Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents

Vehicles fuelled by hydrogen (H2) have attracted increasing attention because of their potentially enhanced environmental profiles. Their penetration into the vehicle stock will be influenced by the spread of refuelling facilities. This study investigates local attitudes towards the proposed installation of H2 storage facilities at existing refuelling stations throughout London. Using multinomial logit analysis, we identify the determinants of attitudes. Results suggest that residents living very close to a proposed H2 facility are less likely to be opposed than residents living 200–500 m away. Opposition appears to be determined by a lack of trust in safety regulations, non-environmental attitudes, and concerns about the existing local refuelling station. The social cost to local residents of a local H2 storage facility was estimated using a method developed by Atkinson et al. [2004. ‘Amenity’ or ‘eyesore’? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers. Applied Economics Letters 11(4), 203–208], which elicits the amount of time respondents are willing to commit to oppose a new facility development. Using the leisure rate of time, the social cost is estimated at just under £14 per local opposed resident. Add to this the WTP to support opposition efforts by a local group, and the value comes to just under £25 per opposed resident.

[1]  Lawrence C. Hamilton,et al.  Concern about Toxic Wastes , 1985 .

[2]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities , 1996 .

[3]  S. Mourato,et al.  Analysing awareness and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: A London case study , 2005 .

[4]  P. Mackie,et al.  THE VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS IN EVALUATION , 2001 .

[5]  I. Bateman Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[6]  A. Armour,et al.  Post-landfill siting perceptions of nearby residents: a case study of Halton landfill , 2000 .

[7]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain , 2002 .

[8]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Calculating the Value of Time Spent Collecting Water: Some Estimates for Ukunda, Kenya , 1990 .

[9]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour , 2003 .

[10]  V. Smith,et al.  The value of avoiding a LULU: hazardous waste disposal sites. , 1986 .

[11]  Kenneth G. Willis,et al.  Estimating lost amenity due to landfill waste disposal , 1998 .

[12]  Dale Whittington,et al.  The Economic Benefits of Potable Water Supply Projects to Households in Developing Countries , 1994 .

[13]  J. Hamilton Politics and Social Costs: Estimating the Impact of Collective Action on Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1993 .

[14]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support , 2000 .

[15]  Susan Hunter,et al.  Beyond NIMBY. Explaining Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1995 .

[16]  M. Wardman A REVIEW OF BRITISH EVIDENCE ON TIME AND SERVICE QUALITY VALUATIONS , 2001 .

[17]  Yasemin E. K. Biro Valuation of the environmental impacts of the Kayraktepe Dam/Hydroelectric Project, Turkey: An exercise in contingent valuation , 1998 .

[18]  Ivar E. Strand,et al.  Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: An Application to Sportfishing , 1981 .

[19]  B. Frey,et al.  Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics , 1996 .

[20]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The Value of Leisure Time: A Contingent Rating Approach , 2001 .

[21]  Tanya O’Garra,et al.  Is the public willing to pay for hydrogen buses? A comparative study of preferences in four cities , 2007 .

[22]  H. Theil Introduction to econometrics , 1978 .

[23]  Kent E. Portney Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome, Kent E. Portney. 1991. Auburn House, Westport, CT. 200 pages. ISBN: 0-86569-016-2. $37.95 , 1991 .

[24]  J. Ogden Developing an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles: a Southern California case study , 1999 .

[25]  S. Wakefield,et al.  Environmental risk perception and well-being: effects of the landfill siting process in two southern Ontario communities. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[26]  L. Danielson,et al.  The Economic Value of Hiking: Further Considerations of Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreational Demand Models , 1995, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[27]  Michael Dear,et al.  Not on our street : community attitudes to mental health care , 1982 .

[28]  Owen J. Furuseth,et al.  Community response to a municipal waste incinerator: NIMBY or neighbor? , 1991 .

[29]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities , 1983 .

[30]  S. Farber Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies , 1998 .

[31]  "Social" And "Private" Determinants Of Opposition To Landfill Siting In Italy , 2003 .

[32]  S. Shayegan,et al.  Analysis of the cost of hydrogen infrastructure for buses in London , 2006 .

[33]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[34]  Frank J. Cesario,et al.  Value of time in recreation benefit studies. , 1976 .

[35]  Douglas M. Larson,et al.  Joint Recreation Choices and Implied Values of Time , 1993 .

[36]  R. Berrens,et al.  Testing the Validity of Contingent Behavior Trip Responses , 2002 .

[37]  S. Rosen Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition , 1974, Journal of Political Economy.

[38]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation , 1993 .

[39]  Brett Day,et al.  ‘Amenity’ or ‘eyesore’? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers , 2004 .

[40]  J. Mumford Improving Risk Communication: Strategies For Public Acceptance of New Technology Involving High Impact Low Frequency Risk. , 2006 .

[41]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data , 1996 .

[42]  D. Green,et al.  NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting , 1994 .

[43]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .

[44]  Stuart A. Wright,et al.  Citizen information levels and grassroots opposition to new hazardous waste sites: are nimbyists informed? , 1993 .

[45]  W. Douglass Shaw,et al.  Searching for the Opportunity Cost of an Individual's Time , 1992 .

[46]  G. Becker,et al.  A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence , 1983 .