Public Acceptance

  • Kenshi ItaokaEmail author
  • Aya Saito
  • Kazunari Sasaki
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


This chapter describes public acceptance of hydrogen energy, including sociopolitical acceptance, community acceptance, and market acceptance. Methodologies for quantitative assessment are explained. An overview on public acceptance study in various countries is given for fuel cell systems and hydrogen station.


Public acceptance Sociopolitical acceptance Community acceptance Market acceptance Methodology Questionnaire Hydrogen safety 


  1. 1.
    Wüstenhagena R, Wolsinkb M, Bürera MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept 35(5):2683–2691Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 Hydrog Energy 33(21):5868–5880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College PublishersGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci, 0963662510392485Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Garra T, Mourato S, Pearson P (2007) Public acceptability of hydrogen fuel cell transport and associated refuelling infrastructures. In: Flynn R, Bellaby P (eds) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 126–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roche MY, 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 38:5301–5310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Powell RA, Single HM (1996) Focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 8(5):499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiong C, Li D, Jin L (2008) Draft consensus building in hall for workshop of meta-synthetic engineering. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 13(1):45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mizuho Information and Research Institute (2008) Suiso shakaijuyousei ni kansuru chousa (Hydrogen’s social acceptance research) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mizuho Information and Research Institute (2009) Nenryoudenchi, suiso ni kansuru shakaijuyouseichousa (PEFC, Hydrogen’s social acceptance research) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zimmer R (2011) Full steam ahead? Hydrogen Technology between Technological Vision and Public AcceptanceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huijts NMA, Van Wee B (2015) The evaluation of hydrogen fuel stations by citizens: the interrelated effects of socio-demographic, spatial and psychological variables. Int J Hydrog Energy 40(33):10367–10381Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tarigan AKM, Bayer SB, Langhelle O, Thesen G (2012) Estimating determinants of public acceptance of hydrogen vehicles and refuelling stations in greater Stavanger. Int J Hydrog Energy 37(7):6063–6673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Garra T, Mourato S, Pearson P (2008) Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refueling facilities and the social cost to local residents. Energy Policy 36(6):2074–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Van Wee B (2014) Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: a structural equation model based on the technology acceptance framework. J Environ Psychol 38:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horii H, Okumura N, Kawakami A, Maeda S, Tezuka T (2014) Efforts on the public acceptance improvement of FCV and hydrogen stations (in Japanese). J Hydrog Energy Syst Soc Jpn 39(3):177–180Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martina E, Shaheena SA, Lipmanc TE, Lidicker JR (2009) Behavioral response to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and refueling: results of California drive clinics. Int J Hydrog Energy 34(20):8670–8680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lienkamp H, Rasatogi A (2012) Achievements and lessons learnt in the EU Project Zero Regio, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, PP2201–2210, Transport Research Arena, EuropeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation) (2014) IAP2’s Public Participation SpectrumGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooper C, Truett T, Schmoyer RL (2006) The U.S. department of energy hydrogen baseline survey: assessing knowledge and opinions about hydrogen technology. In: Abstracts of WHEC 16, Lyon, France, 13–16 June 2006Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmoyer RL, Truett T, Cooper C (2006) Results of the 2004 knowledge and opinions surveys for the baseline knowledge assessment of the U.S. department of energy hydrogen program. In: Report prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bzostek R, Rogers A (2014) Oslo +20: reassessing the role of confidence building measures. Soc Sci J 51(2):250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shogakukan (2015) Degital daigisen. Date of access: 28 Dec 2015
  27. 27.
    Higher Education Funding Council for England: Beacons for Public Engagement (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goodfellow EM (1980) Public relations and promotion: a few ideas for group practices. Gr Pract J 29(9):5–7, 26Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2013) Best practice for: public outreach and education for carbon storage projectsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dowler E, Bauer MW, Green J, Gasperoni G (2006) Assessing public perceptions: issues and methods. In: Dora Carlos (ed) Health, hazard and public debate: lessons for risk communication from the BSE/CJD Saga. WHO, Geneva, pp 40–60Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Väntänen A, Marttunen M (2005) Public involvement in multi-objective water level regulation development projects—evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25(3):281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values 25(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zimmer R, Welke J (2012) Let’s go green with hydrogen! The general public’s perspective. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:17502–17508CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute for Carbon-Neutral Energy Research (I2CNER)Kyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Mizuho Information and Research Institute Inc.TokyoJapan
  3. 3.International Research Center for Hydrogen EnergyKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations