Sustainable Energy Technology Acceptance: A psychological perspective

(1)

a psychological perspective

Nicole M.A. Huijts

(2)

(3)

a psychological perspective

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties

in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 9 september 2013 om 15.00 uur

door

Nicole Marie Alice HUIJTS Ingenieur Techniek en Maatschappij,

(4)

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. dr. G.P. van Wee

Copromotor: Dr. E.J.E. Molin

Samenstelling promotiecommissie:

Rector Magnificus voorzitter

Prof. dr. G.P. Van Wee Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. E.J.E. Molin Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof. dr. ir. P. Herder Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof. dr. ir. H. Priemus Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. J. Cramer Universiteit Utrecht Prof. dr. P. Rietveld Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. dr. E.M. Steg Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Prof. dr. S. Roeser Technische Universiteit Delft, reserve lid

TRAIL Thesis Series T2013/10, the Netherlands TRAIL Research School TRAIL Research School

PO Box 5017 2600 GA Delft The Netherlands T: +31 (0) 15 278 6046 E: info@rsTRAIL.nl ISBN: 978-90-5584-166-0

All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author.

(5)

Promoveren doe je veelal alleen, maar zonder de vele anderen was het lang niet geworden wat het nu is geworden. In Afrika zeggen ze “It takes a village to raise a child”. Zo draagt ook een hele gemeenschap bij aan het schrijven van een proefschrift. Ik wil bij deze graag alle mensen bedanken die direct of indirect bijgedragen hebben aan de totstandkoming van dit proefschrift. In het bijzonder wil ik mijn promotor Bert van Wee en mijn dagelijkse begeleider Eric Molin bedanken. Jullie hebben mij de vrijheid gegeven om zelf de lijnen van mijn onderzoek uit te zetten en jullie zijn altijd geïnteresseerd en betrokken gebleven. Jullie boden vele goede adviezen en interessante reflecties en reageerden altijd heel snel op mijn vragen. Ook wil ik Caspar Chorus bedanken voor de begeleiding in het tweede jaar en voor de adviezen door de jaren heen.

Met veel plezier heb ik ook samen mogen werken met andere onderzoekers. Linda Steg en Judith de Groot, bedankt voor de inspirerende samenwerking in het schrijven van twee publicaties. Cees Midden en Anneloes Meijnders, ik heb van jullie geleerd over concepten, theorieën en methodes tijdens de TEMA-opleiding en bij het publiceren over mijn afstudeeronderzoek. Ik heb daar tijdens mijn promotieonderzoek veel profijt van gehad. Hartelijk dank daarvoor.

Ook dank aan de collega’s bij de sectie Transport en Logistiek (TLO) voor alle momenten dat ze met me mee hebben gedacht of praktische hulp hebben gegeven. Niet in het minst dank aan de secretaresses daarvoor. Daarnaast ook dank voor de goede sfeer bij TLO; dat bepaalt tenslotte voor een belangrijk deel het werkplezier. Ik wil speciaal mijn kamergenoot en

(6)

Een bijzonder dankjewel gaat naar Rien en Hanneke. Jullie hebben mij al die jaren niet alleen een logeerplaats in Delft geboden, maar ook altijd een gezellig praatje en een luisterend oor. Door jullie was Delft mijn tweede thuis.

Promoveren vergt ook gewoon heel veel tijd en aandacht. Door de hulp van mijn partner István en mijn moeder Alice heb ik de nodige extra uren vrij kunnen maken voor het afronden van het proefschrift. István en mam, heel erg bedankt daarvoor, en zeker niet in het minst ook voor het meeleven gedurende alle jaren. Tot slot, dankjewel aan mijn zus Yolanda, dat je mijn paranimf wilt zijn, en daarmee een bijzondere getuige van een bijzondere gebeurtenis. Naast het schrijven van dit proefschrift, hebben de afgelopen jaren voor mij ook sterk in het teken gestaan van moeder worden. Dat is nóg indrukwekkender dan het werken aan een proefschrift. Daniël, jij hebt een heel nieuwe dimensie aan ons leven toegevoegd en we genieten iedere dag van elke stap die je neemt en elke knuffel die je geeft. Jouw vrolijkheid en jouw oneindige nieuwsgierigheid naar hoe alles in elkaar zit overtreffen alles!

(7)

Content

Acknowledgements ... v

Content ... vii

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. A focus on situation-specific psychological determinants of acceptance ... 2

1.2. The state of the art in technology acceptance research and research gaps ... 3

1.3. Challenges in studying rather unknown technologies ... 4

1.4. The case of hydrogen technology ... 4

1.5. The case of carbon storage ... 5

1.6. Research goal and overall research questions ... 6

1.7. Overview of chapters ... 7

1.8. References ... 13

2. Public acceptance of hydrogen technologies in transport: A review of and reflection on empirical studies ... 17

Abstract ... 17

2.1. Introduction... 18

(8)

2.5. Review of empirical findings on acceptance, acceptability and determinants of these 31

2.6. Conclusion and discussion ... 37

2.7. Literature ... 39

3. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework ... 45

Abstract ... 45

3.2. Acceptance and acceptability: definitions and focus ... 47

3.3. Motives or goals influencing acceptance ... 48

3.4. The effect of the perceived context: trust and fairness... 52

3.5. The effect of knowledge and experience ... 55

3.6. The comprehensive acceptance framework ... 56

3.7. Discussion and conclusion ... 57

3.8. Acknowledgements ... 58

4. Intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility: moral considerations versus self-interest ... 63

Abstract ... 63

4.2. Theoretical background and hypotheses ... 65

4.3. Methods ... 69

4.4. Results ... 73

4.5. Conclusions and discussion ... 75

4.8. Appendix: Information provided to a part of the participants ... 81

5. Hydrogen refueling facility acceptance: a structural equation model based on the technology acceptance framework ... 85

Abstract ... 85

5.2. The conceptual model ... 87

5.3. Method ... 90

(9)

5.5. Discussion ... 104

5.8. Appendix ... 110

6. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage ... 111

Abstract ... 111

6.2. Views of professional actors ... 114

6.3. Views of citizens ... 116 6.4. Results ... 119 6.5. General discussion ... 124 6.6. Acknowledgments ... 126 6.7. References ... 126 7. Conclusions ... 129 7.1. Conclusions in chapter 2 ... 129 7.2. Conclusions in chapter 3 ... 131 7.3. Conclusions in chapter 4 ... 132 7.4. Conclusions in chapter 5 ... 134 7.5. Conclusions in chapter 6 ... 138 7.6. Literature ... 140

8. Reflections, suggestions for further research and policy recommendations ... 143

8.1. Advancement of sustainable energy technology acceptance research ... 143

8.2. Reflections with respect to hydrogen refueling facility acceptance ... 148

8.3. Reflections with respect to carbon storage acceptance ... 152

8.4. Pathways to more acceptable technological projects and more acceptable implementation processes ... 155

Summary ... 163

Samenvatting ... 173

About the author ... 185

(10)

(11)

1. Introduction

Fossil fuel use has spurred tremendous technological development, but at the same time has also created very large environmental problems, such as climate change and air pollution. In addition, the depletion of fossil fuels and the fact that fossil fuels are for a large part available in politically unstable regions brings along energy insecurity and rising energy prices. Therefore, a more sustainable energy system is envisioned. Technologies that can take part in this system include wind turbines, biomass plants, hydrogen vehicles, and carbon capture and storage. These technologies may reduce or even solve the enormous environmental and societal problems caused by the current use of fossil fuels and will likely become of extreme importance to society and its citizens in the coming decades.

