Advertisement

Hydrogen Energy Technologies’ Acceptance Review and Perspective: Toward a Needs’ Anticipation Approach

First Results
  • Antoine Martin
  • Marie-France Agnoletti
  • Eric Brangier
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

As preoccupation for climate change is of growing significance and call for disruptive innovation [20], Hydrogen Energy Technologies (HET) have been steeply identified as a potential key factor to address the energy transition [6]. Whereas public acceptance is recognized to be of great importance – and even equal to the technology – in the success of energy projects [9], HET’ acceptance is questionable. This study aims (a) to portray the works that have focused on the acceptance of HET, (b) to highlight the limits of acceptance-based approaches, (c) to point out the benefits of adopting a Needs’ anticipation approach rather than an acceptance-based approach in human technology relationship issues, (d) to attest its relevance in the context of HET and (e) to propose a Needs’ anticipation approach related to a need seeker innovation strategy. Our findings indicate that a large majority of the studies followed a techno-centered approach of acceptance. We propose a paradigm shift regarding human technology relationship approach by making the dichotomy between traditional acceptance-based approach and Needs anticipation approach. While the first is techno-centered and aim to push for the use of a technology by modulating deployment conditions, the second is human-centered and has the ambition to shape the technology to the user’s future needs and requirements. Thereby, given the high stakes and the future-oriented nature related to HET issues, we support the idea that a Needs’ anticipation approach must be applied in designing HET to ensure future uses.

Keywords

Hydrogen energy Needs’ anticipation Prospective ergonomics 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported partly by the French PIA project «Lorraine Université d’Excellence» , reference ANR-15-IDEX-04-LUE.

References

  1. 1.
    Adele S, Brangier E (2013) Evolutions in the human technology relationship: rejection, acceptance and technosymbiosis. IADIS Int J WWW/Internet 11(3):46–60Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altmann M, Schmidt P, Mourato S, O’Garra T (2003) Analysis and comparison of existing studies. Final Report Work Package 3 of AcceptH2 projectGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bobillier Chaumon M-E (2016) L’acceptation située des technologies dans et par l’activité: premiers étayages pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations 22(1):4–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pto.2016.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brangier É, Robert J-M (2014) L’ergonomie prospective: fondements et enjeux. Le travail humain 77(1):1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3917/th.771.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buisine S, Boisadan A, Richir S (in press) L’innovation radicale par la méthode de l’utilisateur extraordinaire. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pto.2017.11.001
  6. 6.
    Cany C, Mansilla C, da Costa P, Mathonnière G (2017) Adapting the French nuclear fleet to integrate variable renewable energies via the production of hydrogen: towards massive production of low carbon hydrogen? Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(19):13339–13356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crosnier E (1993) L’abstract scientifique anglais - français: contraintes et libertés. ASp, La revue du GERAS 2:177–198.  https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flynn R, Bellaby P, Ricci M (2011) The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation, pp 245–259Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fournis Y, Fortin M-J (2017) From social ‘acceptance’ to social ‘acceptability’ of wind energy projects: towards a territorial perspective. J Environ Plann Manag 60(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1133406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gude D (2004) Prospective ergonomics in occupational health protection - supporting potential of virtual reality. Zentralblatt fur Arbeitsmedizin Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie 54(9):326–335Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunzburger Y, Agnoletti M-F, Deshaies M, Ferey S, Raggi P (2017) Social perception of unconventional gas extraction on the outskirts of a former coal-mining area in Northeast France. Extr Ind Soc 4(1):53–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huijts N, Molin E, Chorus C, van Wee B (2012) Public acceptance of hydrogen technologies in transport: a review of and reflection on empirical studies. In: Shiftan Y, Geerlings H, Stead D (eds) Transition towards sustainable mobility. Routledge, pp 137–164Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itaoka K, Saito A, Sasaki K (2017) Public perception on hydrogen infrastructure in Japan: influence of rollout of commercial fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:7290–7296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaruzelski B, Staack V, Goehle B (2014) Proven path to innovation success. Strategy Bus 77:2–16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lange-Morales K, Thatcher A, García-Acosta G (2014) Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: it is all about values. Ergonomics 57(11):1603–1615.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.945495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Midler C (2006) L’auto qui n’existait pas: management des projets et transformation de l’entreprise. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson J, Buisine S, Aoussat A (2013) Anticipating the use of future things: towards a framework for prospective use analysis in innovation design projects. Appl Ergon 44(6):948–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ogawa T, Takeuchi M, Kajikawa Y (2018) Analysis of trends and emerging technologies in water electrolysis research based on a computational method: a comparison with fuel cell research. Sustainability 10(2):478.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ricci M, Bellaby P, Flynn R (2008) What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(21):5868–5880.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tyfield D (2018) Innovating innovation—disruptive innovation in China and the low-carbon transition of capitalism. Energy Res Soc Sci 37:266–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yetano Roche M, Mourato S, Fischedick M, Pietzner K, Viebahn P (2010) Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel-cell vehicles: a review of the evidence and methodological implications. Energy Policy 38(10):5301–5310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Martin
    • 1
  • Marie-France Agnoletti
    • 1
  • Eric Brangier
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de LorraineMetzFrance

Personalised recommendations