i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Identification of public acceptance factors with risk

perception scales on hydrogen fueling stations in
Japan

Kyoko Ono*, Kiyotaka Tsunemi

Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology, 16-1 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8569, Japan

article info abstract

Article history: This is the first work to describe the characteristics of public acceptance of hydrogen
Received 8 December 2016 stations (H2 station) in Japan using risk perception scales. We conducted an online survey
Received in revised form asking respondents to rate their acceptance of having an H2 station constructed in the gas
21 February 2017 station nearest their home. Sixty-six percent of respondents indicated a high rate of
Accepted 5 March 2017 acceptance, with males tending to be more accepting than females, irrespective of age. We
Available online 28 March 2017 found the following to be explanatory factors for acceptance: gender, degree, vehicle use,
knowledge about hydrogen, risk perception of H2 station, and inherent risk acceptance and
Keywords: avoidance. Binominal regression analysis was used to construct an acceptance model, and
Dread factor the risk perception factor “Dread” was dominant among the effective independent vari-
Hydrogen fueling stations ables. This suggests that alleviating inherent dread or fear by providing precise risk in-
Public acceptance formation will lead to better acceptance. Our study contributes to improved risk
Risk perception communication on H2 station construction.
Unknown factor © 2017 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

facilities, perhaps even having a vaguely negative view

Introduction
Hydrogen is considered a promising fuel, because hydrogen-
driven vehicles, including fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), can
potentially reduce the negative effects of fossil fuel in trans-
port. FCVs do not exhaust air pollutants in the process of
driving. If the hydrogen is produced as a by-product of the
petrol refinery process, emission of carbon dioxide will be
reduced in the total lifecycle of driving FCVs.
Introducing the hydrogen fueling infrastructure, such as
hydrogen fueling stations (H2 station) to the public is indis-
pensable in a society in which FCVs are to be commonly used.
However, people may be apprehensive about such new
regarding accidents, such as hydrogen explosions caused by
hydrogen gas leaking from those facilities. Thus, public
acceptance and consensus must be a key point of the suc-
cessful introduction of H2 stations to the public [1]. Deter-
mining the factors that make people supportive of or resistant
to H2 stations could enable policy makers to develop policies
that receive public support. Furthermore, the results will help
improve the quality of the information provided to the public
facing emerging technology and related policy decisions.
A few public perception surveys on hydrogen technology
have been conducted in nationwide hydrogen technology
promotion projects, such as the AcceptH2 initiative in the U.K.
[2] and the DOE hydrogen program spearheaded by the U.S.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kyoko.ono@aist.go.jp (K. Ono).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.021
0360-3199/© 2017 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10698 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7
Department of Energy [3]. Ricci et al. reviewed the public
perception of hydrogen [4], and the results of a public
perception survey have been reported, including FCV and H2
stations [5e19]. Schmidt et al. summarized a variety of studies
that identified a lack of awareness and knowledge regarding
hydrogen technology; however, they found that general
hydrogen acceptance was nevertheless high [20]. Some of the
reviewed studies were simple social surveys gauging accep-
tance of hydrogen technology [5,9,12,15,16]. They analyzed
relationships between the tendency toward acceptance and
knowledge level and perception of hydrogen and/or H2 sta-
tions. Some studies quantitatively examined the de-
terminants of being in favor of or against a hydrogen refueling
facility in the European region [6,10,11,13,14,17e19]. These
European studies investigated the factors behind citizens'
intention to act a given way towards a hydrogen refueling
facility. Policy makers can benefit from early knowledge of
how people will respond, and thus prior to actual observable
behavior, it is useful to study intention to act.
Huijts et al. defined acceptance as behavior towards energy
technologies, and acceptability as an attitude. They con-
tended that acceptance reflects behavior that enables or pro-
motes the use of a technology, rather than inhibiting or
demoting its use [21]. They constructed a risk-acceptance
model and described the structure of such acceptance. Their
model included cognitive determinants of acceptance (e.g.,
perceived benefits and risks), along with affective factors such
as positive and negative feelings of fear, satisfaction or trust
[6]. This model has been deemed effective because it explains
the characteristics of risk acceptance simply [6,14,17].
In Japan, surveys inquiring whether or not respondents
were agreeable toward the introduction of H2 stations, as well
as their understanding and perceptions about hydrogen and
FCVs, were conducted in 2008, 2009 and 2015 [7]. Thus, the
surveys could report the change in percentage of supporters
over time. The results showed that people were gaining
knowledge about H2 stations, but there was not an observed
change in their perception of risks or benefits [7]. They did not
discuss the risk perception characteristics associated with H2
stations.
The aims of this study were to characterize risk perception
of H2 stations and to analyze acceptance of H2 stations by
classifying people according to attributes such as knowledge
of hydrogen and risk perception characteristics. This paper
contains: (1) a summary of the ratio of people in the Japanese
public who feel supportive of H2 station construction and
those who oppose it; and (2) a characterization of the risk
perception of those groups using psychological factors in
addition to demographic attributes.
Methods
Outline of survey
Selection of respondents of online survey
Survey respondents were panelists (male and female, 18 years
or older, who live in various parts of Japan) of MACROMILL
Inc., a Japanese marketing research company. MACROMILL
had 1,150,000 panelists as of January 2013, covered by
prescribed “Personal information protection management
systemsdRequirements (JIS Q15001).” MACROMILL removed
all individual information from the dataset and that we used
in the analysis.
About 2000 or more respondents were selected from all
panelists using a stratified random sampling method. First, we
chose potential respondents proportionally from the number
of people within each of eight administrative regions (1.
Hokkaido, 2. Tohoku, 3. Kanto, 4. Chubu, 5. Kinki, 6. Chugoku,
7. Shikoku, 8. Kyushu), with consideration given to sex and age
(20e29, 30e39, 40e49, 50e59, 60þ) based on the Population
Census 2013. The respondents selected by the stratified
random sampling were considered representative of the Jap-
anese population.
We decided beforehand that the ratio of males should be in
the range of 0.3e0.7, because adjustment of the sex ratio was
impossible considering the home region and age of potential
respondents. There was no upper limit for respondent age.
However, it was difficult to select respondents' age
70þ according to the real proportion of this population,
because panelists of that age were scarce. Therefore, the
proportion of respondents over 60 years of age was repre-
sented by the proportion of the population 60e69, but the re-
spondents over 60 years of age included both ages 60e69 and
70þ. A total of 2069 people participated in the survey.
Questions about respondents' characteristics
Each panelist was asked in advance to participate in this
questionnaire by e-mail; we informed respondents that the
questionnaire was strictly voluntarily and that they were free
to decline. To reduce susceptibility to fatigue, we sought to
keep the amount of time needed to complete the survey to
under 15 min. In consideration of the ethical and human
rights of the individuals, we did not ask for personally iden-
tifiable information or medical histories.
The survey was conducted in January 2014. During the
survey period (1.5 days), we received 2069 valid responses
from approximately 10,000 email invitations sent to potential
respondents as a screening, for a response rate of 20%. For
respondents younger than 60 years, while the gender ratios
and age distribution reflected the actual demographics of re-
spondents' residential areas, the gender ratios of each specific
age varied because of disparity in the ages of monitor mem-
bers. The number of respondents 60 years or older was less
than the actual corresponding age structure due to constraints
arising from the absolute number of monitor members. The
number of valid responses from people aged 70þ was 49.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic attributes and living
situations of respondents. Respondents were asked questions
regarding their age, educational attainment, household
annual income, number of children (under 18 years old)
residing with them, housing type (detached or multi-family),
vehicle ownership, frequency of automobile usage per week,
distance from their home to the nearest gas station (GS), and
frequency of public transportation usage per week.
Question on acceptance of H2 stations
First, respondents were provided with written qualitative in-
formation regarding “What are hydrogen stands?” and “How
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7 10699

