International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijhydene

Analysing awareness and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: A London case study

Tanya OGarra , Susana Mourato, Peter Pearson
Department of Environmental Science & Technology, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK Available online 7 December 2004

Abstract This paper investigates the determinants of knowledge and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles among London residents. Data was collected via a socio-economic survey of over four hundred residents. Results indicate that, at present, less than half of respondents have heard of hydrogen as a fuel for transport, and just over one-third are clearly in favour of the introduction of hydrogen vehicles. The key determinant of acceptability was having prior awareness of hydrogen technologies, as identied via logit regression analysis. Hydrogen awareness in turn was found to be related to gender, age, education and environmental knowledge. These results suggest that there is an opportunity to raise awareness of hydrogen technologies among the remaining three-fths of the London population, although this is likely to require a differential approach to information provision. 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Acceptability; Knowledge; Hydrogen; Fuel cells

1. Introduction Growing concern about climate change has highlighted the potential role of improvements in energy efciency and a shift towards low-carbon energy sources in restraining greenhouse gas emissions. Both depend on the introduction and diffusion of new environmental fuels and technologies. Hydrogen (H2 ), especially when used with fuel cells, offers a promising potentially higher efciency, lower carbon energy-carrying option. Heralded by many as a possible substitute for hydrocarbon-based fuel in all energy sectors [1,2], particularly when obtained from low or zero carbon sources, such as renewable sources, there has been particular interest in potential applications in the transport sector [3]. Numerous studies have begun to address the technical, economic and infrastructure aspects of H2 transport
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 594 7314; fax: +44 207

594 9334. E-mail address: tanya.ogarra@imperial.ac.uk (T. OGarra).

development (e.g. [47]). However the issue of consumer acceptance has only recently begun to be explored [8]. This is somewhat surprising given frequently voiced concerns that the public may react negatively to hydrogen transport, due to associations with the 1937 Hindenburg disaster or the hydrogen bomb [3,5]. The successful diffusion of H2 vehicles may be critically inuenced by public perceptions of the attributes of H2 vehicles and of the determinants of their acceptability. In May and June 2003 we consulted experts in the elds of hydrogen development and marketing, fuel cell development, LPG infrastructure, air pollution management and local planning; they revealed widely differing opinions about the potential objections to hydrogen that the public might raise. Most of the experts thought safety to be the key issue, whilst others pointed to a variety of other interrelated factors, such as novelty, convenience, proper communication of information, trust in the technology developers and providers, and speed of transition. Almost all agreed, however, that knowledge/awarenessor lack of itis likely to be a key inuence on the acceptability of hydrogen vehicles.

0360-3199/$30.00 2004 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.10.008

650

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

Securing consumer acceptance, however, is not simply a case of overcoming barriers. The large body of research on the social shaping of technology views technological change as necessarily subject to social and economic as well as technical factors and contexts [9,10]. Shove [11] provides a critique of the traditional, technological deterministic approach to barriers, considering them not as obstacles to be overcome, but as necessary elements determining technological change. Bauer [12] proposes that resistance to new technologies is a resource that helps shape the technology for society. He suggests that resistance serves as a signal function to society indicating that some aspect of the technological change process is not functioning correctly and needs dealing with. Understanding public acceptance of hydrogen therefore allows for potential objections to be identied early on and to inuence the development and diffusion of the technology. It also provides an indication of the extent and nature of information to which different social groups have or might have access. People search for and process information differently, depending on a number of variables such as prior knowledge and existing attitudes, personal relevance, social reference group, age and education [13]. Consequently, any information and education activities are likely to need to be targeted and differentiated. Schulte et al. [8] emphasise the need for a differential approach to communication with consumers, reecting their differing levels of knowledge, support for or opposition to H2 technologies.1 Using a survey-based approach, this study seeks to identify existing levels of awareness about hydrogen as a fuel for transport, levels of related knowledge (about fuel cell (FC) technologies and climate change) and the degree of support for H2 vehicles amongst London residents. We then use a logit model to analyse the factors that inuence the acceptability of the introduction of hydrogen vehicles in London. The results are used to provide recommendations for knowledge-enhancement and information policies for H2 transport. The results are particularly relevant for London as H2 FC buses (and respective infrastructure) are being introduced in the city, as part of the European-wide Clean Urban Transport for Europe (CUTE) demonstration project. This project involves 27 H2 FC buses being trialed in 9 cities across Europe for a period of two years. Our study