Notwithstanding the benefits of sustainable technologies, these technologies have also been associated with drawbacks such as safety risks, visual intrusion and high financial costs. These actual or perceived drawbacks have led to opposition by groups of citizens, and sometimes to the hampering or cancelation of projects. Examples are the recent public opposition to a hydrogen refueling facility in the UK (Mumford and Gray, 2010), opposition to the building of wind parks in the Netherlands (De Gelderlander, 2012; Trouw, 2011), and the opposition to and cancelation of a carbon storage project in the Dutch city Barendrecht (Verhagen, 2010). Sustainable energy technologies can thus both solve and create societal problems.

Early understanding of public acceptance of sustainable energy technologies may be of the utmost importance in achieving policy making that is valuable for society. Also companies may benefit from early alignment of technology development and implementation with

(12)

Stimson et al., 1995). Opinions or evaluations of the technology are called acceptability in this thesis, behavioral responses in favor of or against the technology are called acceptance. Since citizens’ behaviors have a greater effect on policy making and successful implementation than mere opinions, this thesis focuses more on understanding behavior or, in the absence of observable behavior, behavioral intention. Opinions about a technology will very likely influence behavioral intention regarding a technology (see also Ajzen, 1991) and thus are nevertheless important. The overall goal of this thesis can be described as increasing the understanding of public acceptance of sustainable energy technologies.

In this thesis, the acceptance of two sustainable energy technologies is studied, namely of hydrogen refueling facilities and of carbon storage. These are two technologies that are on the verge of being implemented in The Netherlands and their value has already been debated in The Netherlands and elsewhere. Hydrogen may replace current fossil fuels as a fuel in vehicles. Hydrogen fuel use would reduce the problematic reliance on fossil fuels as hydrogen can be produced from many sources, including renewable sources such as biogas and wind. Hydrogen acceptance studies have shown that in some cases the placing of a hydrogen refueling facility has led to worries and opposition among the public (e.g. Hart, 2010; Mumford and Gray, 2010). Carbon capture and storage is a technology that allows the continuation of fossil fuel use while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emission by the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. Specifically the underground storage of CO2 has, however, already received strong opposition from citizens, including in the Netherlands (e.g. Terwel et al., 2012). Although it may be debated that the technologies by itself are sustainable, both technologies can contribute to a more sustainable energy system and have even been developed specifically with the aim to reduce environmental and societal problems of the current energy system. Therefore, I will refer to them in short as ‘sustainable energy technologies’.

In the remainder of this chapter, I will describe (1) the focus of this PhD research on the situation-specific psychological determinants of acceptance, (2) the state of the art of technology acceptance research and the research gaps (3) the challenges of studying rather unknown technologies, (4) the case of hydrogen technology acceptance, (5) the case of carbon storage acceptance, (6) research goals and overall research questions, and (7) an overview of the chapters.

1.1. A focus on situation-specific psychological determinants of acceptance

Technology acceptance may be influenced by a whole range of factors, including situational variables, technical variables, socio-demographic variables, and psychological variables. The research in this thesis focuses on the effect of psychological variables. Gaining insight into the effect of psychological variables can aid the understanding of how citizens come to an opinion or why they take action. This can provide many starting points for policy making. First, policy makers should take the opinion of the public into account when making policies, for both ethical and practical reasons. Second, communication with and information provision for the public can be adapted to the level of understanding of the general public and can be targeted to the interests and needs of the public.

(13)

Many different types of psychological variables have been studied in the literature. In this thesis the focus has been put on situation-specific evaluations and beliefs, such as the perceived effects of the technology and trust in the actors involved with the technology, as opposed to more stable psychological characteristics such as values, worldviews, and character traits. The author’s opinion is that these situation-specific psychological variables provide a better starting point for understanding technology acceptance; they have also generally been considered more direct predictors of acceptance (see for example also the more ‘distant’ effect of values in the value-belief-norm theory and the more proximal effect of specific psychological evaluations in Stern et al., 1999). Situation-specific psychological variables are often the focus in technology acceptance studies (see Gupta et al., 2011, for an overview).

1.2. The state of the art in technology acceptance research and research

gaps

Over recent decades technology acceptance has become a focus of research. According to a literature overview by Gupta et al. (2011), the first article on technology acceptance was published in 1977, examining nuclear technology. Approximately twenty years ago the number of journal articles on technology acceptance published annually greatly increased (Gupta et al., 2011). The acceptance of technologies such as genetic modification, nuclear power, ICT, and pesticides have frequently been studied (see also Ronteltap et al., 2011). Published studies have focused on the effect of only one or only a few psychological variables on technology acceptance (see Gupta et al., 2011; Ronteltap et al., 2011). To the best of my knowledge no comprehensive study of psychological determinants of sustainable energy technology acceptance has as yet been published in a scientific journal. Since there have been many different studies examining the effect of one or a few of the psychological factors influencing technology acceptance (see for reviews Gupta et al. and chapter 3, this thesis), new research should incorporate these insights rather than ‘reinventing’ them. In this thesis, therefore, a comprehensive technology acceptance framework for explaining sustainable technology acceptance is designed (in Chapter 3) and tested (in Chapter 5), focusing on situation-specific psychological variables.

Comprehensive studies can answer different research questions than studies that focus on the effect of only one or only a few variables. For example, comprehensive studies can indicate which psychological variable is the most important for the acceptance of a specific technology amongst a set of variables, what is the unique effect of a single variable when other variables are controlled for, how do different variables predicting acceptance influence each other, and how do they interact in explaining acceptance.

Gupta et al. (2011), who have recently analyzed theory use and determinants studied in published research on technology, came to a similar reflection: ‘A systematic critique of the relative predictive capacity of these different determinants is not currently available. A first step in the development of such a systematic review would be the simultaneous analysis of all potential determinants in a single study, or (possibly) through application of formal meta-analysis if appropriate data are available.’ (p.11). They further concluded that ‘Future research

(14)

needs to explore the interrelationships between determinants, particularly those which have emerged as being influential in recent years (…. ), but also identify the knowledge gaps and explore other psychological factors that have recently started appearing in the literature such as heuristics and affective responses.’ (p.12). In this thesis, this is exactly what is addressed.

1.3. Challenges in studying rather unknown technologies

Studying acceptance of technologies before they are actually implemented comes with a number of challenges. One particularly omnipresent challenge to measuring technology acceptance in an early stage is the lack of knowledge and awareness among the public. Many respondents in acceptance studies related to new, unknown technologies may respond with 'I don’t know” to questions, or just might take a guess based on a gut-feeling. These opinions may not be very stable and predictive of future citizen acceptance of the technology (Daamen et al., 2006; De Best-Waldhober et al., 2009). Both hydrogen and carbon storage were relatively unknown technologies at the moment that they were studied (e.g. Achterberg et al., 2010; De Best-Waldhober et al., 2009).