from possible responses: “I have never heard of that”, “I have

Table 1 e Characteristics of respondents (N ¼ 2069).
heard the name before”, or “I know it well and can explain it to
Female (%) 51.9 others”; the answers were scored as 1, 2, and 3 points,
Mean of age (S.D.) 43.1 (12.8)
respectively. The mean value for all respondents' scores is
Age distribution (%)
presented under “Energy-knowledge” in Table 2.
18e29 15.5
30e39 26.1 Respondents were then asked nine questions about the
40e49 28.0 characteristics of hydrogen and hydrogen energy from the
50e59 18.3 information provided to them. The first was (1) Have you
60þ 12.1 heard about hydrogen energy? [The alternative “Yes, and I can
Regional distribution (%) explain simply how to use hydrogen energy.” was regarded as
Hokkaido 4.5
a correct response.]; (2) Is hydrogen harmful to humans?
Tohoku 7.4
Kanto 33.2
[Correct answer: No]; (3) Is hydrogen lighter or heavier than
Chubu 18.2 air? [Lighter]; (4) Does hydrogen smell? [No]; (5) Is hydrogen
Kinki 16.1 flammable in air? [Yes]; (6) Does hydrogen need other energy
Chugoku 5.9 to be used as energy? [Yes]; (7) Can hydrogen be stored as an
Shikoku 3.2 immersed form by others? [Yes]; (8) Can hydrogen be stored as
Kyushu 11.4
liquid? [Yes]; and (9) Can hydrogen be stored as gas? [Yes]. The
Household income (millions yen)
mean value for respondents' total scores is listed under “H2-
0e2 6.8
2e4 20.5 knowledge” in Table 2.
4e6 22.0 Respondents were then asked (1) how strongly the
6e10 24.6 following items evoked hydrogen for them, (“a science pro-
>10 8.8 gram at a school”, “a fuel”, “an airship”, “a fuel cell” (five-point
Unknown 17.2 scale; H2-image); (2) whether they thought of hydrogen as
Higher degreea (%) 55.7
clean (five-point scale; H2-clean); (3) whether they think
Vehicle ownership (%) 80.5
hydrogen is dangerous for use in daily life (five-point scales;
Drive/use car (%)
once a week or more 65.9 H2-dangerous); and (4) whether they think hydrogen energy
less 34.1 technology effectively facilitates the following three out-
Public transportation use (%) comes: saving fossil fuel, mitigating global warming, and
once a week or more 33.9 resolving air pollution problems (five-point scales; H2-
less 66.1 promising technology). The total scores are listed in Table 2.
Living in detached house (%) 54.5
We asked participants about their awareness of environ-
Presence of child under 18 (%) 61.4
Distance to nearest gas station (%)
mental problems such as global warming, energy resource
<50 m 6.2 depletion, air pollution, and whether they thought mass
50e300 m 33.4 media was credible. These factors seemed important for
300 me1 km 37.3 explaining acceptance of a new technology, as suggested in
1e5 km 14.7 Huijts et al. [6,18]. Inquiries about awareness and credibility of
>5 km 1.2
mass media were based on work by the Mizuho Information &
Unknown 7.2
Research Institute, Inc. [22,23], and slightly modified for the
a
Respondents who graduated college, university or higher. following factor analysis. We asked respondents to indicate
the consistency of their thoughts on four-point scales (4:
strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; 1: strongly disagree). The
do they supply hydrogen?” (Fig. S1, in Supporting Informa- question items are listed in Table 3.
tion). Respondents were then asked to rate on a four-point
scale whether they would accept installation of an H2 sta-
tion under the following two scenarios: (1) A H2 station will be
installed in the existing GS nearest to your home (“Installation Table 2 e Summary of scores about knowledge and
in the GS scenario”); and (2) A station where both gasoline and images of energy, hydrogen and hydrogen technology.
hydrogen can be provided will be newly constructed near your Mean (SD)
home (“New construction scenario”). Respondents provided
Energy-knowledge (max; 21) 8.01 (3.42)
answers for both scenarios.
H2-knowledge (max; 9)a 5.07 (2.39)
Scientific degreeb (N ¼ 456) 6.15 (2.14)
Questions of knowledge and awareness of energy and Other degree and non-degree (N ¼ 1613) 4.81 (2.37)
environmental issues H2-image (max; 20) 13.76 (2.82)
H2-clean (max; 5) 3.46 (1.00)
As indicated by a previous study, knowledge about hydrogen H2-dangerous (max; 5) 3.20 (0.92)
H2-promising technology (max; 15) 11.12 (1.87)
and hydrogen technology is an important factor that affects
a
people's acceptance of H2 stations [4,13,14]. We asked re- 9 questions on characteristics of hydrogen and hydrogen energy
spondents about their knowledge of seven power generation were provided to the respondents. See the text.
b
Respondents who graduated from a scientific course at college or
systems: wind, nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, snow ice heat,
university (22% of total respondents).
geothermal, and wave power generation. Respondents chose
10700 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7