was conducted just prior to the introduction of these buses.2 2. Literature review There are currently very few studies of public acceptability of H2 vehicles and, with one exception [14], those that exist are mostly unpublished [1518]. These studies suggest that, despite limited knowledge about hydrogen as a fuel, there seems to be at present a relatively high level of support for H2 vehicles. Possible key inuences on the acceptability of hydrogen have been analysed under the main headings as given in Table 1. Because H2 -based transport is so novel, it is not surprising that most of the studies in this area address the relationship between knowledge of the fuel and its associated technology and public acceptance levels. With the exception of the exploratory study by Dinse [17], which found high acceptance levels despite low knowledge levels amongst respondents interviewed in the streets of Berlin, all the studies report a positive relationship between knowledge and acceptance of H2 vehicles. A study of acceptance amongst BMW employees found that respondents with in-depth knowledge about hydrogen fuel were more positive about H2 vehicles than respondents with little knowledge [16]. Similarly, the two-part study by Lossen et al. [15], involving qualitative interviews with high-level executives followed by an Internet survey with attitudinal questions, found acceptance levels to be slightly higher amongst respondents who had prior information about hydrogen compared to acceptance levels for those without prior information. And in a survey of London taxi drivers, Mourato et al. [14] also found that drivers who were more familiar with the FC technology had a higher willingness to pay for H2 -fuelled FC powered taxis than drivers who were less familiar with the technology. Direct experience of hydrogen transport also inuences acceptability, as found by Altmann and Graesel [18], who compared the acceptance of H2 technologies amongst samples of users and non-users of a H2 bus in Munich. The authors rstly investigated acceptance among secondary school students (and other passengers) on board a H2 bus. Results revealed that acceptability of H2 was high, while perception of risk from H2 was low. They then compared the
2 This work forms part of the larger ACCEPTH2 project

1 An anonymous referee correctly pointed out that a differential approach to communication may be more costly than a uniform approach. However, one needs to take into account the costs of the various potential outcomes of the different communication approaches (for example, 75% uptake vs. 25% uptake of H2 vehicles), and their probabilities given different communication strategies. This may provide an indication of which communication strategy is preferable for the issue at hand.

coordinated by the Department of Environmental Science & Technology at Imperial College London. This is a EU-funded collaboration between 5 cities worldwide: London (UK), Munich (Germany), Luxemburg, Perth (Western Australia) and California (US), and consists of a cross-continental comparative study of public acceptance of H2 fuel cell buses before and after introduction, and an estimation of the economic value of their environmental benets. This paper specically deals with analysing awareness of and support for H2 vehicles in London before the introduction of the H2 bus trial. Further information on the project is available from http://www.hydrogen.org/accepth2

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659 Table 1 Key inuences on acceptance of hydrogen vehiclesreview of studies Inuence Knowledge Experience Safety Environmental concern Studies addressing inuences Mourato et al. (2004); Lossen (2003); Dinse (1999); Altmann and Graesel (1998) Mourato et al. (2004); Lossen (2003); Dinse (1999); Altmann and Graesel (1998) Mourato et al. (2004); Lossen et al. (2003); Altmann and Graesel (1998)

651

attitudes between students on board the H2 bus and students in the classroom and found signicant differences: acceptance levels were higher when students answered in the bus; associations of hydrogen with danger were more frequently mentioned in the classroom; and associations with environmental benets were much more frequent onboard the bus. Arguably, environmental concerns might also affect levels of support for H2 vehicles. Lossen et al. [15], Mourato et al. [14] and Altmann and Graesel [18] specically investigated the inuence of environmental concerns on H2 acceptance. Mourato et al. [14] found that concerns about air pollution did not play a role in taxi drivers willingness to pay for a pilot H2 fuel cell taxi in the short-term, the main determinant being drivers expectation of nancial gain from the project; however, they found that drivers longer-term vehicle purchasing decisions were affected to some extent by concern with air pollution. Altmann and Graesel [18] reported a high level of acceptance of H2 buses by respondents onboard a H2 bus in Munich, but found a very weak relationship between environmental attitudes (measured by asking respondents to rate 7 statements on a 5-point scale) and acceptability of hydrogen. Only Lossen et al. [15] found that environmental attitudes (measured using a similar approach as in [18]) signicantly inuenced support for H2 transport. However, as noted by the authors, the survey sample in this attitudinal study was highly unrepresentative, consisting of self-selected Internet users, with almost nine-tenths of the sample working in academic institutions. These ndings are broadly in line with existing transport economics research that indicates that environmental concerns are not key determinants in the choice of transport technologies, which in general is typically determined by price and performance. Specically, Ewing and Sarigll [19] found that the high potential demand for low emission private vehicles in Montreal was not determined by emissions, but rather by price and performance of the vehicles. Segal [20] also found that purchase price and refuelling times were the main inuences on demand for electric private vehicles in California. Experimental studies by Kurani et al. [21,22] assessing the potential for electric vehicles in local household transportation, found that home recharging was the most highly valued attribute and environmentalism the least valued. In another experimental study by Turren-

tine et al. [23] respondents attitudes were elicited before and after test-driving alternative fuel vehicles, and it was found that members of environmental organisations did not show higher clean-vehicle purchasing intentions. Of those economic studies that do report a correlation between environmental attitude and acceptance for cleaner transport, environmental concern is found to be a weaker inuence than price and performance [14,2426]. Interestingly, although the safety of H2 fuelled vehicles has been often cited by experts as a potential barrier to their uptake, the few existing studies on support for H2 transport found a general lack of such concerns. In the studies by Dinse [16] and Altmann and Graesel [18] respondents were asked to provide spontaneous associations with the word hydrogen. Negative associations (e.g. bomb, Hindenburg, explosions) were mentioned with least frequency in both studies. Similarly, safety was not an issue amongst taxi drivers in Mourato et al. [14]. Lossen et al. [15] is the only study to report some inuence of safety concerns on hydrogen acceptability although, as noted in the study, these concerns were very limited. In summary, existing studies provide some useful insights about public awareness and support for H2 transport. However, the available literature is not only scarce but limited, with most studies using convenience samples, therefore providing only exploratory ndings. The current study aims to add to this body of evidence by carrying out a quantitative analysis of public awareness and acceptability of H2 vehicles in London, amongst the wider London population; in this sense, it is a signicant addition to this body of evidence.

