IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v48y2013icp63-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility: Moral considerations versus self-interest

Author

Listed:
  • Huijts, N.M.A.
  • De Groot, J.I.M.
  • Molin, E.J.E.
  • van Wee, B.

Abstract

Using hydrogen as a fuel in transport may reduce environmental and societal problems resulting from current fossil fuel use, such as climate change and oil dependency. However, this requires both building hydrogen refueling infrastructure and gaining the acceptance of the citizens living nearby. Knowing what motivates citizens to act in favor of or against hydrogen refueling facilities may help in the development of policies that encourage the use of hydrogen as a fuel. This paper aims to contribute to this by examining whether intention to act in favor of, or against, a local hydrogen refueling facility is more strongly based on moral considerations or on self-interest. To this end, the explanatory value of the Norm Activation Model (NAM) was compared with the explanatory value of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The analyses were carried out on data collected from a group of Dutch participants who received information about hydrogen as a fuel, hydrogen technology, and the opinion of stakeholders. The group consisted of 800 participants, of which 495 were in favor and 92 against a local hydrogen refueling facility. We found that both NAM and TPB variables significantly explained intention to act for supporters and opponents. The NAM variables explained intention to act more strongly than the TPB variables for both groups. These findings suggest that intention to act both in favor of and against hydrogen refueling facilities was more strongly based on moral considerations than on self-interest. If TPB variables were added to a model that included NAM variables, the explained variance increased for the supporters group, whereas this was not the case for the opponents group. These results indicate that for supporters of hydrogen refueling facilities, self-interest is a secondary goal after moral considerations but that this is not the case for opponents. To validate the findings, the analyses were also carried out on data from a group of participants that did not receive information. This control group consisted of 414 participants, of which 184 were in favor of and 45 against a local hydrogen facility. The same results were found for these supporters and opponents, indicating the robustness of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Huijts, N.M.A. & De Groot, J.I.M. & Molin, E.J.E. & van Wee, B., 2013. "Intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility: Moral considerations versus self-interest," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 63-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:48:y:2013:i:c:p:63-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856412001450
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O'Garra, Tanya & Mourato, Susana & Pearson, Peter, 2008. "Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2074-2085, June.
    2. David Banister, 2000. "Sustainable urban development and transport -a Eurovision for 2020," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 113-130, January.
    3. Yang, Christopher & Ogden, Joan M, 2007. "Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7p3500g2, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. McDowall, William & Eames, Malcolm, 2006. "Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: A review of the hydrogen futures literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1236-1250, July.
    5. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    6. Ricci, Miriam & Bellaby, Paul & Flynn, Rob, 2010. "Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2633-2640, June.
    7. Sebastian Bamberg & Peter Schmidt, 1998. "Changing Travel-Mode Choice As Rational Choice:," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(2), pages 223-252, May.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Jeroen Struben & John D Sterman, 2008. "Transition Challenges for Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Transportation Systems," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 35(6), pages 1070-1097, December.
    10. Fiona N. H. Montijn-Dorgelo & Cees J. H. Midden, 2008. "The role of negative associations and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 659-671, July.
    11. Yang, Christopher & Ogden, Joan M, 2007. "Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1804p4vw, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    12. Jeroen Struben & John D. Sterman, 2008. "Transition Challenges for Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Transportation Systems," Post-Print hal-02312277, HAL.
    13. Abrahamse, Wokje & Steg, Linda, 2009. "How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 711-720, October.
    14. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    15. Hickson, Allister & Phillips, Al & Morales, Gene, 2007. "Public perception related to a hydrogen hybrid internal combustion engine transit bus demonstration and hydrogen fuel," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2249-2255, April.
    16. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ponce Oliva, R.D. & Estay, M. & Barrientos, M. & Estevez, R.A. & Gelcich, S. & Vásquez-Lavín, F., 2024. "Emerging energy sources' social acceptability: Evidence from marine-based energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Mohammad Dalvi-Esfahani & Hamed Shahbazi & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi, 2019. "Moderating Effects of Demographics on Green Information System Adoption," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Zavareh, Mohsen Fallah & Nordfjaern, Trond, 2019. "Mono- and multimodal green transport use on university trips during winter and summer: Hybrid choice models on the norm-activation theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 317-332.