Question on risk perception, scale of risk acceptance, and
risk-avoiding tendencies
We provided respondents with a series of questions to char-
acterize risk perception on H2 stations. In risk perception
studies, a common approach is the use of psychophysical
scaling and multivariate procedures, such as factor analysis
[24]. In previous studies [24e26], characteristics of perceived
risk could be described by two underlying dimensions, i.e.,
“Dread” and the “Unknown”. According to Slovic, “Dread” was
defined by perceived lack of control, dread, catastrophic po-
tential, fatal consequences, etc., while “Unknown” was
defined by hazards judged to be unobservable, unknown, new,
and delayed in their manifestation of harm [24]. We followed
these definitions in this study. The question items are
included in Table 4; they were modified from the previous
study [27] to focus on the characteristics of H2 stations. We
asked respondents' thoughts, providing these questions in
four-point scales (4: strongly agree; 3: agree; 2: disagree; 1:
strongly disagree).
Similar to risk perception, respondents were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with
statements about the scale of risk acceptance (Table 5), and
risk-avoiding tendencies (Table 6). The scale of risk accep-
tance reflects the intrinsic psychological degree of risk
acceptance. Items were assessed using four-point scales to be
consistent with previous studies [27e29] (4: strongly agree; 3:
agree; 2: disagree; 1: strongly disagree). Since neutral points
were not provided, participants were required to choose
whether they agreed or disagreed. This has the advantage of
eliminating ambiguous answers. Questions about the scale of
risk acceptance and risk-avoidance tendencies were based on
previous questionnaires [28e31].
Statistical analysis
Factor analysis was conducted to extract factors based on the
datasets for the awareness of environmental problems, risk
perception of H2 stations, the risk acceptance scale, and the
orientation of risk avoidance, because we considered that
psychological factors would reflect the results from ques-
tionnaires. The maximum likelihood procedure was used,
followed by the promax rotation. Factors with an eigenvalue
of more than one were extracted. Factor scores were esti-
mated using the regression method. After obtaining eigen-
values, items of lower communalities (h2 < 0.3) were deleted,
and factor analysis was reiterated.
Stepwise binominal regression analysis was conducted to
construct a prediction model with significantly correlated
factors. At first, all parametric factors (shown in Table S1)

