Hydrogen Energy Technologies’ Acceptance Review and Perspective: Toward a Needs’ Anticipation Approach
As preoccupation for climate change is of growing significance and call for disruptive innovation , Hydrogen Energy Technologies (HET) have been steeply identified as a potential key factor to address the energy transition . Whereas public acceptance is recognized to be of great importance – and even equal to the technology – in the success of energy projects , 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.
KeywordsHydrogen energy Needs’ anticipation Prospective ergonomics
This work was supported partly by the French PIA project «Lorraine Université d’Excellence» , reference ANR-15-IDEX-04-LUE.
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 14.Jaruzelski B, Staack V, Goehle B (2014) Proven path to innovation success. Strategy Bus 77:2–16Google Scholar
- 16.Midler C (2006) L’auto qui n’existait pas: management des projets et transformation de l’entreprise. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar