Cited by 10Risk Perception and ManagementSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyRisk and Safety Analysis

Risk perception of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure among local residents and the general public

Open access
Huan, Ning, Yamamoto, Toshiyuki, Sato, Hitomi, Tzioutzios, Dimitrios, Sala, Roser, Goncalves, Lila, Paltrinieri, Nicola, Liu, Yiliu·2025·Sustainable Cities and Society

Abstract

This study evaluates risk perceptions of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure among local residents and the general public in Japan and examines the psychological factors underlying these perceptions. The results show that individuals’ awareness of hydrogen-related accidents moderates the influence of emotions on perceived risks. Compared to the general public, local residents perceive a higher likelihood of accidents related to hydrogen transportation and more severe consequences associated with hydrogen production. The standardised effects indicate that positive emotions among local residents more strongly reduce perceived accident consequences compared to the general public (–0.229 vs. –0.097). Housing safety concerns also serve as a stronger driver of perceived risk likelihood for local residents (0.250 vs. 0.131). The study further assesses the effectiveness of safety communications targeted at local residents. Informed individuals (17.4%) report less interest in seeking risk-preparedness information, with a standardised weighted factor score of 3.38 compared to 3.04 for the uninformed group. Additionally, individuals who received safety precaution information (46.7%) tend to perceive the risk associated with nearby hydrogen refuelling stations as less likely but potentially more severe.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scs.2025.106482

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Risk perception is influenced by accident experience, geographic location, and trust in infrastructure.

    “Risk perception is shaped by a combination of cognitive (environmental values) and affective (negative emotions) factors, as well as social interactions (Fian et al., 2025) and is influenced by accident experience, geographic location, and trust in infrastructure (Huan et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huan, N., Yamamoto, T., Sato, H., Tzioutzios, D., Sala, R., Goncalves, L., Paltrinieri, N., & Liu, Y.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Materials and Systems for Sustainability, Nagoya University (JP)
  • Institutes of Innovation for Future Society, Nagoya University (JP)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Corresponding author
Huan, Ning
Venue
Sustainable Cities and Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-06
Volume
128
Pages
106482
ISSN
2210-6707 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410640617
Cited by
10
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Sustainable Cities and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (P25046, 25KF0041)
  • Research Council of Norway (334340)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JPMJSC21C5)
  • State Agency of Research (PCI2022-132997)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
hydrogen refueling infrastructure, risk perception, local residents, general public, emotions, safety communication, hydrogen transport, hydrogen production

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review