Table 3 e Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and factor loading matrix for awareness of environmental problems (i.e.,
global warming, energy resource depletion, air pollution) and credibility of mass media, and their interpretation. KMO,
0.82; P < 0.001 (Bartlett's test).
AMa SDa Factor 1b Factor 2b Factor 3b
You worry whether plenty of energy will be 3.14 0.68 0.840 0.155 0.044
supplied at low cost in the future.
Use of renewable energy should be accelerated 3.19 0.67 0.788 0.068 0.074
because fossil fuel is a limited natural resource.
Environmental problems are an important issue 3.11 0.66 0.742 0.015 0.014
that should be solved using taxpayer's money.
You worry about depletion of petroleum in the future. 3.04 0.74 0.635 0.073 0.062
Safety is the highest priority when we use 3.29 0.66 0.520 0.025 0.106
new technology.
Carbon dioxide emitted in daily life, which 3.04 0.68 0.441 0.345 0.136
results in global warming, should be
reduced by individual effort.
You are suspicious that global warming 2.08 0.86 0.201 ¡0.877 0.054
has actually happened.
You never care about air pollution because 3.07 0.73 0.035 0.507 0.233
you think that the air pollution
problem is exaggerated.
Countermeasures for global warming should 2.72 0.74 0.221 0.411 0.209
be given the highest priority among
environmental problems.
You trust government statements. 3.10 0.67 0.079 0.154 0.733
You trust newspaper articles. 2.83 0.71 0.009 0.118 0.642

Factor correlations Factor 1 e 0.617 0.053

Factor 2 e e 0.109
Eigenvalue 2.76 1.30 1.08
Cumulative contribution ratio (%) 25.0 36.8 46.7
Interpretation Positive for Negative for Trust for
problem solution problem solution mass media
a
AM: arithmetic mean. SD: standard deviation. 4-point Likert scale.
b
Factor loadings after promax rotation. Loadings >0.5 are shown in bold.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7 10701

Table 4 e Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and factor pattern loading for risk perception of H2 stations and their
interpretation. KMO, 0.92; P < 0.001 (Bartlett's test).
AMa SDa Factor 1b Factor 2b Factor 3b
I intuitively dread a hydrogen stand. 2.37 0.68 0.857 0.019 0.062
Accidents related to hydrogen stands will increase when 2.54 0.64 0.804 0.026 0.14
they become popular in society.
Irreparable damage will be caused by a hydrogen stand. 2.58 0.67 0.796 0.117 0.192
It is difficult to prevent accidents with hydrogen stands. 2.39 0.64 0.679 0.045 0.112
A hydrogen stand itself causes fear. 2.33 0.69 0.676 0.057 0.194
Reliability of the system is poor with a hydrogen stand. 2.38 0.64 0.529 0.031 0.245
An accident in a hydrogen stand has serious consequences 2.54 0.64 0.022 0.923 0.021
for its surroundings.
An accident in a hydrogen stand affects a wide area. 2.72 0.71 0.011 0.894 0.006
An accident in a hydrogen stand results in a large number of victims. 2.76 0.71 0.18 0.683 0.007
Even a small leak of hydrogen from a hydrogen stand should be averted. 2.63 0.77 0.184 0.335 0.242
The potential for accidents caused by a hydrogen stand is uncertain. 2.83 0.74 0.033 0.007 0.877
Damage caused by an accident related to the installation 2.86 0.76 0.132 0.037 0.806
of a hydrogen stand is uncertain.

Factor correlations Factor 1 e 0.552 0.350

Factor 2 e e 0.379
Eigenvalue 3.35 2.34 1.61
Cumulative contribution ratio (%) 27.9 47.4 60.8
Interpretation Dread Catastrophic Unknown
a
AM: arithmetic mean. SD: standard deviation. 4-point Likert scale.
b
Factor loadings after promax rotation. Loadings >0.5 are shown in bold.

Table 5 e Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and factor loading matrix for risk acceptance scale and their interpretation.
KMO, 0.82; P < 0.001 (Bartlett's test).
AMa SDa Factor 1b Factor 2b Factor 3b Factor 4b
You are careful in responding to anything. 2.85 0.64 0.746 0.084 0.114 0.092
You always want to play it safe. 3.07 0.65 0.687 0.067 0.066 0.034
You are careful not to fail at anything you do. 2.77 0.65 0.625 0.118 0.102 0.134
You never approach dangerous places. 2.81 0.73 0.578 0.126 0.128 0.12
You do not start with difficult problems before 2.78 0.64 0.562 0.109 0.110 0.025
having comprehensive visions.
You dislike anything scary. 2.78 0.77 0.515 0.185 0.147 0.204
You continue to take risks without quitting, 2.40 0.72 0.106 0.851 0.097 0.075
even if it does not go smoothly.
Difficult problems are challenging. 2.59 0.73 0.055 0.825 0.098 0.024
You like the challenge of something new. 2.43 0.73 0.03 0.685 0.042 0.047
When you find challenging things, 2.87 0.67 0.116 0.383 0.077 0.293
you start them soon.
All events include some risks. 2.76 0.66 0.114 0.156 0.774 0.044
You accept some risks if you obtain benefits. 2.57 0.68 0.128 0.055 0.711 0.042
Society is comprised of a mixture of 2.88 0.62 0.181 0.055 0.618 0.034
dangers and safety.
Life is what keeps on the right side of dangers. 2.66 0.72 0.04 0.284 0.375 0.051
You take a risk without considering your ability. 2.90 0.69 0.013 0.07 0.037 0.76
Some say that you are daredevil. 3.02 0.67 0.053 0.065 0.045 0.758