    4. Chorus, Caspar G. & Kroesen, Maarten, 2014. "On the (im-)possibility of deriving transport policy implications from hybrid choice models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 217-222.
    5. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hee-Hoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Social acceptance toward constructing a combined heat and power plant near people's dwellings in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    6. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    7. Godwin Udo & Kallol Bagchi & Moutusy Maity, 2016. "Exploring Factors Affecting Digital Piracy Using the Norm Activation and UTAUT Models: The Role of National Culture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 517-541, May.
    8. Soha Abutaleb & Noha El-Bassiouny & Sara Hamed, 2023. "Using norm activation theory to understand intentions for collaborative consumption," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 20(1), pages 245-268, March.
    9. Broman Toft, Madeleine & Schuitema, Geertje & Thøgersen, John, 2014. "Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 392-400.
    10. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Contzen, Nadja & Roeser, Sabine, 2022. "Unequal means more unfair means more negative emotions? Ethical concerns and emotions about an unequal distribution of negative outcomes of a local energy project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Socio-technical barriers to domestic hydrogen futures: Repurposing pipelines, policies, and public perceptions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    2. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    3. Dougherty, William & Kartha, Sivan & Rajan, Chella & Lazarus, Michael & Bailie, Alison & Runkle, Benjamin & Fencl, Amanda, 2009. "Greenhouse gas reduction benefits and costs of a large-scale transition to hydrogen in the USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 56-67, January.
    4. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    5. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    6. van der Zwaan, Bob & Keppo, Ilkka & Johnsson, Filip, 2013. "How to decarbonize the transport sector?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 562-573.
    7. Tarigan, Ari K.M. & Bayer, Stian B., 2012. "Temporal change analysis of public attitude, knowledge and acceptance of hydrogen vehicles in Greater Stavanger, 2006–2009," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5535-5544.
    8. Yetano Roche, María & Mourato, Susana & Fischedick, Manfred & Pietzner, Katja & Viebahn, Peter, 2010. "Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5301-5310, October.
    9. Mohammadreza Zolfagharian & Bob Walrave & A. Georges L. Romme & Rob Raven, 2020. "Toward the Dynamic Modeling of Transition Problems: The Case of Electric Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Kim, Heetae & Park, Eunil & Kwon, Sang Jib & Ohm, Jay Y. & Chang, Hyun Joon, 2014. "An integrated adoption model of solar energy technologies in South Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 523-531.
    11. Ma, Guo & Andrews-Speed, Philip & Zhang, Jiandong, 2013. "Chinese consumer attitudes towards energy saving: The case of household electrical appliances in Chongqing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 591-602.
    12. Steven Jackson & Eivind Brodal, 2021. "Optimization of a Mixed Refrigerant Based H 2 Liquefaction Pre-Cooling Process and Estimate of Liquefaction Performance with Varying Ambient Temperature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Olateju, Babatunde & Kumar, Amit, 2013. "Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for upgrading bitumen from oil sands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 428-440.
    15. Le Thi Dieu Hien & Khuu Ngoc Huyen & Thi Hong Loc Hoang, 2023. "Factors Affecting Energy-Saving Intentions among Youth in Vietnam," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(6), pages 603-609, November.
    16. Arne K. Albrecht & Gianfranco Walsh & Simon Brach & Dwayne D. Gremler & Erica Herpen, 2017. "The influence of service employees and other customers on customer unfriendliness: a social norms perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 827-847, November.
    17. Han, Heesup & Hyun, Sunghyup Sean, 2018. "What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices of hotel guests?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 87-97.
    18. Muhammad Yaseen Bhutto & Yasir Ali Soomro & Hailan Yang, 2022. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Young Consumer Purchase Behavior of Energy-Efficient Appliances (Evidence From Developing Economy)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    19. Long, Xingle & Chen, Yaqiong & Du, Jianguo & Oh, Keunyeob & Han, Insoo, 2017. "Environmental innovation and its impact on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Korean-owned firms in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 131-137.
    20. Guo Li & Wenling Liu & Zhaohua Wang & Mengqi Liu, 2017. "An empirical examination of energy consumption, behavioral intention, and situational factors: evidence from Beijing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 507-524, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:48:y:2013:i:c:p:63-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.