3. Method 3.1. Data collection The data for our study was collected via a survey questionnaire of London residents. A series of three focus groups and a pilot study were held in London during June 2003 to assist in the design of the nal questionnaire. The questionnaire collected information on socio-economic characteristics of respondents, car ownership, environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, spontaneous associations with the word hydrogen, existing levels of awareness about H2 vehicles, levels of support for the introduction of H2 vehicles in London and levels of knowledge about fuel cell vehicles. Using telephone numbers generated randomly in Excel, a total of 420 telephone interviews3 were carried out between 14th July and 2nd September 2003 with residents of the Greater London Area, including bus users and non-bus
3 In response to an anonymous referees comment about survey mode, the survey was administered by telephone rather than inperson due to the need for a common methodology across all 5 cities involved in this survey study (ACCEPTH2 project). Telephone surveys were the agreed-upon common method.

652

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

users. Six questionnaires were dropped from the nal analysis due to incompletion. Just under 50% of calls made were answered, and of these, 18% were completed the rst time around and 40% completed in total (including call-backs). The average duration of an interview was about 25 min. 3.2. Modelling support for hydrogen Answers to the question of whether an individual supports the introduction of H2 vehicles in London can be expressed as a discrete variable, where the decision to support is equivalent to 1, and all other decisions equivalent to 0. In such cases, classical linear regression methods are inappropriate as they produce problematic error term distributions and unlikely probability estimates. Maximum likelihood estimation methods, such as logit or probit regression approaches, are preferable for this type of analysis [27]. In this study, we use logit regression analysis to estimate the likelihood of supporting H2 vehicles as a function of a number of explanatory variables.4 The probability (PSUPP ) of a respondent supporting the introduction of H2 vehicles in London can therefore be represented by (1) PSUPP = F (ZSUPP ) = 1/(1 + eZSUPP ), (1)

hold income before tax being above the London average income of 38, 376 per annum.6 4.1.2. Environmental attitudes, behaviour and knowledge Environmental attitudes, knowledge and behaviour were elicited by asking respondents to rate a number of statements on a scale of 15 (see Table 3). Attitude statements were structured following recommendations by Spash [30], whilst knowledge statements were specically devised to assess environmental knowledge associated with transport and climate change. All statements were tested in focus groups and pilot studies. Environmental attitudes in general were positive, as shown by the mean percentage distributions for responses to environmental attitude statements in Table 3. Just over 15% of respondents belong to environmental organisations: interestingly, environmental attitudes did not differ signicantly between members and non-members. Moreover, environmental attitudes were not mirrored by corresponding environmental behaviours. With the exception of recycling, answers to the environmental behaviour questions suggest relatively infrequent commitment to avoiding car use and donating to environmental groups/organisations (Table 3). Knowledge of global warming was found to be poor, with two thirds of respondents agreeing with the statement: The main cause of global warming is the hole in the ozone layer (Table 3). Furthermore, a third of the sample neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are one of the 3 major causes of global warming in the UK, suggesting that many respondents were not condent in their knowledge about global warming. 4.1.3. Hydrogen perceptions, awareness and attitudes All respondents were asked: Please tell me the rst words that occur to you when I say the word hydrogen? Nine-tenths (90.3%) of respondents were able to provide at least one association with hydrogen, whereas four-tenths (43.7%) provided two associations, and only one-twentieth (4.8%) gave three associations. Associations were coded individually, and then grouped under various broad headings (Fig. 1). In total, ve different positive associations (e.g. alternative fuel, clean) and eight negative associations (e.g. bomb, toxic) with hydrogen were given. Frequency distributions show that in total (including rst, second and third associations) positive associations were mentioned with marginally greater frequency than negative associations (22% compared to 20%). Notably, the most frequently mentioned associations fell in the neutral category (originally comprising 23 different associations); this category was split into chemical, fuel and energy, physical properties and other. Chemical associations (e.g. gas, water, peroxide) were most frequently mentioned (38%).
6 Average annual income values were obtained by multiplying gross weekly household income (738) by 52 (weeks per year). Source: [28].

where ZSUPP is a function of the explanatory variables; this relationship may take any form, such as a linear relationship: ZSUPP = 1 + 2 x1 + 3 x2 + . (2)

The model is tted using maximum likelihood estimation.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Descriptive statistics 4.1.1. Sample characteristics Table 2 presents summary statistics of the socio-economic variables for the sample.5 Nearly three-fths of the sample were women and the average age was 39. Education and income levels were high, with almost half the sample having completed university degrees and the mean annual house4 Logit and probit models were estimated for the data. Despite little difference between the results for each model, the logit regression produced a marginally more signicant model. 5 When compared to the London population, the sample in this study is biased towards respondents with high income (mean annual household income of 42, 000, compared to London average of 38, 376) and education levels (more than two-fths have university degrees vis--vis a London average of 25%) [28]. Sample selfemployment and part-time employment levels are also marginally higher than the London averages [28]. This indicates possible selfselection of respondents to the questionnaire, and hence generalisations of the un-weighted sample results to the overall London population should be interpreted with caution.