Factor correlations Factor 1 e 0.171 0.114 0.291

Factor 2 e e 0.571 0.427
Factor 3 e e e 0.267
Eigenvalue 2.41 2.12 1.64 1.39
Cumulative contribution ratio (%) 15.1 28.3 38.6 47.3
Interpretation Chariness Challenging Balance Reckless
(reversed) (reversed) (reversed)
a
AM: arithmetic mean. SD: standard deviation. 4-point Likert scale.
b
Factor loadings after promax rotation. Loadings >0.5 are shown in bold.
10702 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7

were included in the model. These variables were then
selected according to AIC. Factor analyses were performed
with the psych package in R [32]. Calculation of Spearman's
correlation factors and the regression analysis were per-
formed with calculation by R [32].
Results
Respondents' knowledge and existing image of hydrogen
and hydrogen technology
Table 2 shows the results for questions about familiarity with
seven power-generation systems, and knowledge and images
of hydrogen and hydrogen technology. In terms of knowledge
about hydrogen, mean scores are shown for respondents with
a scientific degree, a non-scientific degree, and no degree.
Respondents with a scientific degree had higher scores than
the other two groups, indicating the former tend to have more
correct knowledge about hydrogen.
Ratio of acceptance for H2 station
We obtained quantitative data on the acceptance of H2
stations, after general information on H2 stations was pro-
vided to respondents. Fig. 1 shows the percentages for those
who agree/disagree under the Installation in the GS sce-
nario. We classified those who answered, the question with
“Agree” and “Agree somewhat” as people “who feel sup-
portive for installation of H2 stations”. The ratio of this
category (feel supportive) was 66.0%. More than half of re-
spondents had a positive image of H2 stations. Supporters'
ratio for New construction scenario was 62.6%, similar to the
Installation in the GS scenario. We analyzed the answer to
the question that “Do you agree with the H2 station under
the Installation in the GS scenario?” in detail in the following
analyses.
Factor analysis and integration of factors
We executed factor analyses for awareness concerning envi-
ronmental issues (Table 3), risk perceptions on H2 stations
(Table 4), scale of risk acceptance (Table 5), and risk-avoidance
tendency (Table 6). All factor analyses showed Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) values of 0.82e0.92 in terms of sampling ade-
quacy, and P < 0.001 (Bartlett's test) for exhibiting reliable es-
timates. Factor loadings were equivalent to the strength of
correlations between the factor and the variables that
contributed to the factor [24].
As shown in Table 3, we provided question items on
awareness of global warming, energy resource depletion, air
pollution and credibility on mass media. Three factors labeled
“Positive for problem solution”, “Negative for problem solu-
tion”, and “Trust for mass media” were selected by the factor
analysis.
Table 4 shows the three factors extracted with high factor
loadings on risk perceptions of H2 stations. In previous studies,
risk perception was well explained by two factors, i.e., “Dread”
and “Unknown” [24]. However, this study showed that it is
reasonable to postulate a third factor, called “Catastrophic”.
This factor had a larger eigenvalue than the “Unknown” factor.
Rosa and Matsuda demonstrated the validity of assuming the
“Catastrophic” factor as a latent explanation factor in a struc-
tured model [33]. We believe the survey questions were
appropriate for extracting the characteristics of interest. This
might have been due to the common inherent image of a
hydrogen accident, which is that of an instantaneous, massive
explosion. As for hydrogen explosion hazard, people will easily
imagine an instant hazard, but had difficulty imagining a lag-
ged hazard. This might be why Unknown was a weaker factor.
Another explanation is that hydrogen explosion is an instant
phenomenon; thus, there is no delay of effect.
As for the scale of risk acceptance, four factors, called
“Chariness”, “Challenging”, “Balance” and “Reckless were
extracted (Table 5). In terms of the tendency toward risk-

Table 6 e Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and factor pattern loading for risk avoidance scale and their interpretation.
KMO, 0.85; P < 0.001 (Bartlett's test).
AMa SDa Factor 1b Factor 2b
You worry about big accidents on airplanes and buses. 2.31 0.84 0.877 0.139
You fear nothing in comparison to your friends. 2.63 0.79 0.735 0.128
You often worry that you will be visited by a natural 2.43 0.78 0.551 0.141
disaster such as an earthquake, a flood, or a thunderbolt.
You mind the seat with high mortality rates when you take 2.02 0.75 0.359 0.269
cars or highway express buses.
You rarely eat food with additives and artificial coloring. 2.41 0.81 0.175 0.71
You take care about health. 2.79 0.72 0.221 0.685
You confirm escape door when you stay at hotels. 2.02 0.75 0.079 0.546
You worry if you do not check the locks and fire hazards 2.69 0.86 0.145 0.465
before you sleep.
You consider safety against fire when you select a house. 2.59 0.76 0.33 0.392

