-ended question on the back page: 279 respondents (48.5%) included a written response to a question asking, “Please use this space to tell me anything else you would like to share about this survey and your hopes for the future of southern West Virginia.” The responses averaged 38.8 words with a range from one word to 971 words.

There were not large demographic differences among those who responded to the open-ended question: age, gender, and race were consistent with the overall survey response. There were slight, statistically significant differences based on education (Appendix Table A2). Results found almost identical percentages of people who had a great deal of coal industry trust (57.6%) and no coal industry trust (56.7%) responded to the open-ended question, compared with a combined 45.76% response for people in the three middle categories of coal industry trust. To further measure community ambivalence of attitudes, I coded responses for coal-related attitudes and identified three common categories of response: (1) pro-coal boosterism, (2) individuals who argued for diversification of the local economy, and (3) responses that were critical of coal.

Of the responses that mentioned coal, 40% were “pro-coal,” 20% supported economic diversification, and 19% expressed a negative anticoal sentiment.³⁶ Pro-coal comments clearly supported the industry and often parroted coal industry talking points that decried environmental regulations. However, comments supporting economic diversification argued for a future beyond coal and people who were against coal noted the industry's harmful impacts on the region. Collectively, this shows a stark mix of attitudes reflective of community ambivalence.

Pro-coal boosterism

The pro-coal comments are typical of what one would expect to see in a site of acceptance, in that they reflect coal industry narratives that promote the safety, centrality, and necessity of coal mining in the region. “Coal is a good thing. My parents lived here all their life and lived right next to a tipple. They died in their 80s. My dad was a coal miner and all my brothers and my husband. I just wish they would just let them work.”³⁷

This respondent, a 57-year-old woman, draws on familial ties to the coal industry to emphasize how the industry is safe. They note that their parents lived next to a mine and lived a long life—perhaps in defense of some of the survey questions asking about the harmfulness of the coal industry and its impact on the health of residents. The respondent may also be reflecting a key coal industry campaign point about government regulations on coal as a reason for why people are out of work (“wish they would just let them work”), although it is difficult to infer from the text.

A 40-year-old former coal miner wrote: “Coal companies are already calling laid off workers back since Donald Trump became POTUS … I worked the last decade in the mining industry. When Obama declared War on Coal I seen many friends and workers lose their jobs due to regulation on coal fired power plants. I worked hard six to seven days a week. I started out making $30,000 a year but I put my heart and soul into it. My last three years income was $310,000, but Obama finally got me when I was laid off in 2015.”³⁸ These opinions match many of the industry-backed antienvironmental regulation narratives, as discussed by Lewin,³⁹ who conducted fieldwork in the study area during the Obama administration, and the industry rhetoric examined by Schneider et al.⁴⁰

Another respondent wrote: “There is NO future without coal mining. All jobs depend on coal. Coal dries up, everything in Southern W.V. dries up. People will move to other states for jobs. Without those taxes, schools and government cannot survive. Getting like that now. No money to fix roads. State government only wants to raise taxes instead of cutting most. Not much of a future here.” These comments reflect what Schneider et al. refer to as an industrial apocalyptic—“there is no alternative”—rhetorical strategy used by coal campaigns to gain support.⁴¹

Diversification beyond coal

A significant portion of written comments (20%) do not fully rebut the coal industry, but challenge the coal industry's narratives about the centrality of coal in the region by advocating local economic diversification beyond coal. One 28-year-old man wrote: “I hope that the mono economy that Southern W.V. has will be broken. Even though coal is the main economic drive in Southern W.V., we need to invite more industry here. Different, more diverse industry, not just coal.” This respondent reported a good bit of trust in the coal industry and considers coal only a little bit harmful. While those closed-ended responses might seem staunchly pro-coal, his open-ended reflection on his hopes for the future of his community reflects a more conflicted stance.

His comments were also echoed by a 60-year-old woman who had very little trust in coal companies and considers coal mining harmful: “I feel that local government, and even residents, rely too heavily on the coal industry. They seem unwilling to accept other industries (i.e., small manufacturing plants, tourism, etc.) to come into the area.”

Similarly, a retired coal miner (who did not share age or gender) who thought coal was not at all harmful to the community, wrote “This area relies on coal for good paying jobs. ‘If’ new industry or factories would locate here, many in the mining industry would much prefer to work in a place other than the mines. Those who relocate here must provide a decent living wage to compete with the mining industry to draw productive workers. People born and raised here do not and in some cases, will not relocate. We have an attachment to these hills. We see those mountains as ours. I am a retired coal miner. We have very hard working folks here who desire a living wage. Business and factories would greatly benefit from our work force.”