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659 Table 2 Summary statistics Variable Levels Respondents (n = 414) 41.3 39 1.21 12.3 25.9 46.1 14.5 4.8 65 10.6 7.3 12.3 41,964f 68.1

653

London population (n = 7355 million) 48 37a 13.4b 16.7 18.5 24.7 26.2 12.4 63d 16 7e 38,376g 61

Sex (% men) Age (mean) Highest level of education (% respondents)

Work status (% respondents)c

Primary Secondary year 10 Secondary year 12 University Degree (undergraduate and postgraduate) Other Qualications Self-employed Employed (> 30 h/week) Employed (< 30 h/week) Retired All other (student, disabled, unemployed, housewife)

Household gross annual income (mean ) Car ownership (% households owning car)

a Calculated by obtaining sum of multiplication of population age percentages by age category. Age statistics for London population are for mid-2002 [28]. b London education level statistics are for Spring, 2003 [28]. c Work status statistics for London [28] were only found as proportions of the working age population, dened as males between 16 and 64, and females between 16 and 60. This limits the ability to compare London population statistics with survey sample statistics (based on individuals of adult age: 18 years or over). d Data on fulltime and part-time employment rates were not available as percentages of the total London population, but as percentages of total working age population by gender [29]; hence the gures reported in column 3 of Table 2 have been calculated from the available data. Note that these are approximate values, and hence the percentages may not add up to 100. For more details contact the corresponding author. e Different source to other London population statistics: [29]. f Income categories were converted into currency gures by taking the mid-point interval for each income category, and 120, 000 for the last open category. g Calculated by multiplying average gross household weekly income (738) by 52 weeks. This gure is the average over the years 20002003.

Overall, these results are in line with previous literature and suggest that public concerns with H2 safety are not likely to be widespread. Relationships between type of H2 association made and an individuals socio-economic characteristics were investigated, in order to identify common perceptions across different socio-economic groups. A signicant relationship ( 2 of 10.54, P = 0.005) was found between gender and type of association made with hydrogen: in contrast to other ndings [16], marginally more men gave negative associations with hydrogen than women;7 on the other hand, men also gave more positive associations than women. There was no signicant relationship between hydrogen association and age, although respondents in the 5060 years old category were the only ones to have made more negative (47%) than neutral associations (41%). In all other age cat-

7 Dinse [16] found that emotional and negative associations with hydrogen tended to be given by women.

egories, neutral associations were by far the most frequent. Similarly, education, work status and income had no significant bearing on H2 associations. Factor analysis was also attempted to try to group respondents according to whether they gave two positive associations, two negative associations, two neutral associations, or a mix. No patterns were identied. Self-reported awareness about H2 vehicles was found to be moderate, with less than half (45%) of respondents claiming to have heard about them. Less than one-third (29%) had heard about fuel cell vehicles and only one-fth (18%) had heard of both H2 and FC vehicles. The most common sources of information cited were television (34%) and newspapers/magazines (31%). Existing attitudes towards the introduction of H2 vehicles in London were elicited by asking respondents: How would you feel about hydrogen powered vehicles being introduced in London? Would you in principle support it, oppose it, need more information to make a decision or are you indifferent? Fig. 2 shows the distribution of responses.

654

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

Table 3 Mean percentage distributions for environmental Items Item Environmental attitude statementsa 1. Solving environmental problems should be one of the top 3 priorities for public spending in London 2. It is necessary for everyone to give up certain activities in order to protect the environment 3. Science and technology are the key to solving environmental problems in London Environmental knowledge statementsa 1. The main cause of global warming is the hole in the ozone layer 2. Car use is the main cause of air pollution in cities 3. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are one of the 3 major causes of global warming in the UK Environmental behaviour itemsb 1. Recycle cans, glass or paper 2. Avoid using your car for environmental reasons (e.g. walking, cycling, or using public transport instead) 3. Donate to environmental groups or organisations SD 0.5 1.2 1.2 D 8.7 13 15 N 13.5 18.8 22 A 54.6 51.5 51.5 SA 22.7 15.5 10.4

SD 4.8 0.48 0.24

D 28.3 16.9 6.3

N 29 16.4 30

A 35.5 58 55.5

SA 2.42 8.21 8

Nvr 13.8 55.4 50.6

Rly 8 13.9 13.6

Sm 10.9 13.6 22.3

Oft 15.5 12.5 10.7

All 51.8 4.6 2.42

Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding of gures. a SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, N = neither agree nor disagree, A = agree, SA = strongly agree b Nvr = never, Rly-rarely, Sm = sometimes, Oft = often and All = always.

danger 4%

Frequency

other neutral 1%

positive 22%

pollution/ fumes 3% exposive/ flammable 13%

70% 60% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 36%

physical properties 6%

10% 0.2% 0% support oppose need more info

4% indifferent

fuel/energ y 13%

chemical 38%

Fig. 2. Distribution of attitudes towards the introduction of hydrogen vehicles in London.