Factor correlations Factor 1 e 0.628

Eigenvalue 3.35 2.34
Cumulative contribution ratio (%) 27.9 47.4
Interpretation Fear of disaster Keep healthy
or accidents life
a
AM: arithmetic mean. SD: standard deviation. 4-point Likert scale.
b
Factor loadings after promax rotation. Loadings >0.5 are shown in bold.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7 10703

supporters and individual factors. Demographic attributes and

Fig. 1 e Percentages of those who agree/disagree with
installation of an H2 station in the existing gas station
nearest to their home (Installation in the GS scenario,
N ¼ 2069).
avoidance, two factors called “Fear of disaster or accidents”
and “Keep healthy life” were extracted (Table 6).
Relationship between ratio of supporters and factors in
relation to respondents' attributes and risk perception
characteristics
social factors were weaker explanation factors. We found no
significant differences based on age, although a significant
difference was observed between men and women. Psycho-
logical factors clearly explained H2 station acceptance. There
was a significant difference between the higher score group
and lower score group for risk perceptions on H2 station and
scale of risk acceptance (Fig. 3). Acceptance of the former group
was 82%, while that of the latter was 48% in terms of the Dread
factor. Regarding the acceptance of H2 stations, previous
research [7] pointed out that the intention to accept H2 stations
is generally influenced by the degree of anxiety about the
associated systems (e.g., reliability of the technology and pos-
sibility/types of accidents), which can lead to lower acceptance.
Our study indicates a similar tendency in the intention to
accept H2 stations with qualitative explanation factors.

In addition to demographic attributes, psychological factors H2 station acceptance model

obtained in the previous section (Factor analysis and
integration of factors) helped explain H2 station acceptance. A logit regression model was constructed to identify stronger
Figs. 2 and 3 show the relationship between the ratio of factors for explaining acceptance under the Installation in the

Fig. 2 e Relationship between ratio of supporters for the installation of H2 stations at the gas station nearest to their home
and demographic factors. a: respondents who graduated college, university or higher were classified as “Higher”, others
were “Lower”. b: respondents who graduated from a scientific course at college or university were classified as “Yes” (22% of
all respondents). c: respondents who live in Tokyo Metropolitan or the other government-designated city were classified as
“Urban”. Respondents who live in cities with >300,000 population were classified as “Middle”, and others were “Rural”. d:
respondents who use vehicle more than once a week were classified as “More”, and the others were “Less”. * Significant at
5% level; ** Significant at 1% level; *** Significant at 0.1% level.
10704 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7

Fig. 3 e Relationship between ratio of supporters for the installation of H2 stations at the gas station nearest to their home
and knowledge and image of hydrogen, and psychological factors. Higher: group who had higher score than average; Lower:
group who had lower score than average. * Significant at 5% level; ** Significant at 1% level; *** Significant at 0.1% level.

Table 7 e Result of stepwise logit regression analysis (N ¼ 2069). Dependent variable: acceptance of H2 station with binary
transformation.
Independent variable Standardized b estimates (SE) z value
(Intercept) 1.445 (0.589) 2.46 *

Living area 0.066 (0.040) 1.63

Vehicle use 0.077 (0.028) 2.78 **

H2-knowledge 0.136 (0.025) 5.54 ***

H2-Clean 0.249 (0.060) 4.13 ***
H2-promising technology 0.068 (0.047) 1.46

Positive for problem solution 0.386 (0.091) 4.25 ***

Negative for problem solution 0.375 (0.093) 4.01 ***
Trust for mass media 0.206 (0.068) 3.05 **

Unknown 0.217 (0.084) 2.57 *

Dread 1.281 (0.100) 12.81 ***

Reckless 0.112 (0.066) 1.69 .