This respondent is not parroting the “apocalyptic” rhetoric backed by the coal industry about the necessity of coal to the region, and instead voices a desire for different living wage jobs.

Against coal

A similar percentage of comments (19%) reflect staunch opposition to coal mining. One 28-year-old woman wrote: “Our health is terrible thanks to effects from coal mining and a bad healthcare system.” A 63-year-old man wrote: “President Trump is doing away with the EPA. That is bad for West Virginia. Letting the coal mines and gas companies go with no regulations will destroy our water and roads.” They, respectively, reported “a little” and “none or almost none” trust in the coal industry.

“The future of the area that I live in has been destroyed by a coal company. … From the time they started core drilling, they [have] done very little reseeding or taking care of the natural environment. … The biggest concern I have is what this coal company is doing to an impoundment less than a ½ mile from my home! … I have no trust or faith that this coal company would be able to take care of it right,” a 74-year-old retired coal miner wrote, referencing the construction of a coal slurry dam that holds millions of gallons of coal waste.

These comments all move beyond the closed-ended survey data to further illustrate community ambivalence. Rather than having an overwhelmingly pro-coal response, southern West Virginians express a range of competing opinions about coal. Furthermore, these opinions do not always parrot coal industry narratives that dominate the public sphere in this region—instead, nearly half of the respondents who mention coal challenge the idea of continued reliance and deregulation of coal mining.

Individual ambivalence

The qualitative data also illustrate how individual ambivalence about coal can exist in southern West Virginia. As stated above, individual ambivalence refers to when an individual holds complex and competing views about a topic. In the context of southern West Virginia, these individuals hold opinions that are difficult to code or categorize—or simultaneously tout the drawbacks and benefits of coal. For example, one 48-year-old woman wrote: “Personally, I'm not crazy about the coal industry. The owners raped our land without investing in anything permanent for those left behind… It's a brave soul that says anything against the coal industry—and that isn't me. Plus, I feel it'd be quite hypocritical of me to say much since my husband works in the natural gas field. And it seems that fracking will screw up the environment, too. I LOVE the outdoors here in Southern W.V. This is home.”

This respondent voiced an unequivocal anticoal stance—and reports very little trust in the coal industry on the closed-ended survey. However, she is conflicted since her husband works in an extractive industry with similar environmental concerns—and notes the social pressure to not speak out against the coal industry. This comment illustrates how individuals may feel hypocritical and conflicted about coal and other extractive industries.

Another comment expressed simultaneous support and opposition for coal. “I am concerned about my hometown in Man, W.V. where Ramaco is trying to mine old seams of coal… They are adding a third impoundment behind two that hold over 900 million gallons of slurry… My parents live ½ mile below this impoundment. My uncle built the original one and worries daily of its failure… I am not against coal mining, but I am against shortcuts taken to earn the all mighty dollar. My whole family worked in the coal industry. [The coal companies] are not community friendly and basically took over the hollow where we were raised, preventing any access. People and companies like this, I don't want in my backyard.”

This respondent, a 45-year-old woman, is knowledgeable about specific environmental harms and risks created by the coal industry and worries about the potential impacts of those activities (i.e., the expansion of impoundments). Yet, she also clarifies that she is “not against coal mining,” drawing on her familial connections. Her support of the industry is qualified, as she suggests that companies now are “not community friendly,” perhaps in contrast to companies in the past. These comments represent a tension between acceptance and resistance that could be better described as individual ambivalence.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results above highlight coal-related attitudes in southern West Virginia that complicate its categorization as a site of acceptance and, instead, suggest that it may be a site of ambivalence. First, on a community level, residents have divided views related to trust in coal companies—with fewer people reporting a good deal or great deal of trust in coal companies. A key feature of sites of acceptance is their faith in corporations to self-regulate, and it is clear that residents in southern West Virginia lack trust in coal companies. However, this trend is reversed when looking at the harmfulness of coal—a majority do not consider coal to be harmful to the environment. There may be a form of “survivor bias” in the data—where people who consider coal harmful have relocated if they have the resources to do so.⁴²

Furthermore, people largely consider coal as part of the region's economic future—with more than 80% saying coal will provide jobs in the future. It is difficult to interpret this response as necessarily being “pro-coal” since the question does not capture whether they want coal in the future.

