A positive Shift in the Public Acceptability of a Low-Carbon Energy Project After Implementation: The Case of a Hydrogen Fuel Station

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript authors analyze an interesting and at the same time challenging topic – shift in the public acceptability of a low carbon energy project. Research is original as public acceptability of the projects is often investigated; however, acceptability after implementation is rarely concerned.  

Manuscript is accurately written. Abstract provides sufficient information and explains main results. Aim of the research is clear. Chosen methods are adequate to reach the aim. State-of-the-art review reveals that authors of this manuscript are familiar with the existing state of research, references are adequate. Results of research are explained in detail. Implications are proved by research results. I suggest accepting this article as it is.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for accepting the paper as it is. In response to comments of reviewer 2 we have still made some changes, most notably at the end of section 5 and beginning of section 6.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering me as a reviewer. 

I would suggest some changes that can improve the manuscript.

I think that the paper has very long Introduction and perhaps it could be shortened. On the other hand, if you are sending this paper to the Special Issue on Psychology of sustainability, perhaps you can try to better adjust your literature review to the Psychology of sustainable development as a "theoretical umbrella"

Instead of putting all the references at the end of the sentences, I would suggest you disperse them along the text. 

Related to your questionnaires, did you translate the scales into Dutch or did you use Dutch-versions? If it, can you provide information about the reliability and validity of the Dutch-versions? 

I think that you can better explain the procedure and Ethical information for readers. did you implement any debriefing procedure? 

Further research not only based on limitations should be suggested. 

Finally, your work has a lot of implications for environmental education and Policy-makers. Please, can you elaborate more on this point?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review. We will present your comments and our responses below.

I think that the paper has very long Introduction and perhaps it could be shortened. On the other hand, if you are sending this paper to the Special Issue on Psychology of sustainability, perhaps you can try to better adjust your literature review to the Psychology of sustainable development as a "theoretical umbrella"

Ø  Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, we were not aware of the fact that we submitted our manuscript to a special issue. Although our paper refers to literature on psychology, it does not seem to fit the focus of the Special Issue very well in our view. We suggest, therefore, to not include the paper in the Special Issue.

Ø  We hesitate to delete text from the introduction out of fear to lose necessary background information. To reduce the feeling of lengthiness, we changed paragraph 1.2. on theory and hypotheses into a chapter.

Instead of putting all the references at the end of the sentences, I would suggest you disperse them along the text. 

Ø  Where suitable, we have put the references just after mentioning of the study.

Related to your questionnaires, did you translate the scales into Dutch or did you use Dutch-versions? If it, can you provide information about the reliability and validity of the Dutch-versions? 

Ø  We used a Dutch questionnaire, and the measurements are thus translated by the first author into English for the paper. Readers may ask for the original questionnaire from the first author. We have reported Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of reliability. The items were developed for this particular questionnaire, so we cannot refer to other studies that have proven its validity. In footnote 4 (that was earlier footnote 3), we did mention that we developed the questionnaire alongside another questionnaire and has overlapping items. We referred therefore to another study that includes the same items.

I think that you can better explain the procedure and Ethical information for readers. did you implement any debriefing procedure? 

Ø  The readers have been asked to provide their opinion on a matter at hand in their community. As we did not manipulate the participants, we did not need to debrief them of such matter.

Ø  Prior to participation, we asked the participants to take part in a study of the TU Delft. At the end of the questionnaire, we thanked them for their participation. This information is not very useful to mention, we think.

Ø  This study was performed in 2010, prior to all Dutch universities having procedures in place for ethics. After the data collection, we asked approval from the ethical committee in hindsight. We got the approval. We added information about this in footnote 3: “[1] At the moment of the development of the study, there were no ethics’ procedures in place yet. Therefore, we asked and received ethical approval for the study in hindsight from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the TU Delft.”

Further research not only based on limitations should be suggested. 

Ø  Thank you for pointing this out. In the Discussion section, we moved the following towards the end to let is stand out more: “Finally, further research could show whether individual differences, differences between technologies, and differences between circumstances, affect the extent to which loss aversion and cognitive dissonance reduction alter people’s evaluation of a technology after its implementation.” We then edited and extended it into “The current study also provides a good starting point for further research on the influence of loss aversion and cognitive dissonance on technology acceptability. For example, it would be interesting to assess the moderating effects of individual characteristics, type of technology, and situational and contextual factors (such as the possibility to move house or the level of control over the technology), on the extent to which loss aversion and cognitive dissonance reduction affect people’s evaluation of a technology. Research could also be aimed at investigating how people can be inoculated [36] for the impact of cognitive biases on decision-making. This knowledge can be used for the design of ‘debiasing’ tools that empower the public to make well-informed and well-aware decisions.”

Finally, your work has a lot of implications for environmental education and Policy-makers. Please, can you elaborate more on this point?

Ø  We elaborated the last chapter, first paragraph: “It is important for society to have a better understanding of fluctuations in local public acceptability of new low-carbon technologies and underlying mechanisms, as it can contribute to more successful combating of climate change.
For decision makers in government and industry it is important to know that peoples’ opinion about a technological project such as a HFS depends on when they are asked for their opinion (i.e. before or after implementation) and where they live (near of far). They should take such fluctuations into account in their policies. For example, when public acceptability would be important for permits it is good to realize that acceptability can increase after implementation among citizens living nearby.
Awareness of cognitive biases may also help citizens to make better decisions on whether to support or oppose low-carbon technologies such as hydrogen technology. In addition, the public debate might become fairer when opposition is fueled by conscious instead of unconscious cognitive processes [see also 37]. Educational efforts can be targeted towards creating awareness of cognitive biases.”