In response to this, researchers have chosen to inform respondents before eliciting their opinion or even to engage respondents in an evaluation process before eliciting opinions (e.g. De Best-Waldhober et al., 2009; Sharp et al., 2009). Providing information may increase the ability of the respondent to form an opinion and abstain from answering ‘I don’t know’. Also the studies in this thesis have been preceded with information for many or all of the participants in the studies (see chapters 4, 5 and 6). However, the critique to these methods may be that the information or method of engaging respondents in deliberation may not represent how respondents form a decision about a technology in the actual society. Therefore, it remains important to assess how the information itself affected the study results. In this thesis, in chapter 4, hypotheses have, therefore, been tested and compared in both an informed group and an uninformed group.

1.4. The case of hydrogen technology

The use of hydrogen as a fuel in transport may be one of the important developments for reducing the severe problems related to the current fossil fuel use in transport, such as climate change, air pollution, and insecurity of energy supply (Ball and Wietschel, 2009; Banister, 2000; European Commission, 2006). In the Netherlands, it has recently been suggested that that the use of alternative energy carriers such as hydrogen is the most successful option for achieving more sustainable transport, probably more successful than other measures such as trying to reduce the amount of kilometers driven or using soot filters (Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, 2011).

The extent to which hydrogen use has these beneficial effects, however, depends on how the hydrogen is produced and used. Production from renewable sources obviously dismisses the need for fossil fuels and thus may reduce harmful emissions and dependence on fossil fuel. However, sufficient renewable energy needs to be available to make this a viable option for the enormous transport needs worldwide. Production from fossil fuels may also reduce total fossil fuel use, since hydrogen vehicles using fuel cell technology are very efficient and

(15)

require comparatively less fossil fuel for the same distance traveled (Ogden, 2006; Thomas, 2012). This would also reduce unwanted emissions per km traveled and thus somewhat reduce the need for fossil fuels.

Before hydrogen can be used as a fuel, however, hydrogen refueling facilities need to be available. At the start of this research (September 2007), no hydrogen refueling station had been built either in the Netherlands or in many other countries in Europe. At the time writing (February 2013) one publicly accessible refueling facility is available in the Netherlands (Rijksoverheid, 2011). However, regional, national and European governmental agencies have been making steps towards supporting the implementation of hydrogen refueling facilities (European Commission, 2013; Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2013; Hymove, 2010a, b; Rijksoverheid, 2011).

Two UK studies measuring the acceptability of hydrogen refueling facilities (e.g. O'Garra et al., 2008; Thesen and Langhelle, 2008) have shown some support and some opposition amongst citizens, although there were more supporters than opponents. Another UK study found that the placing of a hydrogen refueling facility led to worries among the public that needed to be addressed by the owner of the facility, BP (e.g. Hart, 2010; Mumford and Gray, 2010). A first study in the Netherlands (Achterberg et al., 2010) indicated that while the majority of respondents were positive about hydrogen fuel use in general, only a minority (43%) thought it was acceptable to have a hydrogen refueling facility within a 300 meter range of their home. These findings suggest that Dutch decision makers in both industry and government may also expect to find citizens both in favor and against a local hydrogen refueling facility. Considering the enormous investment needed to realize a refueling infrastructure over a larger area, gaining insight at this stage into the public acceptance of hydrogen refueling facilities may be very useful. Chapters 4 and 5 present empirical studies related to the acceptance of hydrogen refueling facilities.

1.5. The case of carbon storage

Using renewable energy sources will reduce the need for fossil fuels and thus reduce the environmental and societal problems related to fossil fuel use. However, it has been argued that in the short-term society is unable to transition in a sufficient manner to renewable energy use to meet the stringent CO2-emission reduction goals. To close this gap, the option of capturing CO2 emissions from point sources such as power plants and sequestering this CO2 in underground locations, such as depleted gas fields has been suggested (Haszeldine and Scott, 2011; Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2001; van der Hoeven, 2007; van der Hoeven and Cramer, 2009). This technology is called carbon capture and storage (CCS). Deployment of CCS is thus considered important in order to achieve the policy goals related to CO2-reduction. In addition, policy makers’ involvement is also required to regulate and subsidize CCS projects. For policy makers, it is of crucial importance that citizens approve of the policy making. At the onset of the study of the acceptance of CO2 storage presented in this thesis, in 2003, CCS had already been proposed as an important option for CO2 reduction (e.g. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2001). At that time, therefore, research into public acceptance of CCS was already valuable. However, no concrete CCS projects were planned

(16)

and, with no media attention, little was known about the public opinions of and responses to the technology. More recently, in 2010, one planned CCS project was canceled, partially due to public opposition to the project (Verhagen, 2010), demonstrating in hindsight the negative evaluation by citizens as well as the important role of public acceptance.

Not only policy makers and the public are important actors influencing the level of success of implementing the technology; industry managers and representatives of environmental NGOs also play an important role and influence decision making by politicians (Groot et al., 2003; PricewaterhouseCoopers N.V., 2001). It is very likely that the opinions and actions of all three actors – government, industry and environmental NGOs – influence the opinions and actions of the public. Because CCS is a complex, novel technology, it is not easy for citizens to assess the costs, risks and benefits of the technology and they will need to rely on the information and actions of those professional actors that are better equipped to make such evaluations. It thus makes sense that trust in actors is an important determinant of acceptance of this technology (see also Midden and Huijts, 2009; Terwel et al., 2009a). In chapter 6, an empirical study into the acceptability of storage of CO2, trust in involved stakeholders and determinants of trust in stakeholders is presented.

1.6. Research goal and overall research questions

To summarize, the main goal of this thesis is to gain insight into sustainable energy technology acceptance and more specifically into citizens’ attitude formation and decision making with respect to novel sustainable energy technologies. A second goal is to gain insight into the acceptance of two specific technologies, namely hydrogen refueling facilities and carbon storage. These goals have been pursued by (1) performing literature reviews on empirical technology acceptance studies and on studies in the fields of social psychology, environmental psychology, and risk perception and (2) by analyzing data specifically related to hydrogen refueling facility acceptance and carbon storage acceptance.

The research presented in this thesis starts with a review of hydrogen technology acceptance studies, which were available in a reasonable number, in order to identify research gaps. Realizing that the identified research gaps in this specific field were resonating with research gaps in the larger field of technology acceptance the scope of the study was broadened. This led to describing a general theoretical framework for technology acceptance. Then, going back to the topic of hydrogen technology, the explanatory effect of groups of variables and of all variables in the framework was tested for the specific case of hydrogen refueling facility acceptance. Last but not least, one specific important psychological predictor of acceptance, trust, was studied in more detail for the case of carbon storage. The chapters together, do not only provide insight into psychological variables influencing technology acceptance, they also provide valuable insight into how people evaluate the technologies of hydrogen refueling facilities and carbon storage, what their knowledge level about the technologies is, and what the effect of providing information is on citizens’ evaluations of the technology.

