Risk perception of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure among local residents and the general public
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Huan et al., 2025
Cites
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andini, N. F., Putra, R. W., & Aldebaran, M. F. (2026) · JURNAL GEOGRAFI · doi:10.24114/jg.v18i1.72188
- 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
- ORCID
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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