Fig. 1. Distribution of total number of associations with hydrogen (n = 575).

Overall, just over a third (35.5%) of respondents supported the introduction H2 vehicles, while most (60%) said they would need more information. Notably, only one respondent opposed H2 vehicles, on safety grounds, conrming our prior expectations. In contrast, amongst those

with prior knowledge about H2 vehicles, a majority of 60% showed support, with only 37% needing more information before giving an opinion. Reasons for support were overwhelmingly environmental (33% of people mentioned environment, pollution or air quality as their main reason). Respondents who said they would need more information, were interested in safety (6.7% of sample), cost (4.4%) and feasibility (2%), although most simply said that they knew nothing about H2 .

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659 Table 4 Variables included in logit regressions Variable H2SUPP YADJ MALE AGE UNIVEDUC H2KNOW FCKNOW H2FCKNOW ENVKNOW ENVTATT Description

655

TECHNATT

Dummy indicating whether respondent supports introduction of H2 vehicles in London: 1 = yes; 0 = no, needs more info or doesnt care Income taken as mid interval of income levels (and divided by 10,000) Dummy for respondents gender: 1 = male; 0 = female Respondents age Dummy for university education: 1 = yes; 0 = no Dummy indicating whether respondent has heard of hydrogen vehicles: 1 = yes; 0 = no Dummy indicating whether respondent has heard of fuel cells: 1 = yes; 0 = no Dummy indicating whether respondent has heard of H2 and FC vehicles: 1 = yes; 0 = no Dummy indicating whether respondent knows that the hole in the ozone layer is not the main cause of climate change: 1 = yes; 0 = no Attitude to statement: Solving environmental problems should be one of the top 3 priorities for public spending in London (from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree) Attitude to statement: Science and technology are the key to solving environmental problems in London (from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree)

4.2. Logit model results A logit regression was used to identify which variables inuence respondents support for H2 vehicles. The regressors, described in Table 4, include: indicators of existing awareness about H2 vehicles and fuel cell transport; environmental attitudes and knowledge measures; and various socio-economic variables (income, age, education and gender). In addition, logit regressions were used to identify the key determinants of existing knowledge about hydrogen and also, the determinants of knowledge about fuel cells. The results of all the logit models are presented in Table 5. The marginal effects of the explanatory variables on the dependent variables (last column of Table 5) were calculated by taking the derivative with respect to the dependent variable [27]. These values indicate the impacts of the independent variable on the binary variable at the sample mean: for example, at the sample mean, men are found to be 0.5% more likely than women to support H2 vehicles (although this effect is statistically insignicant). Regarding support for H2 vehicles (H 2SUPP model), we found a strong positive relationship between prior knowledge about H2 vehicles and likelihood of support. Interpretation of the marginal effects reveals that respondents who have previously heard about H2 as a fuel for transport are 12.5% more likely to support the introduction of H2 vehicles in London. This relationship may reect the fact that the information on hydrogen that is currently available in the public domain is mostly of a positive nature; a cursory overview of the books (e.g. [1,2]), articles (e.g. [31,32]) and

other publicly available information sources (e.g. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter, HyWeb) on hydrogen, reveals this mostly to be true.8 Prior awareness of fuel cells was also found to increase the probability of supporting the introduction of H2 vehicles by 2.6%, while knowledge about the causes of climate change increased the likelihood of support by 3% (although this is only signicant at the 10% level). Thus, it appears that prior knowledge is very strongly related to the likelihood of supporting H2 vehicles. This is not surprising, as individuals would require some prior awareness or knowledge about the issue, before giving an opinion. The fact that the tendency is to support H2 vehicles on the basis of existing knowledge is probably due to the positive nature of the available information, as mentioned above. Interestingly, socioeconomic factors were not found to be signicant predictors of the likelihood of acceptance of H2 vehicles. Overall, the H2SUPP model is signicant at the 0.1% level ( 2 statistic) and has a fairly high explanatory power when compared to similar models as evidenced by a pseudo-R 2 of 0.22.
8 An alternative explanation that was considered was that individuals with prior knowledge might be biased towards hydrogen due to a personal interest in the area. However, we found that only one-tenth of respondents (those whose H2 information source was intrinsic to their work or personal interests) could be classed as having knowledge based on a personal interest in the area. Support levels for this subgroup were not signicantly different from those whose personal interest could arguably be classed as weaker (those whose information sources were TV, newspapers or radio).