(17)

The overall research questions addressed in this thesis can be summarized as:

- What is the current status of quantitative hydrogen technology acceptance research, with respect to theory use, terminology and the studied determinants of hydrogen technology acceptance and what are possible avenues of improvement? (addressed in Chapter 2)

- Which situation-specific psychological variables (as opposed to more stable psychological characteristics) explain how people respond to a technology in general and how can we model the causal order of the chosen explanatory variables for behavior towards technologies? (addressed in Chapter 3)

- Which situation-specific psychological variables explain how people intend to respond to a local hydrogen refueling facility and which (groups of) variables explain the behavioral intentions more strongly than other (groups of) variables? (addressed in Chapters 4 and 5)

- Which psychological factors influence the trust in actors involved in a technology, how do these factors explain overall trust in each stakeholder for carbon storage specifically and how does trust in each stakeholder influence trust in the group of stakeholders together realizing a carbon storage project? (addressed in Chapter 6) - What is the knowledge level and acceptance level of citizens with respect to hydrogen refueling facilities and carbon capture and storage and how does information or the extent to which respondents feel informed influence the outcome of the studies or the ability of respondents to form an opinion? (addressed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6)

These research questions will be split up in several partial research questions as described in section 1.7., which will be answered in the conclusion section.

The generated insights in this thesis could aid government, industry and interest groups. Decision makers in government and industry can take the generated insights into account in in their decision making, can realize new technologies in ways that are maximally supported by citizens and can tailor their communication in a way that supports the interests of the public. Interest groups can use the insights to represent citizens or to stimulate citizens to take action towards a technology.

1.7. Overview of chapters

This section explains the structure of the thesis and lists the research questions that are addressed per chapter.

Chapter 2

Hydrogen may become an important fuel in transport and its acceptance by citizens is an important part of its implementation. In this chapter we review the quantitative hydrogen technology acceptance studies published up to May 2008 to create insight into both the state

(18)

of the art of hydrogen technology acceptance research and the research gaps. The focus of this chapter is on (1) terminology use in the articles, (2) theory use in the articles and (3) empirical findings for acceptance and (4) determinants of acceptance. Possible avenues of improvement are suggested for each item.

The following research questions are addressed in chapter 2:

- Which terminology and theory is used in quantitative hydrogen technology acceptance studies and what are possible avenues for improving hydrogen technology acceptance research?

- How can ‘technology acceptance’ be defined and can several types of technology acceptance be distinguished?

- What can we conclude about the level of hydrogen technology acceptance based on the available quantitative hydrogen acceptance literature?

- Which determinants of hydrogen acceptance have been identified in the literature? Chapter 3

The findings in Chapter 2 and also other recent studies investigating determinants of acceptance of other technologies (Gupta et al., 2011; Ronteltap et al., 2007) have suggested that there is a need for a more thorough and comprehensive research into the psychological variables which influence technology acceptance. Therefore, in chapter 3 a literature review is presented and a conceptual model for explaining technology acceptance is suggested. The conceptual model is called the Technology Acceptance Framework (TAF). While the framework is aimed to explain citizen and consumer acceptance of sustainable energy technology acceptance, it may also be useful for explaining other types of acceptance and other types of technologies.

The following research questions are addressed in chapter 3:

- How can ‘technology acceptance’ be defined and can several types of technology acceptance be distinguished?ϭ

- Which situation-specific psychological variables have been found to influence technology acceptance and may in general explain sustainable energy technology acceptance and how can these determinants of technology acceptance be positioned in a conceptual model?

Chapter 4

Two theories incorporated in the TAF are the Norm Activation Model (NAM; Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz and Howard, 1981) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). Both theories seem to have gained general acceptance in the fields of social and environmental psychology and their explanatory value has already been compared for a few environment-relevant behaviors, including car use, intention to reduce car use, and conservation behavior (Abrahamse et al., 2009; Bamberg and Rölle, 2003; Kaiser et al.,

1_{Recurrence of this research question is due to the fact that the chapters are published independently}

(19)

2005). To the best of my knowledge they have not yet been compared for a sustainable energy technology acceptance case. Since Chapter 2 shows that hydrogen refueling facility acceptance had not yet been studied (up to May 2008) and more recent studies have shown that hydrogen refueling facilities may gain both support and resistance, hydrogen refueling facility acceptance was used as a case study. The respondents were asked to consider the building of a hydrogen refueling facility at the nearest petrol station.

The questions addressed in Chapter 4 are ‘Which theory, the NAM or the TPB, better explains the intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility?’ and ‘Do both theories together contribute to explaining hydrogen technology acceptance?’ These questions are addressed for both the intention to act in favor of and against the technology.

Considering the difficulties posed by low knowledge levels amongst the general public for reliably measuring public acceptance (described earlier in the introduction) and considering the finding in chapter 2 that studies generally report low knowledge levels for hydrogen technology, the study presented in this chapter examines the findings for both an informed group and an uninformed group of respondents. In addition, the study tests whether more people give an opinion when provided with information (rather than choosing to be neutral or undecided).

To summarize, the following research questions are addressed in chapter 4:

- Which of the two central theories incorporated in the conceptual model, the NAM or the TPB, explains acceptance of a hydrogen refueling facility better? Does the in this respect weakest theory add explanatory value to the strongest predicting theory? Are the findings similar for a group of uninformed and a group of informed citizens? - What is the relative explanatory value of the NAM and the TPB for intention to act

towards a hydrogen refueling facility compared to their explanatory value for other behaviors or behavioral intentions?

- To what extent are citizens in favor of or against a local hydrogen refueling facility and how likely is it that supporters and opponents will take action in favor or against it?

- What is the general level of knowledge amongst citizens regarding hydrogen technology and hydrogen as a fuel?

- What influence does information have on the ability of people to form an opinion about a technology?

Chapter 5

In chapter 5, the effect of nearly all the variables suggested in the framework presented in chapter 3 were tested on the intention to act in favor of and against a local hydrogen refueling facility. This concerns the variables from the TPB, the NAM, and the additional variables found in risk perception and empirical technology acceptance studies. The complex relations between the explanatory variables as suggested in the framework is modeled using structural equation modeling.

(20)

A number of additional causal paths are added to the model suggested in chapter 3. The causal paths suggested in Chapter 3 were based only on modeled paths in empirical studies. Although a valid choice, it may be argued that more causal effects between variables exist besides the one already tested empirically in published studies. Based on additional theoretical considerations, a few extra causal effects are hypothesized and tested for hydrogen refueling facility acceptance.

The following research questions are addressed in Chapter 5:

- Is the technology acceptance framework useful for explaining intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility?

- How can a general causal model for hydrogen refueling facility acceptance be depicted and how does it diverge from the conceptual model based on the literature review?

- To what extent do the situation-specific psychological factors found in the literature explain hydrogen refueling facility acceptance?