Balance 0.172 (0.070) 2.44 *

Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) 0.300

. Significant at 10% level; * Significant at 5% level; ** Significant at 1% level; *** Significant at 0.1% level.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7
GS scenario (Table 7). We set acceptance of H2 station as the
dependent variable with binary transformation, i.e., “Agree”
and “Agree somewhat” indicated “acceptable”, and “Disagree
somewhat” and “Disagree” indicated “unacceptable”. Inde-
pendent variables were selected by AIC. Pseudo R2 was 0.3.
Among the effective independent variables, “Dread” was
the dominant factor, for which b was the largest. This means
that alleviating inherent dread or fear by providing correct
images or precise risk information will create better accep-
tance of H2 stations. Information is needed on the charac-
teristics of hydrogen, scale of potential explosions, and
protection measures against heat or explosion. People tend
to have an image of a hydrogen explosion as an instant,
explicit hazard accompanied by heavy injury. “Unknown”
was again a weaker explanation factor. This is because
people recognized that delayed adverse effects do not occur
by accident. Awareness of environmental problem solution
(“Positive for problem solution” and “Negative for problem
solution”) seemed be effective factors due to largeness of the
b value.
Discussion
This is the first comprehensive survey on H2 station accep-
tance in the Japanese public to explore factors affecting
acceptance in view of not only demographic attributes but also
psychological perception. Sixty-six percent of respondents
were open to accepting H2 stations. Respondents' tendency to
accept the technology or not was well explained by psycho-
logical factors. There was a significant difference between the
higher score group and lower score group for risk perception of
H2 stations and scale of risk acceptance. Acceptance in the
former group was 82%, while that in the latter was 48% in
terms of the Dread factor (Fig. 3). This finding was not
consistent with results of studies conducted in the EU or US,
where safety concerns were relatively low, and hydrogen was
regarded to be as safe as gasoline or diesel fuel [3,20]. The
survey results suggest that providing more information on H2
stations to address public fear will be an effective approach to
convincing people that hydrogen technology is feasible.
We analyzed degree of flaming effect, which is one of
cognitive bias in which people choose inconsistent answers
when asked the same thing in opposite ways, such as “Do you
think it is good?” or “Do you think it is problematic?” [34] We
provided two types of question regarding H2 station accep-
tance, i.e., “Do you agree with the installation of H2 stations?”,
and “Do you feel the installation of H2 stations is problem-
atic?” For the latter question, 24.4% and 28.3% of respondents
answered “Problematic somewhat” or “Problematic” under
the Installation in the GS scenario and New construction
scenario, respectively. Less than half of respondents had a
negative image of H2 stations. Degree of inconsistency should
be small due to the higher (>r0.5r) Pearson's correlation coef-
ficient between the answer of these conditions (See Table S1,
27e30). Thus, we focused to analyze on the answer to the
question that “Do you agree with the installation of H2 sta-
tions?” under Installation in the GS scenario in detail. Instal-
lation in the GS scenario is becoming more realistic and
common due to the Japanese Government initiative.
10705
Previous research pointed out that people's social attitude
and personal attributes were affecting factors in attitudes
towards H2 stations or hydrogen technology. A study by Huijts
et al. [6] showed individual behavior norms were effective
explanation factors for supporters of H2 stations, but that
education level and income were not effective. As for personal
attributes, while several research groups have analyzed the
relationship between H2 station acceptance and distance
from home to the nearest existing GSs stations, the results
have been inconsistent. Work in the Netherlands showed that
more opponents lived near GS [17], while research in the U.K.
showed a weaker tendency of opposition in the group living
less than 200 m from a GS than in those living at a distance of
200e500 m [11]. In Norway, where H2 stations have already
been installed, people with more knowledge of FCV and H2
stations were less supportive of them than respondents who
lived 1 km further from the H2 station [14]. Similarly, we had
anticipated the participants who lived farther than 1 km from
a GS would tend to be less accepting of H2 stations and to have
a stronger intuitive dread. However, the results showed there
was no significant difference for distance to GS. Other socio-
demographic factors could not explain well the difference
because the individual attributes had no apparent classifica-
tion, and living conditions are generally common and ho-
mogenized in Japan. Japanese people do not have separate
residential areas by income, nor do they have access to
different news sources.
It is curious that the ratio of acceptance seemed inverse to
the higher “H2-promising technology” and vice versa (Fig. 3).
This might be because the point was a summation of three
question items, and most respondents chose “3” (the middle
alternative), which essentially said nothing, and so did not
reflect their opinions well.
The logit regression model constructed here is a prototype
to estimate supporter's ratio status quo, and we successfully
selected important factors as dependent variables (Table 7).
The results can aid in the identification of factors that will be
important during explanation opportunities and exchanges of
opinions, as well as the methods for such communications,
when new infrastructures are installed. In the model,
“Gender” was deleted among effective independent variables
due to its weak explanation power caused by binominal al-
ternatives of gender. “Catastrophic” was deleted among
effective independent variables, as well. This might be
because the correlation between factors 1 and 2, i.e., “Dread”
and “Catastrophic” was 0.55 (Table 4), and showing a strong
multicollinearity between these factors. A similar model for
explaining hydrogen acceptance was provided in a previous
study [11]. The model obtained in this study contains psy-
chological risk perception factors, and these explained
perception characteristics on H2 stations and hydrogen more
directly.
As for future research, first, we will repeat this survey to
analyze the change of acceptance of H2 stations in relation to
widespread diffusion of H2 station over time. Secondly, we
plan to compare the case in which risk information and ben-
efits around H2 stations are provided because the answers in
this survey were based on respondents' existing images or
self-reported knowledge about hydrogen after being provided
with an explanation.
10706 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7
Conclusions
We conducted a nationwide survey in which we asked about
the acceptability of construction of a hydrogen station. A total
of 66% of respondents reported that the installation of an H2
refueling facility in the GS nearest to their home would be
acceptable. There were no significant differences in terms of