656 Table 5 Logit regression estimates Variables

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

Coefcient estimate for hydrogen 0.02 0.171 0.011 0.427 2.051 0.804 0.232 0.280 0.487 3.59 vehicles (H2SUPP) (n = 362)

t-ratio 0.4 0.61 1.02 1.50 7.44 2.67 1.48 1.84 1.67 3.97

Marginal effect (%)

Factors inuencing support YADJ MALE AGE UNIVEDUC H2KNOW FCKNOW ENVTATT TECHNATT ENVKNOW Constant Pseudo-R 2 0.22 104.73 LR 2 (9)

*** **

* *** ***

0.06 0.48 0.02 0.92 12.49 2.61 1.39 1.81 3.05

Factors inuencing prior knowledge of hydrogen vehicles (H2KNOW) (n = 362) YADJ 0.018 MALE 0.729 *** AGE 0.014 UNIVEDUC 0.652 *** FCKNOW 0.655 ** ENVTATT 0.151 TECHNATT 0.241 * ENVKNOW 0.519 ** Constant 3.29 ** Pseudo-R 2 0.10 50.06 *** LR 2 (8) Factors inuencing prior knowledge of fuel cell vehicles (FCKNOW) (n = 362) YADJ 0.069 MALE 1.387 *** AGE 0.031 *** UNIVEDUC 0.234 ** H2KNOW 0.658 ** ENVTATT 0.072 TECHNATT 0.004 ENVKNOW 0.284 Constant 3.473 *** Pseudo-R 2 0.15 LR 2 (8) 63.50 *** Factors inuencing prior knowledge of hydrogen & fuel cell (H2FCKNOW) (n = 362) YADJ 0.080 MALE 2.180 *** AGE 0.028 ** UNIVEDUC 1.057 *** ENVTATT 0.120 TECHNATT 0.009 ENVKNOW 0.407 Constant 5.571 *** Pseudo-R 2 0.21 LR 2 (7) 71.38 *** * Signicant at 10% level; ** signicant at 5% level; *** signicant at 1% level.

0.42 2.99 1.61 2.66 2.42 1.11 1.82 2.02 4.14

0.07 3.38 0.08 3.03 2.74 0.90 1.82 4.48

1.44 5.05 3.05 0.83 2.43 0.48 0.03 0.98 3.92

0.27 6.83 0.26 0.76 2.53 0.16 0.01 1.39

1.44 5.84 2.31 3.12 0.67 0.05 1.22 5.01

0.04 1.99 0.03 0.65 0.07 0.00 0.34

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

657

Given the strong inuence of prior awareness about H2 on the likelihood of supporting H2 vehicles, it was considered of interest to identify the drivers of existing knowledge about H2 . Thus, a logit regression on H2KNOW was carried out and results are also presented in Table 5.9 Here we found a strong link between gender and likelihood of knowing about H2 as a fuel for transport, such that men are 3.4% more likely than women to have heard about H2 vehicles. It is tentatively suggested that this relationship may be due to a greater male interest in transport technologies and fuels, although there is no data in this study to support this claim. University education was also found to have a strong positive inuence on the probability of having prior knowledge about H2 vehicles. This is not unexpected, as increased knowledge will tend to be linked to increased education levels. Hence, contrary to the results of the previous model, socio-economic factors are seen to be signicant determinants of H2 knowledge. Additionally, awareness of FCs and environmental knowledge also had a signicant positive inuence on the likelihood of knowing about H2 as a fuel for transport. A further logit regression was run on FCKNOW, in order to understand whether the variables that determined the likelihood of knowing about H2 vehicles also determined the likelihood of knowing about FCs. As results in Table 5 show, the probability of knowing about FC vehicles was determined by gender, age and awareness about H2 as a fuel for transport. Perhaps surprisingly, the only variable to similarly inuence the regressions on H2KNOW and FCKNOW is gender, such that men are more likely to know about these technologies/fuels than women. In contrast to the previous model, age was found to be a signicant determinant of FCs awareness; interpretation of the marginal effects revealed that for each extra 10 years in a respondents age, the likelihood of knowing about fuel cell technologies increased by 2.6%. Although the impact is small, it is unexpected, considering that age had no bearing on the likelihood of knowing about H2 transport. In the nal regression (H2FCKNOW), the determinants of knowledge about both H2 and FCs (one-fth of the sample) were identied as gender, age and university education. These variables all have a positive inuence on knowledge, such that older men with university education are most likely to know about H2 FC vehicles. Overall, it is interesting to note that environmental attitudes are shown to have no signicant inuence on either support for H2 vehicles, knowledge of H2 or knowledge of fuel cells. On the other hand, environmental knowledgenamely, knowing about the causes of climate changeappeared to inuence both knowledge and support
9 In order to test for multicollinearity, correlation coefcients were calculated for H2KNOW and H2SUPP (corr coeff = 0.4), and H2KNOW and FCKNOW (corr coeff = 0.24). These values were considered low enough to keep the regressors in the specied models.

for H2 vehicles (albeit only at the 10% level), although it had no inuence on knowledge about FC vehicles. These results suggest that general environmental attitudes are not good predictors of specic attitudes or awareness towards cleaner transport technologies. However, there is some indication that sound environmental knowledge may exert a positive inuence on hydrogen awareness and acceptability.