- Which psychological variables best explain intention to act in favor of and against a hydrogen refueling facility and what does this say about the goals citizens have in mind when taking action towards this technology?

Chapter 6

In Chapter 5 trust in industry emerged as an important variable explaining intention to act against a local hydrogen refueling facility. Many other studies also indicate the important effect of trust, especially when technologies are complex and quite unknown (e.g. Earle, 2010; Siegrist, 2000). Also for the case of carbon capture and storage (CCS), trust is identified as a determinant of acceptability (e.g. Midden and Huijts, 2009; Terwel et al., 2009a). However, less attention has been paid to the role of trust when multiple actors involved in a technological project and what determines trust in those actors together and individually. Chapter 6 therefore explores trust in all the actors deciding on a technological project, trust in each single actor involved with the technology, and psychological determinants of trust for the case of carbon storage (also called CO2-storage). Carbon capture is left out of consideration, as it was expected that it was specifically the storage that would cause the greatest concern.

The following research questions are addressed in Chapter 6:

- What is the level of acceptability of carbon storage among citizens living over a potential storage site? To what extent are the risks and benefits perceived? What feelings does carbon storage evoke among citizens living over a potential storage site? Which of the involved actors are trusted more than others?

- What is the citizens’ knowledge level regarding carbon storage?

- What is the effect of ‘feeling informed’ on having an outspoken opinion about a technology?

- To what extent is ‘trust in all actors together realizing a safe technology’ influenced by trust in the involved actors government, industry and environmental NGO’s?

(21)

- Which psychological factors influence trust in actors for the carbon storage case and how is trust in each actor differently influenced by psychological determinants? Chapter 7 and 8

To conclude, chapter 7 describes the results per chapter and per research question. Chapter 8 subsequently reflects on the findings and gives recommendations for policy making and for further research.

Overview

(22)

1. I ntr odu ct ion 2. R ev ie w o f hy dro ge n ac ce pt ance lite ra tu re 6. T es ti ng de te rm in an ts o f tr us t in a ct or s re sp on si bl e for ca rb on st or ag e 5. E xt end ing an d te sti ng th e co ncep tu al m od el for hy dro ge n re fuel ing fac il it y ac cep ta nce 4. T est ing an d co m par in g the ex pl an at ory v alu e of tw o th eo rie s fo r hy dro ge n re fuel ing fac il it y ac cep ta nce 7. C on clu si on 8. R ef lec ti on In si gh ts of a ll th e stud ie s ar e su m m ar ized an d refle ct ed on Th e u se of w el l-te st ed th eo ri es he lp s to g ain in si gh ts by co m pa ri ng find ings F igur e 1. 1. An ove rv ie w of th e c h ap ter s in thi s th esi s a n d h ow eac h c h ap te r p ro vi d es in p u t fo r th e f ol low in g ch ap te r. It is im por ta nt to s tu dy hy dro ge n te chnol ogy ac cep ta nce It is i m po rt an t to st ud y ca rb on st or age ac ce pt an ce T ec hno lo gy ac cep ta nce shoul d be stud ie d m or e co m pr ehensi vel y Hy dr og en te ch no lo gy ac ce pt ance shoul d be st ud ie d m or e co m pr ehensi vel y L ittl e is k now n ab out hy dro gen re fu el in g faci li ty acc ep ta nc e T rust expl ai ns in te ntio n to ac t to wa rd s a n ew te ch no lo gy T rust in fluence s sust ai na bl e ener gy techno lo gy acce pt ance 3. L ite ra tu re re vi ew re su lt in g in a fr am ew or k fo r sust ai na bl e te ch-nol ogy acce pt anc e T he fr am ew or k nee ds to be te st ed

(23)

1.8. References

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Gifford, R., Vlek, C. (2009) Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 12, 317-324.

Achterberg, P., Houtman, D., van Bohemen, S., Manevska, K. (2010) Unknowing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydrogen technology in the Netherlands. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35, 6075-6083.

Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211.

Ball, M., Wietschel, M. (2009) The future of hydrogen - opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34, 615-627.

Bamberg, S., Rölle, D. (2003) Determinants of people’s acceptability of pricing measures: replication and extension of a causal model. Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. eds Schade, J., Schlag, B. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 235-248.

Banister, D. (2000) Sustainable urban development and transport - a Eurovision for 2020. Transport Reviews 20, 113-130.

Banister, D. (2008) The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 15, 73-80.

CE-Transform (2003) Dialoog om de diepte. Eindverslag klankbordgroep CRUST/CO2 -opslag.

Daamen, D., De Best-Waldhober, M., Damen, K., Faaij, A. (2006) Pseudo-opinions on CCS technologies. paper presented at GHGT-8, Trondheim.

De Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., Faaij, A. (2009) Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 322-332.

De Gelderlander (2012) Storm van protest tegen windmolens, http://www.gelderlander.nl/ regio/arnhem/storm-van-protest-tegen-windmolens-1.3497990.

Earle, T.C. (2010) Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk analysis 30, 541-574.

European Commission (2006) Introducing hydrogen as an energy carrier. Safety, regulatory and public acceptance issues. Luxembourg.

(24)

Fuel Cells Bulletin (2013) Air Liquide plans first public hydrogen station in Netherlands. Fuel Cells Bulletin 2013, 7.

Gupta, N., Fischer, A.R.H., Frewer, L.J. (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Understanding of Science 21, 782-795.

Hart, D. (2010) Strategic and Socioeconomic Studies in Hydrogen Energy. Hydrogen and fuel cells ed Stolten, D. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp. 567-576.

Haszeldine, S., Scott, V. (2011) Carbon capture and storage. New Scientist, i-vii.

Huijts, N.M.A. (2003) Public perception of CO2 storage: the role of trust and affect in attitude formation. Eindhoven University of Technology.

Hymove (2010a) De partners, www.hymove.nl/nl/hymove/de-partners/.

Hymove (2010b) Nieuwe waterstofbussen voor Amsterdam, www.hymove.nl/nl/nieuws/ nieuwe-waterstofbussen-voor-amsterdam/?Archive=2010.

Kaiser, F.G., Hübner, G., Bogner, F.X. (2005) Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior With the Value-Belief-Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35, 2150-2170.

Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (2011) Naar duurzaam wegverkeer in 2050: Een verkenning van mogelijke opties. Den Haag.

Midden, C.J.H., Huijts, N.M.A. (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis 29, 743-751.

Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2001) Investeren in energie. Keuzes voor de toekomst. Energierapport 2002. The Hague.

Mumford, J., Gray, D. (2010) Consumer engagement in alternative energy - Can the regulators and suppliers be trusted? Energy Policy 38, 2664-2671.

O'Garra, T., Mourato, S., Pearson, P. (2008) Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents. Energy Policy 36, 2074-2085.

Ogden, J. (2006) High Hopes for Hydrogen. Scientific American 295, 94-101.

PricewaterhouseCoopers N.V. (2001) Eindrapportage 'Schoon Fossiel.' 'Laten we samen de eerste stapjes zetten'. Utrecht.