age, although a significant difference was observed between
men and women. The acceptance of former group was 82%
while that of latter was 48% as for Dread factor, and their
difference was significant. Risk perception factors were better
explanation factors of acceptance than attributes and
demographical characteristics. We constructed an accep-
tance model for H2 station including these risk perception
factors. This study will facilitate risk communication on H2
station construction and identify effective information for
reducing public fear of H2 stations. As for future research, we
will repeat this survey to analyze the change of acceptance of
H2 stations in relation to widespread diffusion of H2 station
over time.
Acknowledgments
We thank Mr. Yasuyuki Imamura and Ms. Etsuko Katoh for
their assistance in the data organization. This work was
supported by National Institute of Advanced Industrial Sci-
ence and Technology (AIST) Grant for facilitating collabora-
tions between Research Divisions in AIST.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.021.
references
[1] European Commission. Introducing Hydrogen as an energy
carrier. Safety, regulatory and public acceptance issues. 2006.
[2] AcceptH2 Project. AcceptH2 Project n.d. http://www.
accepth2.com/index.html. [Accessed 17 February 2014].
[3] Schmoyer R, Truett T, Cooper C, Chew A. Results of the 2008/
2009 knowledge and opinions surveys conducted for the U.S.
Department of Energy hydrogen program. 2010.
[4] Ricci M, Bellaby P, Flynn R. What do we know about public
perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review
and new case study evidence. Int J Hydrog Energy
2008;33:5868e80.
[5] Heinz B, Erdmann G. Dynamic effects on the acceptance of
hydrogen technologies-an international comparison. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2008;33:3004e8.
[6] Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, van Wee B. Hydrogen fuel station
acceptance: a structural equation model based on the
technology acceptance framework. J Environ Psychol
2014;38:153e66.
[7] Itaoka K, Saito A, Sasaki K. Public perception on hydrogen
infrastructure in Japan. 2015. p. 1e9. Proc. ICHS2015.
[8] Iribarren D, Martı́n-Gamboa M, Manzano J, Dufour J.
Assessing the social acceptance of hydrogen for
transportation in Spain: an unintentional focus on target
population for a potential hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2016;41:5203e8.
[9] Martin E, Shaheen SA, Lipman TE, Lidicker JR. Behavioral
response to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and refueling: results
of California drive clinics. Int J Hydrog Energy
2009;34:8670e80.
[10] O'Garra T, Mourato S, Pearson P. Analysing awareness and
acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: a London case study. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2005;30:649e59.
[11] O'Garra T, Mourato S, Pearson P. Investigating attitudes to
hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local
residents. Energy Policy 2008;36:2074e85.
[12] Roche MY, Mourato S, Fischedick M, Pietzner K, Viebahn P.
Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel
cell vehicles: a review of the evidence and methodological
implications. Energy Policy 2010;38:5301e10.
[13] Tarigan AKM, Bayer SB. Temporal change analysis of public
attitude, knowledge and acceptance of hydrogen vehicles in
Greater Stavanger, 2006e2009. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:5535e44.
[14] Tarigan AKM, Bayer SB, Langhelle O, Thesen G. Estimating
determinants of public acceptance of hydrogen vehicles and
refuelling stations in greater Stavanger. Int J Hydrog Energy
2012;37:6063e73.
[15] Sherry-Brennan F, Devine-Wright H, Devine-Wright P. Public
understanding of hydrogen energy: a theoretical approach.
Energy Policy 2010;38:5311e9.
[16] Zimmer R, Welke J. Let's go green with hydrogen! the general
public's perspective. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:17502e8.
[17] Huijts NMA, van Wee B. The evaluation of hydrogen fuel
stations by citizens: the interrelated effects of socio-
demographic, spatial and psychological variables. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2015;40:10367e81.
[18] Huijts NMA, De Groot JIM, Molin EJE, van Wee B. Intention to
act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility: moral
considerations versus self-interest. Transp Res Part A Policy
Pract 2013;48:63e74.
[19] Thesen G, Langhelle O. Awareness, acceptability and
attitudes towards hydrogen vehicles and filling stations: a
Greater Stavanger case study and comparisons with London.
Int J Hydrog Energy 2008;33:5859e67.
[20] Schmidt A, Donsbach W. Acceptance factors of hydrogen
and their use by relevant stakeholders and the media. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2016;41:4509e20.
[21] Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L. Psychological factors
influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a
review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16:525e31.
[22] Mizuho Information & Research Institute Inc. Investigation
on public acceptance of hydrogen. FY2007 Rep NEDO’s
Strateg Dev Polym Electrolyte Fuel Cell Technol Pract Appl.
2008 [In Japanese].
[23] Mizuho Information & Research Institute Inc. Investigation
on public acceptance of fuel cells and hydrogen. FY2009 Rep
NEDO’s Strateg Dev Polym Electrolyte Fuel Cell Technol Pract
Appl. 2009 [In Japanese].
[24] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280e5.
[25] Kleinhesselink R, Rosa E. Nuclear trees in a forest of hazards:
a comparison of risk perceptions between American and
Japanese university students. Nucl Power Crossroads Comp
Risk Percept 1994:101e19.
[26] Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Characterizing
perceived risk. Perilous Prog Manag Hazards Technol
1985:91e125.
[27] Kleinhesselink RR, Rosa EA. Cognitive representation of risk
perceptions: a comparison of Japan and the United States.
J Cross Cult Psychol 1991;22:11e28.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 6 9 7 e1 0 7 0 7
[28] Amano I, Kurisu K, Nakatani J, Hanaki K. Effect of provided
information and Recipient's personality on risk perception of
drinking water. J Jpn Soc Water Environ 2013;36:11e22
[Abstract in English].
[29] Kinoshita T, Yoshino K. Change of scale of risk acceptance
(SRA) within 10 years (1). In: Proc. 48th Jpn. Soc. Soc. Psych;
2007 [In Japanese].
[30] Kusumi T. Individual differences in risk perception and
decision making under uncertainty. Jpn Psych Rev
1994;37:337e56 [In Japanese].
[31] Murakami M, Ono K, Nakatani J. Perception of radiation risk
and willingness to return home following decontamination.
Environ Sci 2015;28:193e210.
10707
[32] R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment
for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing; 2011. n.d, https://www.r-project.org.
[33] Rosa E, Matsuda N. Risk perceptions in the risk society: the
cognitive architecture of risk of Japanese and Americans. In:
Murakami Y, Kawamura N, Chiba S, editors. Towar. A
peaceable futur. redefining peace secur. Kyosei from a
Multidiscip. Perspect., Pullman, Wash. Thomas S. Foley
Institute for Public Policy and Public Service; 2005. p. 113e30.
[34] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. APA
Award Addresses 1984;39:341e50.