5. Discussion and policy implications In this study, we conducted a survey-based quantitative investigation of public awareness and acceptability of H2 vehicles among London residents. The analysis constitutes a departure from the existing limited literature on the subject, which has been mostly exploratory and unrepresentative. We found that public concerns with H2 safety are not as signicant as many experts in the eld of H2 transport have believed (e.g. [3,5,8]). Only 20% of all free-associations people made when confronted with the word hydrogen were negative and related to safety concerns or explosiveness. While some 22% of associations were clearly positive (and related to cleaner fuels), for most people hydrogen tended to be considered in neutral terms (a chemical, a fuel, etc.). Furthermore, only one respondent out of a total of 414 opposed the introduction of hydrogen vehicles in London, on safety grounds. To some extent, these ndings should reassure experts and policy makers who tend to regard safety as a key issue in securing public acceptability of H2 fuel and associated technology. The study also showed a current general lack of awareness about H2 and FC transport, amongst London residents, just prior to the introduction of a small-scale trial involving H2 FC buses (with no major information campaigns having taken place). Less than 50% of respondents had heard about H2 vehicles, less than 30% had heard about FC vehicles while just under 20% had heard about both H2 and FC transport. Notably, prior knowledge of H2 , although not widespread, emerged as the main determinant of support for the introduction of H2 vehicles (with socio-economic variables having no signicant inuence on H2 support). Although this might be interpreted as if awareness is a positive determinant for acceptability, it is suggested that this relationship reects the nature of the information available at present. One of the key determinants of attitudes is information about the attitude-object [13]; thus positive information is more likely to generate a positive attitude, whilst negative information is more likely to generate a negative attitude towards the attitude-object. As a cursory overview of H2 facts and gures available in the public domain reveals (e.g. [1,2,31,32]), information seems to be mostly of a positive nature. Hence attitudes may have been formed by positive views expressed in these articles. If indeed, the publicly available information were mostly negative, support levels may be lower. Social psychologists have often suggested that attitudes are easier

658

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659

to form than to change [13]. The fact that three-fths of respondents said they would need more information when asked for their opinion on H2 vehicles indicates that potentially an additional 60% of the London population might in the future support H2 transport. However, these 60% might also potentially oppose H2 transport, if negative information reaches them rst. Existing knowledge about both H2 and fuel cell vehicles appeared to be consistently determined by gender. This strong relationship suggests that there is a greater interest or involvement of men in the elds of new transport technologies and/or fuels (a fairly reasonable suggestion!). What is interesting however is that, apart from the inuence of gender, the determinants of knowledge of H2 vehicles and of FC vehicles were seen to be rather different. Knowledge about H2 vehicles was more likely among universityeducated men with environmental knowledge; knowledge about FC vehicles was more likely among older men; and knowledge about both H2 and FCs was most likely amongst older, university-educated men. It is tentatively suggested that the reason for these different inuences may be that information about hydrogen often appears in different media to information about fuel cells. If this is indeed the case, and considering that different groups of people access and use information from different sources, then it becomes apparent why men who know about H2 vehicles have different characteristics to men who know about fuel cells (and also, to those who know about both). Unfortunately a limitation of this study is that the survey did not differentiate between respondents sources of information on hydrogen and sources of information on fuel cells, hence this suggestion cannot be veried. We also found that agreement with the statement Solving environmental problems should be one of the top 3 priorities for public spending in London had no signicant inuence on either support for H2 vehicles, knowledge of H2 or knowledge of fuel cells. This suggests that general environmental attitudes are not good predictors of specic attitudes or awareness towards cleaner transport technologies. Any public information campaigns to raise awareness of H2 transport and related technology should therefore deal specically with H2 rather than have more generalistic environmental goals. On the other hand, sound environmental knowledgenamely, knowing about the causes of climate changedid appear to inuence both knowledge and support for H2 vehicles. Overall it appears that there is a strong need to raise awareness among the London public specically about hydrogen and fuel cells, as this seems to be key to public acceptance of H2 -based technologies (as also noted by Schulte et al. [8] and Eggerston [33]). Further research should therefore investigate the extent and quality of existing public knowledge about H2 transport and related technology and its relationship with the source, type and quantity of information available. Further work is also warranted on how to optimise the presentation of information to the majority of

respondents (60% in our study) who are likely to need more information before constructing an opinion on H2 and FC transport. We showed that hydrogen awareness is related to gender, age, education and environmental knowledge: information therefore needs to be presented differentially (in type and source) in order to best reach the community it intends to inform. It must be noted that this study is subject to certain limitations: rstly, it only investigates generic attitudes towards the introduction of H2 vehicles in London. Intention to use and/or willingness to pay for H2 vehicles were not addressed here. These questions are addressed in another paper specically with regards to the large-scale introduction of H2 buses in London [34]. Information on trade-offs that the public would be willing to make between different attributes, such as price, performance and environmental quality were also not explored. This is an area that warrants future research. Finally, as noted earlier, results should be interpreted with caution due to sample bias towards educated and high income respondents.