Rijksoverheid (2011) Schultz trekt € 5 miljoen uit voor stimulering rijden op waterstof,

(25)

Ronteltap, A., Fischer, A.H., Tobi, H. (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research? Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13, 4399-4410.

Ronteltap, A., Van Trijp, J.C.M., Renes, R.J., Frewer, L.J. (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49, 1-17.

Schwartz, S.H. (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Advances in experimental social psychology ed Berkowitz, L. Academic Press, New York, pp. 221-279.

Schwartz, S.H., Howard, J.A. (1981) A normative decision-making model of altruism. Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality and developmental perspective eds Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 189-211.

Sharp, J.D., Jaccard, M.K., Keith, D.W. (2009) Anticipating public attitudes toward underground CO2 storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 641-651. Siegrist, M. (2000) The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Analysis 20, 195-204.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L. (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Research in human ecology 6, 81-97.

Stimson, J.A., Mackuen, M.B., Erikson, R.S. (1995) Dynamic Representation. The American Political Science Review 89, 543-565.

Terwel, B.W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D.D.L. (2009) Competence-Based and Integrity-Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). Risk Analysis 29, 1129-1140.

Terwel, B.W., ter Mors, E., Daamen, D.D.L. (2012) It's not only about safety: Beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 9, 41-51.

Thesen, G., Langhelle, O. (2008) Awareness, acceptability and attitudes towards hydrogen vehicles and filling stations: A Greater Stavanger case study and comparisons with London. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33, 5859-5867.

Thomas, C.E.S. (2012) “How green are electric vehicles?”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37, 6053-6062.

Trouw (2011) Urkers zingen uit volle borst tegen nieuwe windmolens, http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/detail/1844714/2011/02/07/Urkers-zingen-uit-volle-borst-tegen-nieuwe-windmolens.dhtml.

(26)

Van der Hoeven, M. (2007) Three CO2 capture and storage projects started, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/co2-opslag/documenten-en-publicaties/pers

berichten/2007/10/12/three-co2-capture-and-storage-projects-started.html. Economic Affairs. Van der Hoeven, M.J.A., Cramer, J. (2009) Beleidsbrief CCS, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2009/06/23/beleidsbrief-ccs/9110811. pdf. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, The Hague.

Verhagen, M.J.M. (2010) CO2 opslagprojecten. Interdepartementale Projectorganisatie CCS, The Hague.

(27)

2. Public acceptance of hydrogen technologies in

transport: A review of and reflection on empirical

studies

N. M. A. Huijts, E. J. E. Molin, C.G. Chorus & B. Van Wee (2012). Public acceptance of hydrogen technologies in transport: A review of and reflection on empirical studies. In: Transition towards sustainable mobility: the role of instruments, individuals and institutions.

H. Geerlings, Y. Shiftan and D. Stead. Hampshire, Ashgate2.

Abstract

This paper reviews a number of quantitative empirical studies on public acceptance of hydrogen technologies in transport (published before May 2008) and provides a reflection on their use of terminology and theory. Looking at the terminology, we argue that the selected papers suffer from a lack of coherence and consistency in their usage of terminology. For example, terms like acceptance and perception have been assigned different meanings across studies. This limits the wider understanding of the results for hydrogen technology acceptance. Based on findings in other acceptability and acceptance research, we suggest

(28)

ways to increase the consistency of terminology on acceptance and knowledge-related terms. In addition to these terminology-related issues, we show that the majority of reviewed studies lack a firm foundation in relevant theoretical frameworks, such as a broader theoretical framework that incorporates attitude and association measurements. This severely limits a thorough understanding of the issue of acceptance as well as the wider implications of empirical findings. We discuss in depth several avenues for improvement, by referring to available theories in the field of social psychology. Specifically, we show that application of the theory of planned behaviour and dual-processing theories, as well as findings on the influence of knowledge and information, lead to an increased understanding of the current results. Finally, we review the findings of the papers to discuss the acceptability and acceptance of hydrogen technologies and the determinants of acceptability and acceptance. The findings of the studies indicate that hydrogen public buses generate quite positive attitudes and positive but diverse willingness-to-pay values. Only a few studies have been conducted for other hydrogen technology applications. A host of factors is found to influence acceptability and acceptance, divided into demographic, psychological, situational and knowledge-related factors. We suggest studying acceptability and acceptance in a more extensive and comprehensive way, taking the influence of the many possible determinants into account.

2.1. Introduction

It is increasingly acknowledged that the rapidly growing energy demand, urgent environmental problems and depletion of fossil fuels demand immediate and global action (International Energy Agency, 2007). Zooming in on the field of transport, one of the major sources of energy and environmental problems worldwide, both researchers and policy makers have often suggested replacing fossil fuels with other, more sustainable energy carriers, such as hydrogen, bio fuels or electricity stored in batteries. Of these alternative carriers, hydrogen is increasingly recognized as a potential future energy carrier leading to a sustainable future energy system (e.g. Banister, 2000, European Commission, 2006).

More specifically, hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are expected to offer potential solutions to a number of problems related to transport and/or energy use, such as noise, air pollution, global warming and the security of energy supply (Banister, 2000, European Commission, 2006, Ball and Wietschel, 2009). Traffic noise is likely to decrease if fuel cells instead of internal combustion engines are used for propulsion. Also the level of emissions, which is known to influence global climate change and local air quality, can be reduced by using hydrogen as a fuel in transport . Finally, reducing fossil fuel use potentially increases the security of supply by reducing our dependency on finite stocks of fossil fuels and avoiding geopolitical struggles resulting from this dependency.

However, before hydrogen can be successfully implemented as an energy carrier in transport, a great number of barriers need to be tackled, such as: the lack of refuelling infrastructure, the high costs of fuel cells and of low-carbon hydrogen production, technology immaturity, safety issues and public resistance (McDowell and Eames, 2006). The first barrier, a lack of refuelling infrastructure, is likely to prove a difficult one to overcome. The installation of hydrogen refuelling stations requires a great deal of investment and will only be worthwhile if

(29)

hydrogen is used by many vehicles. Car drivers, however, will not find hydrogen vehicles attractive if there is no ready access to fuel (e.g. Struben and Sterman, 2008). This chicken-and-egg problem could be overcome if government policy support stimulates both the installation of fuel stations and the use of hydrogen cars up to a certain “critical mass”. Struben and Sterman (2008) also argue that the same chicken-and-egg problem applies to the availability of spare parts and the repair services associated with hydrogen fuels. Costs and safety issues may be diminished by technological research (Edwards et al., 2008), which is increasingly taking place in scientific institutes as well as in industry. The European Commission (2006) also indicates that hydrogen-related safety issues are expected to be tackled by setting regulations, codes and standards. However, all these investments in terms of time, effort and money from the side of industry and the government are deemed to have only a very limited effect if the public disagrees with the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier in transport. Reasons for diverging public opinions might include a greater perceived safety risk (as suggested by e.g. Bain and Van Vorst, 1999) or because of a general preference for vehicles other than those fuelled by hydrogen. Therefore, while enormous investments need to be made in research, development and implementation, it is of critical importance to gain knowledge about hydrogen acceptance among the general public, both in the role of citizens and consumers. Reacting to this need, a number of empirical studies into the public acceptance of hydrogen technology in transport have been published in recent years.