The qualitative comments highlight more themes and conflicting attitudes around how people perceive coal. Roughly half of these attitudes reflect and endorse coal industry rhetoric about the centrality and necessity of mining in the region, while downplaying or not mentioning its environmental and social impacts. These comments are consistent with what one would expect to find in a site of acceptance, as conceived by Malin.⁴³ However, the other half of comments that take a stance on coal express a desire for economic diversification or express clear opposition or negativity toward the coal industry. This reflects community ambivalence—a clear mix of competing views toward coal in the region. Furthermore, there is evidence of individual ambivalence in comments that simultaneously support and denounce the coal industry.

Overall, there are some key limitations to these data and analysis. First, there is no opportunity for immediate respondent follow-up with a mail survey to ask for clarification or to dig deeper behind the motivations of these responses. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately measure a concept such as individual ambivalence. It may be true that follow-up questions and conversation with respondents in any of the coded categories could reflect a mix of complex and competing attitudes. A qualitative study that centers ambivalence may be a fruitful area for additional research in Appalachia and other areas that may be labeled as sites of acceptance or resistance.

These findings have several other practical implications for environmental justice research and activism. First, discussions of sites of acceptance and resistance should consider community and individual ambivalence. Public opinion research has found that ambivalence is quite common across different topics: people hold conflicting views and change opinions over time about topics that seem intractable in political debates.⁴⁴ As such, categorizations of communities may be context- and time-dependent. Broader trends in politics, environmental conditions, and energy production may influence how communities perceive extractive industries and environmental hazards and cause public opinion to fluctuate. This public opinion could have important ramifications for the viability of different social movements or policies.

Studies that center ambivalence could also pose additional questions that cannot be answered with the data in this article. For example, what actions or behaviors does ambivalence lead to? Do feelings of ambivalence still default to outward support for industries due to a region's historic or current reliance on an extractive industry? Under what social contexts or situations does ambivalence lead to collective resistance? What political or social initiatives can mobilize ambivalence—either in favor of environmental justice outcomes or toward other interests? It is likely that these outcomes of ambivalence differ in other regions of the country and the world—providing the potential for comparative studies of ambivalence across different social and cultural contexts.

There also remain important questions about the interface of neoliberalism and ambivalence. A defining characteristic of sites of acceptance is how communities adopt a stance of free market privilege and trust and perceive environmental justice as being able to self-determine the future of local land uses (i.e., by promoting and attracting polluting industries). However, given the mix of attitudes in southern West Virginia, it is difficult to characterize communities' or individuals' opinions as neoliberal or not. The residents who argue for economic diversification may be voicing values consistent with neoliberalism—asking for a “freer” market that is not dominated by coal (i.e., references to the “mono-economy” in the area). However, this view runs in stark opposition to coal industry interests, which has at times opposed economic diversification.

On the contrary, if neoliberalism is defined as a high level of trust in corporations and markets to self-regulate, then the results about low levels of trust in the coal industry show a community in opposition to neoliberal principles. Nonetheless, the ambivalent attitudes toward coal do not necessarily indicate a tilt toward or away from neoliberal notions of environmental justice.

Some scholars have noted that ambivalence might be a characteristic of “late neoliberalism” itself. Enright and Rossi identify urban areas as “ambivalent spaces” that harvest progressive movements for social justice, but also remain stark examples of domination and exploitation.⁴⁵ Even in areas with outward signs of resistance to neoliberalism (i.e., Black Lives Matters or Occupy Wall Street protests), there can still be evidence of its dominance (i.e., gentrification and racial segregation). Future studies that more adequately capture and conceptualize neoliberalism and that term's own complexities are needed.

Emphasizing these nuances about community attitudes may also help inform policymakers and activists working to ensure a just transition in Appalachia and other communities impacted by fossil fuel. The community attitudes documented here may help move past stereotypes of a region characterized only by support for coal—and help envision different “bridges” that could be made in the community to support a more just and sustainable future beyond coal.⁴⁶ As coal continues its projected decline and climate change continues, coal-impacted communities may be an important ally in discussions about transition efforts. However, broad and faulty conceptions of an overwhelmingly pro-coal Appalachia could overlook important potential allies in the fight for environmental and climate justice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank John Santner for the help in coding the qualitative data in this study, the Washington State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center for assisting with data collection, and Amanda McMillan Lequieu for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.