IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i8p2220-d222349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A positive Shift in the Public Acceptability of a Low-Carbon Energy Project After Implementation: The Case of a Hydrogen Fuel Station

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole M. A. Huijts

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands
    Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Gerdien de Vries

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Eric J. E. Molin

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Public acceptability of low-carbon energy projects is often measured with one-off polls. This implies that opinion-shifts over time are not always taken into consideration by decision makers relying on these polls. Observations have given the impression that public acceptability of energy projects increases after implementation. However, this positive shift over time has not yet been systematically studied and is not yet understood very well. This paper aims to fill this gap. Based on two psychological mechanisms, loss aversion and cognitive dissonance reduction, we hypothesize that specifically people who live in proximity of a risky low-carbon technology—a hydrogen fuel station (HFS) in this case—evaluate this technology as more positive after its implementation than before. We conducted a survey among Dutch citizen living nearby a HFS and indeed found a positive shift in the overall evaluation of HFS after implementation. We also found that the benefits weighed stronger and the risks weaker after the implementation. This shift did not occur for citizens living further away from the HFS. The perceived risks and benefits did not significantly change after implementation, neither for citizens living in proximity, nor for citizens living further away. The societal implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole M. A. Huijts & Gerdien de Vries & Eric J. E. Molin, 2019. "A positive Shift in the Public Acceptability of a Low-Carbon Energy Project After Implementation: The Case of a Hydrogen Fuel Station," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2220-:d:222349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Shaheen, Susan & Martin, Elliot & Lipman, Timothy, 2008. "Dynamics in Behavioral Response to Fuel-Cell Vehicle Fleet and Hydrogen Infrastructure: An Exploratory Study," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3q27s89h, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2013. "The Necessity for Longitudinal Studies in Risk Perception Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 50-51, January.
    4. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    5. Shaheen, Susan A & Martin, Elliot & Lipman, Timothy E, 2008. "Dynamics in Behavioral Response to Fuel-Cell Vehicle Fleet and Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0pk0008g, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 1990. "Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 393-399, September.
    8. Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    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. le Maitre, Julia & Ryan, Geraldine & Power, Bernadette, 2024. "Do concerns about wind farms blow over with time? Residents’ acceptance over phases of project development and proximity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    2. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Ye Li & Clemens Kool & Peter-Jan Engelen, 2020. "Analyzing the Business Case for Hydrogen-Fuel Infrastructure Investments with Endogenous Demand in The Netherlands: A Real Options Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Huan, Ning & Yamamoto, Toshiyuki & Sato, Hitomi & Tzioutzios, Dimitrios & Yin, Haohui & Sala, Roser, 2024. "Does accident awareness affect people's risk perception of hydrogen infrastructure and information-seeking behaviour?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 364(C).
    5. Russell, Aaron & Firestone, Jeremy, 2022. "More than a feeling: Analyzing community cognitive and affective perceptions of the Block Island offshore wind project," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 214-224.
    6. 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. 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.
    2. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Rishabh Ghotge & Koen Philippe Nijssen & Jan Anne Annema & Zofia Lukszo, 2022. "Use before You Choose: What Do EV Drivers Think about V2G after Experiencing It?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Arora, Akhil & Zantye, Manali S. & Hasan, M.M. Faruque, 2022. "Sustainable hydrogen manufacturing via renewable-integrated intensified process for refueling stations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    5. Vincenzo Franzitta & Domenico Curto & Daniele Milone & Marco Trapanese, 2017. "Energy Saving in Public Transport Using Renewable Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Kuby, Michael, 2019. "The opposite of ubiquitous: How early adopters of fast-filling alt-fuel vehicles adapt to the sparsity of stations," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 46-57.
    7. Vincenzo Franzitta & Domenico Curto & Davide Rao & Alessia Viola, 2016. "Hydrogen Production from Sea Wave for Alternative Energy Vehicles for Public Transport in Trapani (Italy)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    9. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    10. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    11. Kareen Rozen, 2010. "Foundations of Intrinsic Habit Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1341-1373, July.
    12. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    13. Pingle, Mark & Mitchell, Mike, 2002. "What motivates positional concerns for income?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 127-148, February.
    14. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    15. Christian Grund & Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and the Impact of Wage Increases on Job Satisfaction: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(2), pages 313-335, June.
    16. Hu, Li & Ma, Hoi-Lam & Wang, Li & Liu, Yang, 2023. "Hiding or disclosing? Information discrimination in member-only discounts," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    17. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    18. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Anne Marie Knott & Rachel Croson, 2017. "Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 278-299, February.
    19. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2220-:d:222349. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.