The goal of this chapter is to critically review this body of research into the public acceptance of hydrogen as an energy carrier in transport. In line with the approach adopted in most of the available studies, we focus on quantitative studies. The contribution of this chapter to the literature is threefold. First, after having presented our selection of empirical studies, we review and reflect on terminologies that have been applied in these empirical studies. Specifically, we argue and illustrate that the current use of terminology is inconsistent across studies and provide definitions of and distinctions between terms based on wider research on technology acceptance. Second, we review the theoretical frameworks adopted in the studies and argue that what is often lacking is a clear theoretical foundation underlying performed measurements and explanations of obtained results. Several theories from the field of social psychology are presented, showing fruitful avenues for improving hydrogen acceptance research. Third, we highlight the main empirical findings presented in these studies, showing that hydrogen buses have received positive acceptance so far, and showing that several variables have been found to influence acceptance. We suggest that more research is needed to better understand the role of the several variables. The last section presents conclusions and recommendations for further research.

2.2. Selection of empirical studies

Empirical hydrogen acceptance papers were collected from scientific journals up to May 2008. An additional search using the snowball method provided extra papers. In total, eleven journal papers and one conference paper were found. Table 2.1 shows information on the retrieved publications, including the specification of the type of hydrogen application for which the studies measured acceptance.

(30)

Table 2.1: Overview of the twelve selected studies regarding public acceptance of hydrogen technologies.

Paper (authors + year)

Hydrogen application Location and year of data Nr. of respondents Kind of respondents Haraldsson et al. (2006)

Fuel cell public transport bus on hydrogen

Stockholm, 2004 518 bus passengers before operation of fuel cell bus Heinz &

Erdmann (2008)

Fuel cell public transport bus on hydrogen Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, London, Luxembourg, Madrid and Reykjavik, 2006 2833 (reasonably divided over the eight cities) hydrogen and other bus passengers and people in public places Hickson et al. (2006)

Hydrogen bus with internal combustion engine (ICE)

Winnipeg, 2005 369 ICE hydrogen bus passengers Molin (2005) Hydrogen investments in

general, hydrogen buses, hydrogen cars, hydrogen mobile phones and hydrogen for home cooking

Netherlands, 2003 612 (of which 205 were not given any information, while 407 got positive, neutral or negative information.) citizens Molin et al. (2007) Vehicles driving on biodiesel or hydrogen or hybrid vehicles

Amsterdam, 2006 75 car drivers at two fuel stations Mourato et al.

(2004)

Hydrogen taxis London, 2001 12 (in two focus groups) and 99 (in 6 different taxi stands)

taxi drivers

O'Garra et al. (2007)

Fuel cell public transport bus on hydrogen

Berlin, London, Luxemburg, Perth, 2003-2004

1090 bus users and 360 non bus users

bus users and city residents O'Garra et al.

(2005)

Hydrogen vehicles London, 2003 414 London residents O’Garra &

Mourato (2007)

Hydrogen buses London, 2003 531 London residents

As Table 2.1 shows, most of the studies concern transport applications; only two studies measure acceptance of other types of applications as well (Molin, 2005, Zachariah-Wolff and Hemmes, 2006). We will not discuss the empirical findings on these other applications. Eight studies deal with acceptance of hydrogen buses. Six of these studies were connected to a hydrogen bus project that was actually implemented, five of which concerned fuel cell buses and one concerned a bus with an internal combustion engine (ICE). The study on the ICE hydrogen bus (Hickson et al., 2007) also stands out in terms of being the only study that was entirely outside Europe; the hydrogen bus study of O’Garra et al. (2007) also provided data from Perth in Australia, as well as three European cities. Two of these studies and the four other studies measured acceptance of other applications than buses, including hydrogen cars (Molin et al., 2007, Molin, 2005), hydrogen taxis (Mourato et al., 2004, Zachariah-Wolff and Hemmes, 2006), hydrogen vehicles in general (O'Garra et al., 2005) and hydrogen refuelling stations (O'Garra et al., 2008).

(31)

2.3. Review of and reflection on the use of terminology

Looking at the papers, it shows that the terms acceptance, perception, attitudes and preferences, as well as knowledge, awareness, familiarity and need for information were often used. In this section, we will look at definitions or, when absent, at the implicit use of the words to gain a better understanding of how the terms are used in the papers. Then we will look at the wider available literature to find suggestions for improvement. We grouped together the first four terms, all representative of the wider understanding of acceptance, and the last four items, all related to knowledge which could influence acceptance.

2.3.1. Acceptance, attitudes and perception Terminology in the selected papers

The use of acceptance and seemingly related words in the selected papers are presented in Table 2.2. These words were gathered from the title, abstract and body of each paper. Table 2.2. Terms and measurements in papers on acceptance, perception, attitudes and preferences or indications of those.

Paper (authors + year)

Terms used in the papers

Definitions or, if absent, measurements taken

Haraldsson et al. (2006)

Attitudes, acceptance WTP (willingness to pay) extra for a bus ticket when fuel cell buses are used instead of conventional buses (yes/no) Heinz &

Erdmann (2008)

Public acceptance, public attitudes

Preference for hydrogen or conventional buses: support, opposition or indifference with respect to substitution of conventional buses by hydrogen buses

Hickson et al. (2006) Public perceptions, consumer perceptions, acceptability

Perceptions related to hydrogen as a fuel (good or bad idea) Molin (2005); Zachariah-Wolff & Hemmes (2006) Acceptance, willingness to use, perception, attitude

Attitude, defined as an evaluative component denoting whether a transition towards a hydrogen economy is good or bad; perception, defined as what is thought about or associated with hydrogen; willingness to use, defined as the extent to which one is willing to use several hydrogen applications; perceptions of and associations with hydrogen

Molin et al. (2007)

Preferences Preference for a car based on the following attributes: fuel type, CO2 reduction, change in fuel price, change in

purchase costs, detour for a refuelling station, range and motor performance

Mourato et al. (2004)

Preferences, support Taxi drivers’ WTP for participation in a pilot project with hydrogen fuelled taxis; support for the introduction of greener fuels and technologies in the taxi fleet O’Garra &

Mourato (2007)

Preferences, WTP WTP for hydrogen fuelled buses

O'Garra et al. (2007)

Preferences, WTP, acceptability, attitudes with respect to support/opposition

WTP extra per bus fare for hydrogen buses; WTP extra tax for large-scale introduction of hydrogen buses; attitudes about whether bus demonstration projects were a good idea

(32)

O'Garra et al. (2005) Awareness and acceptability, perceptions, associations, support, opposition and beliefs

Support for or opposition to the introduction of hydrogen powered vehicles in London; beliefs about technical solutions to environmental problems; the first word that people think of when they hear the word hydrogen (perception) O'Garra et al. (2008) Support, opposition, attitudes, acceptance, acceptability

Attitudes towards hydrogen vehicles and the installation of local storage facilities at existing refuelling stations near to people’s homes; social costs associated with a new facility, calculated from adding up the time that each chosen ‘protest’ activity would take