Acknowledgements We thank David Hart, Marcello Contestabile, Lisa Garrity, Simon Whitehouse, Matthias Altmann, Cornelia Graesel and Anne Stevcevski for valuable collaboration in the design of the core questionnaire. We also thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the paper. We also acknowledge nancial support from the European Union under the ACCEPTH2 project (Contract No. ENK5-CT-2002-80653).

References
[1] Rifkin J. The hydrogen economy: the creation of the worldwide energy web and the redistribution of power on earth. J. P. Tarcher, 2002. [2] Hoffman I. Tomorrows energy: hydrogen, fuel cells and the prospects for a cleaner planet. Cambridge, MA: USA: MIT Press; 2002. [3] Foley J. H2 : Driving the future. London, UK: IPPR; 2001. p. 50. [4] Joffe D, Hart D, Bauen A. Modelling of hydrogen infrastructure for vehicles refuelling in London. J Power Sources 2004;131(12):1322. [5] Adamson K-A, Pearson P. Hydrogen and methanol: a comparison of safety, economics, efciencies and emissions. J Power Sources 2000;86(12):54855. [6] Ogden JM. Developing an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles: a Southern California case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1999;24(8):70930. [7] Nicoletti G. The hydrogen option for energy: a review of technical, environmental and economic aspects. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1996;20(10):75965. [8] Schulte I, Hart D, Van der Vorst R. Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2004;29(7):67785.

T. OGarra et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 649 659 [9] Rip. Introduction of new technology: recent insights from sociology and economy of technology. Netherlands, University of Twente, 1993. [10] Mackenzie Da, Wajcman J. The social shaping of technology. How the refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1985. [11] Shove E. Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy 1998;26(15):1051112. [12] Bauer M. Resistance to new technologies. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1995. p. 422. [13] Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL, USA: Harcourt College Publishers; 1993. p. 794. [14] Mourato S, Saynor B, Hart D. Greening Londons black cabs: a study of drivers preferences for fuel cell taxis. Energy Policy 2004;32(5):68595. [15] Lossen U, Armbruster M, Horn S, Kraus P, Schich K. Einussfaktoren auf den Markterfolg von wasserstoffbetriebenen Fahrzeugen (Factors inuencing the market success of vehicles powered by hydrogen). Expert verlag, 2003. [16] Dinse G. Akzeptanz von wasserstoffbetriebenen FahrzeugenEine Studie ber die Verwendung eines neuen und ungewohnten Kraftstoffs. Institut fr Mobilittsforschung (ifmo-Studien), 2000. [17] Dinse G. Wasserstoffahrzeuge und ihr FunktionsraumEine Analyse der technischen, politisch-rechtlichen und sozialen Dimensionen. Technische Universitt Berlin (in cooperation with Institut fr Mobilittsforschung (ifmo)), 1999. [18] Altmann M, Graesel C. The acceptance of hydrogen technologies. Report for the HyWeb. LBST, Germany, 1998. [19] Ewing GO, Sarigll E. Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transport Res Part D 1998;3(6):42944. [20] Segal R. Forecasting the market for electric vehicles in California using conjoint analysis. Energy J 1995;16(3): 89107. [21] Kurani KS, Turrentine T, Sperling D. Testing electric vehicle demand in hybrid households using a reexive survey. Transport Res Part D 1996;1:13150. [22] Kurani KS, Sperling D, Lipman T, Stanger D, Turrentine T, Stein A. Household markets for neighbourhood electric

659

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26] [27] [28]

[29]

[30]

[31] [32] [33]

[34]

vehicles in California (executive summary). Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-95-6, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Prepared for Calstart NEV Market Study, 1995. Turrentine T, Sperling D, Kurani K. Market potential of electric and natural gas vehicles. Research Report UCD-ITSRR-92-8, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1992. Chiu Y-C, Tzeng G-H. The market acceptance of electric motorcycles in Taiwan experience through a stated preference analysis. Transport Res Part D 1999;4:12746. Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Golob TF, Ren W. A transactions choice model for forecasting demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. In: McMullen S, editor. Research in Transportation Economics. vol. 4. 1996. p. 87129. Sperling D, Setiawan W, Hungerford D. The target market for methanol fuel. Transport Res Part A 1995;29(1):3345. Dougherty C. Introduction to econometrics. 2nd ed, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001. ONS. In: Causer P, Williams T (editors). Region in gures: London, Summer ed. London: Ofce for National Statistics; 2004. National Statistics, Census 2001. London, http://www. statistics.gov.uk/census2001/proles/h.asp (Accessed 20th August 2004). Spash CL. Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for environmental valuation. J Environ Manage 1997;50:40316. Dodson S. All aboard the hydrogen bus. The Guardian. Thursday, October 30th, 2003. Schwartz P, Randall D. How hydrogen can save America. Wired, Issue 11.04 April 2003. Eggerston B. Raising awareness: key to public understanding and acceptance of renewable hydrogen. Refocus, November/December 2003. p. 5859. OGarra T, Mourato S. Public preferences for hydrogen buses: comparing OLS and quantile regression approaches. EAERE, 2004. 13th Annual conference of the European association of environmental and resource economics, Budapest, Hungary, June 2528, 2004.