Saxe et al. (2007)

Acceptance, WTP, attitude/opinion

WTP extra for a bus ticket when fuel cell buses are used instead of conventional buses (yes/no); change in attitude/opinion of passengers and bus drivers during the project (feeling more positive or more negative during the project); change in attitude/opinion of bus operators concerning whether the technicians can keep the bus running without assistance

Two findings stand out from reviewing the papers. First, explicit definitions are very rarely given, and none of the papers provides a definition for acceptance. Two papers (Molin, 2005, Zachariah-Wolff and Hemmes, 2006) provided definitions for the words attitude, perception and willingness to use. The other papers only implicitly provided interpretations of the terms, by the measurements taken. Second, Table 7.2 shows that a myriad of terms and measurements were chosen and often even seemed to be used interchangeably. Acceptance or acceptability, for example, was measured by asking for opinions, attitudes, beliefs and willingness to use, and sometimes even by asking for preferences, WTP and willingness to use. In addition, the terms support and opposition were used. The objects of acceptance measurements concerned actual hydrogen projects or suggested future applications of hydrogen; some papers combined both measurements. Attitudes were measured in many different ways, asking for people’s opinions on a wide array of topics and with many different answering scales, such as opinions towards the transition to a hydrogen economy (the scale went from bad to good), trust in safety regulation (from disagree to agree), need for information (from no to yes) and support (choice options were: support, opposition, indifferent or need more information). The term perception was often used interchanged with associations, beliefs and attitudes. Furthermore, it was used for opinions with respect to the use of hydrogen in general and the respondent’s own use of hydrogen or for opinions with respect to aspects directly related to the use of the technology, such as the safety of hydrogen vehicles and aspects indirectly related to the use of the technology, such as emission reduction.

The inconsistency of the usage of terms between papers, as well as the fact that the meaning of terms is often not made explicit in the papers, hampers the understanding of the wider value of the studies for interested readers.

Avenues for improvement: terminology in wider literature

Several studies, in the field of psychology in general or research into acceptance of other technologies, have yielded insights that can provide useful starting points for improving the

(33)

understanding of the reviewed terms. Based on these studies, we will suggest clarifications for the terms acceptance, acceptability, attitudes and perception.

While the term acceptance was used most often, the term acceptability was also used in one paper. From comparing the several papers it is not clear what the difference is between these two terms. Schade and Schlag (2003) discussed the distinction between the words acceptance and acceptability in the context of urban transport pricing strategies, noticing that these two words were often used with several meanings and without clear definitions. The authors made a distinction between the two terms by saying that acceptance refers to attitudes after the introduction of the technology or measure, while acceptability is the prospective judgment to introduction in the future. These definitions do not include behaviour, or do not distinguish attitudes from behaviour. We propose, therefore, using the term acceptance for actual behaviour in reaction to the technology, and acceptability for attitudes towards the technology and towards possible related behaviours. This is more in line with Wolfe et al. (2002), who describe a framework for the acceptability of controversial technologies. They suggest that acceptability concerns people’s willingness to consider the technology seriously and acceptance refers to the formal decision to implement the proposal.

Furthermore, papers usually use one term for acceptance, ignoring the heterogeneity that the term acceptance can encompass. Wüstenhagen et al. (2007), for example, described three different kinds of acceptance in the context of sustainable energy technologies: socio-political acceptance, community acceptance and market acceptance. Socio-political acceptance concerned acceptance at the broadest, most general level, including acceptance of both policies and technologies; it concerned acceptance by citizens, stakeholders and policy makers. Community acceptance was defined as local stakeholders’ acceptance of locating renewable energy projects. Market acceptance concerned the adoption of the innovations. For public acceptance, which is our concern here, we suggest that three similar types should be distinguished: (1) socio-political acceptance, which can be defined as political and social behaviour by the public in reaction to national or even international (e.g. in the European Union) policy making (2) citizen acceptance, which can be defined as responses to situations where the public is faced with the use of technology in one’s living areas as a result of others, and (3) consumer acceptance, which can be defined as the public’s reactions to the availability of innovations on the market (in other words: the purchase and use of products). To illustrate the proposed terminology for city buses, the public can have attitudes (acceptability) and behaviour (acceptance) in reaction to (1) the implementation of extra national taxes to realize hydrogen city buses (2) the realisation of these buses and refuelling stations near their dwellings, and (3) the availability of hydrogen buses, giving the public the option of being a passenger in these new buses. It is expected that people have different attitudes and behaviours for these different hydrogen-technology related events. For example, it was found that people have a different opinion about underground carbon storage when they were asked about it in general versus when it concerns usage of this technology within their own living environment (Midden and Huijts, 2009).

The word attitude is regularly used in the papers, referring to many different measurements. We would like to suggest definitions from the field of psychology. Eagly and Chaiken (1996)

(34)

defined attitude as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour.” Also Ajzen (2001) stressed the evaluative component of attitudes, stating that this evaluation is measured on scales like “good-bad, harmful-beneficial, pleasant-unpleasant.” Additionally, Crano en Prisline (2006) suggest that attitudes represent evaluative integrations of cognitions and affects experienced in relation to an object. So we suggest to use the word attitude for evaluative judgments. For attitudes in the context of hydrogen acceptability and acceptance, Molin (2005) and Zachariah-Wolff and Hemmes (2006) defined attitude as an “evaluative component denoting whether a transition towards a hydrogen economy is good or bad.” Attitudes may, however, also concern evaluations towards other aspects, such as characteristics of the technology and specific reasons to implement the technology (e.g. climate change). In economics the term preferences is often used. Attitude is different from preferences in the sense that attitudes measure peoples’ evaluation of something, without explicitly referring to a certain set of alternatives. Preferences are always dependent on the alternatives from which people have to choose. Another term that has come up several times is perception. The interpretation of this word in the reviewed papers concerns a broader use than is common in the field of psychology. Psychologists usually use a definition that is directly related to sensation: perception involves the interpretation of sensations, giving them meaning and organisation; sensation refers to the immediate and basic experiences generated as stimuli fall on our sensory systems (Matlin and Foley, 1997). This definition from the field of psychology is more “a quick immediate and intuitive cognition” (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 1997), while hydrogen acceptance studies seem to use a wider definition such as “a mental image” (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 1997). Terms used in psychology for this are attitudes (see above) and beliefs. A belief can be defined as a “conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence” (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 1997). Ajzen (2001) connects beliefs and attitudes by saying that “beliefs that are readily accessible in memory influence attitude at any given moment.” We suggest making the meaning of terms more explicit in studies and taking the proposed definitions in mind when studying the public acceptance of hydrogen technologies.

2.3.2. Knowledge, awareness, familiarity and need for information Terminology in the selected papers

Table 2.3 gives an overview of knowledge-related terms in the selected papers.

Several papers mentioned and measured knowledge or related items. The terms that were used included awareness, familiarity, having heard of something and need for information. Clear definitions, distinguishing the knowledge-related measurements from each other, were not given in any of the papers.